Daily Rules, Proposed Rules, and Notices of the Federal Government
Regional haze is visibility impairment that is produced by a multitude of sources and activities which are located across a broad geographic area and emit fine particles (e.g., sulfates, nitrates, organic carbon, elemental carbon, and soil dust), and their precursors (e.g., sulfur dioxide (SO
In section 169A of the 1977 Amendments to the CAA, Congress created a program for protecting visibility in the nation's national parks and wilderness areas. This section of the CAA establishes as a national goal the “prevention of any future, and the remedying of any existing, impairment of visibility in mandatory Class I areas which impairment results from manmade air pollution.” On December 2, 1980, EPA promulgated regulations to address visibility impairment in Class I areas that is “reasonably attributable” to a single source or small group of sources, i.e., “reasonably attributable visibility impairment.”
Congress added section 169B to the CAA in 1990 to address regional haze issues. EPA promulgated a rule to address regional haze on July 1, 1999 (64 FR 35713), the Regional Haze Rule (RHR). The RHR revised the existing visibility regulations to integrate into the regulation provisions addressing regional haze impairment and established a comprehensive visibility protection program for Class I areas. The requirements for regional haze, found at 40 CFR 51.308 and 51.309, are included in EPA's visibility protection regulations at 40 CFR 51.300-309. The requirement to submit a regional haze SIP applies to all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and the Virgin Islands. 40 CFR 51.308(b) requires states to submit the first implementation plan addressing regional haze visibility impairment no later than December 17, 2007.
On April 4, 2008, TDEC submitted a revision to Tennessee's SIP to address regional haze in the State's and other states' Class I areas. On June 9, 2011, EPA published an action proposing a limited approval and a limited disapproval of Tennessee's April 4, 2008, SIP revision (including the BART determination for Eastman—hereafter referred to as the “original Eastman BART determination”) to address the first implementation period for regional haze.
On April 24, 2012, EPA took final action on Tennessee's April 4, 2008, regional haze SIP revision, with the exception of the original Eastman BART determination.
In summary, Tennessee's May 14, 2012, SIP revision: (1) Modifies the final compliance date to April 30, 2017, for the original Eastman BART determination; and (2) establishes a BART alternative determination option for Eastman to convert its B-253 Powerhouse (Boilers 25-29) to burn natural gas. The May 14, 2012, SIP revision and Eastman's CAA title V operating permit stipulate that if Eastman elects to implement the Eastman BART alternative determination instead of the original Eastman BART determination, Eastman must begin construction on the Eastman BART alternative prior to April 30, 2017, and complete construction no later than the earlier of: December 31, 2018; the end of the period of the first long-term strategy for regional haze as determined by EPA; or the compliance deadline for the one-hour SO
The Tennessee Air Pollution Control Board approved this SIP revision and associated operating permit as Board Order 12-008 on May 9, 2012. TDEC submitted the modifications to the compliance date for the original Eastman BART determination; the additional Eastman BART alternative determination; and the Board Order as a SIP revision on May 14, 2012, and submitted a clarifying SIP revision on May 25, 2012.
On August 27, 2012 (77 FR 51739), EPA proposed to approve the modifications to the compliance date for the original Eastman BART determination and the Eastman BART alternative determination option, as provided in Tennessee's May 14, 2012, SIP revision. In that action, EPA preliminarily determined that implementation of the BART alternative option would achieve greater reasonable progress than would be achieved through the installation and operation of BART at Eastman and that the BART alternative option met the requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2). As mentioned earlier, EPA previously proposed approval of Tennessee's original Eastman BART determination as provided in the State's April 4, 2008, SIP revision. EPA proposed approval of Tennessee's SIP revision implementing BART requirements for Eastman (as submitted by the State in an April 4, 2008, SIP revision, and later modified and supplemented in a May 14, 2012, SIP revision) because EPA preliminarily determined that these requirements are consistent with the CAA and EPA's regulations on regional haze BART determinations and BART alternative determinations. The May 25, 2012, SIP revision simply clarified an established requirement and does not substantively modify the proposed action.
EPA received six sets of comments on the June 9, 2011, rulemaking proposing a limited approval and limited disapproval of Tennessee's April 4, 2008, regional haze SIP revision. Specifically, the comments were received from the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity, Eastman, TDEC, the National Park Service, the Tennessee Valley Authority, and the Utility Air Regulatory Group (UARG).
EPA addressed these comments in the April 24, 2012, final rulemaking, and is only providing an update to the comments related to the original Eastman BART determination since EPA is now taking final action on this component of Tennessee's April 4, 2008, regional haze SIP revision. Please refer to EPA's April 24, 2012, final rulemaking on Tennessee's regional haze SIP revision for EPA's further response to comments on Tennessee's regional haze SIP.
In comparison, the Utility Boiler MACT and the Industrial Boiler MACT require compliance with their respective standards by 2015 as does the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR),
EPA received one set of comments on the August 27, 2012, proposed rulemaking to approve Tennessee's May 14, 2012, SIP revision to: (1) Modify the compliance date for the original Eastman BART determination; and (2) establish a BART alternative determination option for Eastman to convert its B-253 Powerhouse (Boilers 25-29) to burn natural gas. Specifically, the comments were received from Eastman (hereinafter referred to as “the Commenter”) and are provided in the docket for today's final action.
In section II of this action, EPA updated its response to comments from the April 24, 2012, final rulemaking as it relates to the original Eastman BART determination. In addition, EPA is addressing comments received in response to the Agency's August 27, 2012, proposed rulemaking to approve Tennessee's May 14, 2012, SIP revision to: (1) Modify the compliance date for the original Eastman BART determination; and (2) provide the option for an Eastman BART alternative determination. Additional detail for EPA's rationale for the proposed approval of Tennessee's May 14, 2012, SIP revision can be found in EPA's August 27, 2012, proposed rulemaking.
EPA is finalizing approval of the BART requirements for Eastman that were submitted by the State of Tennessee as a part of a revision to the Tennessee SIP on April 4, 2008, and as later modified and supplemented in a SIP revision provided on May 14, 2012, and May 25, 2012. Specifically, EPA is finalizing approval of the original Eastman BART determination as provided in Tennessee's April 4, 2008, SIP revision, with the modified compliance date provided in Tennessee's May 14, 2012, SIP revision, and as clarified in a May 25, 2012, SIP revision. EPA is also finalizing approval of Tennessee's May 14, 2012, and May 25, 2012, SIP revisions to provide an option for Tennessee to implement a BART alternative determination for Eastman in lieu of the original Eastman BART determination that was provided in Tennessee's April 4, 2008, SIP revision (with the modified compliance date provided in Tennessee's May 14, 2012, SIP revision). EPA has concluded that implementation of the BART alternative option would achieve greater reasonable progress than would be achieved through the installation and operation of BART at Eastman and that the BART alternative option meets the requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2). These actions are consistent with the CAA and EPA's regulations on regional haze, BART determinations, and BART alternative determinations.
Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by State law. For that reason, this action:
• Is not a “significant regulatory action” subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
• Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
• Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
• Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
• Does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
• Is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
• Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the CAA; and
• Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801
Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by January 28, 2013. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements.
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows:
42 U.S.C. 7401
The added text reads as follows.
(d) * * *
(e) * * *