Daily Rules, Proposed Rules, and Notices of the Federal Government
Throughout this document whenever “we,” “us,” or “our” is used, we mean the EPA. Information is organized as follows:
Ecology submitted its Regional Haze SIP on December 22, 2010 to meet the requirements of 40 CFR 50.308. On December 29, 2011 Ecology submitted an update to the SIP submittal containing a revised and updated BART determination for TransAlta. On May 23, 2012, EPA proposed to approve the portion of the SIP submission containing the BART determination for NO
The TransAlta power plant, located in Centralia, Washington, is a two unit coal-fired power plant rated at 702.5 MW each, when burning coal from the Centralia coalfield as originally designed. The units now burn coal from the Wyoming Powder River Basin and are rated at 670 MW each. As explained in the proposal, these Units are subject to BART. The Regional Haze SIP revision imposes as BART a NO
A detailed explanation of the Regional Haze Rule, the BART requirements, Ecology's BART determination for TransAlta and EPA's reasons for approving this SIP revision were provided in the notice of proposed rulemaking on May 23, 2012 and will not be restated here.
The public comment period for EPA's proposal to approve the TransAlta BART determination closed on June 22, 2012. EPA received only one comment on its proposal. The comment, from TransAlta, encouraged EPA to approve the BART determination for NO
EPA is approving the NO
Under the Clean Air Act, 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 Clean Air Act. 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 Clean Air Act; 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 located in the state, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law. Consistent with EPA policy, EPA nonetheless provided a consultation opportunity to Tribes in Idaho, Oregon and Washington in letters dated January 14, 2011. EPA received one request for consultation, and we have followed-up with that Tribe.
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801
Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by February 4, 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
Air pollution control, Environmental protection,, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen Oxides, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Visibility. Volatile organic compounds.
40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:
42 U.S.C. 7401
(c) * * *
(89) On December 29, 2011, the Washington State Department of Ecology submitted a Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) determination and revised BART Order 6426 for the TransAlta Centralia Generating LLC facility in Centralia, Washington.
(i) Incorporation by reference.
(A) State of Washington, Department of Ecology, Order 6426, first revision, “BART Emission Limitations,” issued to TransAlta Centralia Generation, LLC, dated December 13, 2011, except the undesignated introductory text, the section titled “Findings,” and the undesignated text following condition 13.
(g) * * *
(2) EPA approves the Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) determination for the TransAlta Centralia Generating LLC facility in Centralia Washington submitted by the Washington State Department of Ecology on December 29, 2011.