Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 166 / Monday, August 27, 2012 / Proposed Rules 51739 

1On July 26, 2011, EPA reopened the comment 

period for EPA’s proposed action related to 

Tennessee’s April 4, 2008, SIP revision. See 76 FR 

44534. 

one or more of the methods listed in 

§ 1.7 of this chapter. 

(ii) Violating a closure, condition, or 

restriction is prohibited. 

Dated: August 17, 2012. 

Rachel Jacobson, 

Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Fish 

and Wildlife and Parks. 

[FR Doc. 2012–20898 Filed 8–24–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–YP–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R04–OAR–2009–0786; FRL–9719–6] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans; Tennessee; 

Regional Haze State Implementation 

Plan; Best Available Retrofit 

Technology for Eastman Chemical 

Company 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve 

a revision to the State Implementation 

Plan (SIP) submitted by the State of 

Tennessee, through the Tennessee 

Department Environment and 

Conservation (TDEC), on May 14, 2012, 

related to the Best Available Retrofit 

Technology (BART) requirements for 

the Eastman Chemical Company 

(Eastman). Specifically, the May 14, 

2012, SIP revision modifies the 

compliance date for the Eastman BART 

determination included in Tennessee’s 

April 4, 2008, SIP revision and provides 

a BART alternative determination 

option for Eastman. Together, 

Tennessee’s April 4, 2008, and May 14, 

2012, SIP revisions address the 

requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA 

or Act) and EPA’s rules that require 

states to prevent any future and remedy 

any existing anthropogenic impairment 

of visibility in mandatory Class I areas 

(national parks and wilderness areas) 

caused by emissions of air pollutants 

from numerous sources located over a 

wide geographic area (also referred to as 

the ‘‘regional haze program’’). EPA is 

proposing to approve Tennessee’s May 

14, 2012, SIP revision because it is 

consistent with the CAA and EPA’s 

regulations on regional haze BART 

determinations and BART alternative 

determinations. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before September 26, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R04– 

OAR–2009–0786, by one of the 

following methods: 

1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the 

on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

2. Email: R4-RDS@epa.gov. 

3. Fax: 404–562–9019. 

4. Mail: EPA–R04–OAR–2009–0786, 

Regulatory Development Section, Air 

Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and 

Toxics Management Division, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., 

Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. 

5. Hand Delivery or Courier: Lynorae 

Benjamin, Chief, Regulatory 

Development Section, Air Planning 

Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics 

Management Division, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., 

Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. Such 

deliveries are only accepted during the 

Regional Office’s normal hours of 

operation. The Regional Office’s official 

hours of business are Monday through 

Friday, 8:30 to 4:30, excluding federal 

holidays. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. ‘‘EPA–R04–OAR–2009– 

0786.’’ EPA’s policy is that all 

comments received will be included in 

the public docket without change and 

may be made available online at 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided, unless 

the comment includes information 

claimed to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Do not submit through www.regulations.

gov or email, information that you 

consider to be CBI or otherwise 

protected. The www.regulations.gov 

Web site is an ‘‘anonymous access’’ 

system, which means EPA will not 

know your identity or contact 

information unless you provide it in the 

body of your comment. If you send an 

email comment directly to EPA without 

going through www.regulations.gov, 

your email address will be 

automatically captured and included as 

part of the comment that is placed in the 

public docket and made available on the 

Internet. If you submit an electronic 

comment, EPA recommends that you 

include your name and other contact 

information in the body of your 

comment and with any disk or CD–ROM 

you submit. If EPA cannot read your 

comment due to technical difficulties 

and cannot contact you for clarification, 

EPA may not be able to consider your 

comment. Electronic files should avoid 

the use of special characters, any form 

of encryption, and be free of any defects 

or viruses. For additional information 

about EPA’s public docket visit the EPA 

Docket Center homepage at http://www.

epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm. 

Docket: All documents in the 

electronic docket are listed in the www.

regulations.gov index. Although listed 

in the index, some information is not 

publicly available, i.e., CBI or other 

information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Certain other 

material, such as copyrighted material, 

is not placed on the Internet and will be 

publicly available only in hard copy 

form. Publicly available docket 

materials are available either 

electronically in www.regulations.gov or 

in hard copy at the Regulatory 

Development Section, Air Planning 

Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics 

Management Division, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., 

Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. EPA 

requests that if at all possible, you 

contact the person listed in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to 

schedule your inspection. The Regional 

Office’s official hours of business are 

Monday through Friday, 8:30 to 4:30, 

excluding federal holidays. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Michele Notarianni, Regulatory 

Development Section, Air Planning 

Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics 

Management Division, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., 

Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. Michele 

Notarianni can be reached at telephone 

number (404) 562–9031 and by 

electronic mail at notarianni.michele@

epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents 

I. What is the background for this proposed 

action? 

II. What are the requirements for a BART 

alternative determination? 

III. What is EPA’s analysis of Tennessee’s 

May 14, 2012, SIP revision? 

IV. Proposed Action 

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. What is the background for this 

proposed action? 

On April 4, 2008, TDEC submitted a 

revision to Tennessee’s SIP to address 

regional haze in mandatory federal Class 

I areas within the State and in 

mandatory federal Class I areas outside 

the State which may be affected by 

emissions from within the State. On 

June 9, 2011,1 EPA published an action 

proposing a limited approval and a 

limited disapproval of Tennessee’s 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
51740 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 166 / Monday, August 27, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

2EPA proposed a limited approval of Tennessee’s 

April 4, 2008, SIP revision to implement the 

regional haze requirements for Tennessee on the 

basis that the revision, as a whole, strengthens the 

Tennessee SIP. Further, EPA proposed a limited 

disapproval of the same SIP revision because of the 

deficiencies in the State’s regional haze SIP revision 

arising from the remand of the Clean Air Interstate 

Rule (CAIR) to EPA by the U.S. Court of Appeals 

for the District of Columbia Circuit (D.C. Circuit). 

Subsequently, in a June 7, 2012, action, EPA 

finalized a Federal Implementation Plan for 

Tennessee to address the deficiencies that resulted 

from the State’s reliance on CAIR for their regional 

haze SIP. 

3Board Order 12–008 approves the withdrawal of 

operating permit 061873H (BART permit for 

Eastman issued March 31, 2008). The Order also 

approves the submittal of the Alternative BART 

Determination for Eastman Chemical Company— 

Tennessee Operations and operating permit 

066116H (BART permit for Eastman issued May 9, 

2012) to EPA for adoption into Tennessee’s 

Regional Haze SIP. Tennessee provided this 

updated Board Order in a SIP revision on May 14, 

2012. While the May 14, 2012, SIP revision 

contained the updated Board Order, EPA notes that 

Tennessee did not withdraw the original BART 

determination and technical analysis related to the 

Eastman facility that was provided in Tennessee’s 

April 4, 2008, SIP revision. 

April 4, 2008, SIP revision (including 

the BART determination for Eastman) to 

address regional haze during the first 

implementation period.2 See 76 FR 

33662. Detailed background information 

and EPA’s rationale for the proposed 

action is provided in EPA’s June 9, 

2011, proposed rulemaking. See 76 FR 

33662. 

After publication of EPA’s June 2011 

proposed action on Tennessee’s regional 

haze SIP revision, the State and Eastman 

entered into discussions regarding a 

BART alternative determination that 

would give Eastman the option to 

comply with the regional haze BART 

requirements by converting its B–253 

Powerhouse to natural gas in lieu of 

continuing to use coal and retrofitting 

its facility pursuant to the BART 

determination for sulfur dioxide (SO2) 

emissions (hereafter referred to as the 

‘‘Eastman BART alternative 

determination’’). 

On April 24, 2012, EPA took final 

action on Tennessee’s April 4, 2008, 

regional haze SIP revision, with the 

exception of the BART determination 

for Eastman. See 77 FR 24392. As noted 

in that action, EPA took no action on the 

Eastman BART determination provided 

in the April 4, 2008, SIP revision 

(hereafter referred to as the ‘‘original 

Eastman BART determination’’) at that 

time since EPA expected Tennessee to 

submit a revised SIP addressing a BART 

alternative determination for Eastman. 

EPA’s proposed action for the original 

Eastman BART determination remains 

in place after EPA’s April 24, 2012, 

action on the remainder of Tennessee’s 

regional haze SIP revision. 

On May 14, 2012, TDEC submitted a 

supplement to its April 2008 Tennessee 

regional haze plan to EPA with a revised 

BART determination for Eastman. In 

summary, the May 14, 2012, SIP 

revision for Eastman: (1) Modifies the 

final compliance date to April 30, 2017, 

for the original Eastman BART 

determination; and (2) establishes a 

BART alternative option for Eastman to 

convert its B–253 Powerhouse (Boilers 

25–29) to burn natural gas. The SIP 

revision and Eastman’s CAA title V 

operating permit stipulate that if 

Eastman elects to implement the BART 

alternative instead of the original BART 

determination, Eastman must begin 

construction on the 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 

(LTS) for regional haze as determined by 

EPA; or the compliance deadline for the 

one-hour SO2 national ambient air 

quality standard (NAAQS). Tennessee’s 

May 14, 2012, SIP revision also 

stipulates that if Eastman elects to 

implement the original BART 

determination instead of the BART 

alternative, it must comply with the 

BART requirements by April 30, 2017. 

The Tennessee Air Pollution Control 

Board approved this SIP revision and 

associated operating permit as Board 

Order 12–008 on May 9, 2012.3

II. What are the requirements for a 

BART alternative determination? 

Under 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2), states may 

choose to meet the BART requirements 

with a BART alternative. Section 

51.308(e)(2) specifies the requirements 

that a state must meet to show that the 

alternative measure or alternative 

program achieves greater reasonable 

progress than would be achieved 

through the installation and operation of 

BART. For a BART alternative, the state 

must submit an implementation plan 

containing, among other things, the 

following plan elements and include 

documentation for all required analyses: 

(A) A list of all BART-eligible sources 

within the state. 

(B) A list of all BART-eligible sources 

and all BART source categories covered 

by the alternative program. The state is 

not required to include every BART 

source category or every BART-eligible 

source within a BART source category 

in an alternative program. 

(C) An analysis of the best system of 

continuous emissions control 

technology available and associated 

emissions reductions achievable for 

each source within the state subject to 

BART and covered by the alternative 

program. This analysis must be 

conducted by making a determination of 

BART for each source subject to BART 

and covered by the alternative program. 

(D) An analysis of the projected 

emissions reductions achievable 

through the alternative measure. 

(E) A determination that the 

alternative measure achieves greater 

reasonable progress than would be 

achieved through the installation and 

operation of BART at the covered 

sources. 

(F) A requirement that all necessary 

emissions reductions take place during 

the period of the first long-term strategy 

for regional haze. To meet this 

requirement, the State must provide a 

detailed description of the alternative 

measure, including schedules for 

implementation, the emission 

reductions required by the program, all 

necessary administrative and technical 

procedures for implementing the 

program, rules for accounting and 

monitoring emissions, and procedures 

for enforcement. 

(G) A demonstration that the 

emissions reductions resulting from the 

alternative measure will be surplus to 

those reductions resulting from 

measures adopted to meet requirements 

of the CAA as of the baseline date of the 

SIP. 

III. What is EPA’s analysis of 

Tennessee’s May 14, 2012, SIP revision? 

As previously mentioned, TDEC’s 

May 14, 2012, SIP revision: (1) Modifies 

the final compliance date for the 

original Eastman BART determination; 

and (2) establishes a BART alternative 

option for Eastman to convert its B–253 

Powerhouse (Boilers 25–29) to burn 

natural gas. Specifically, the SIP 

revision and the associated operating 

permit (No. 066116H) create two 

options for Eastman to reduce its 

visibility impairing pollutants from the 

B–253 Powerhouse and satisfy the 

BART requirements in 40 CFR 

51.308(e). Eastman may install, operate, 

and maintain BART no later than April 

30, 2017 (Option 1), or implement the 

BART alternative option to fuel switch 

its B–253 Powerhouse (Boilers 25–29) 

by the earlier of the following: 

December 31, 2018; the end of the 

period of the first LTS for regional haze 

as determined by EPA; or the 

compliance deadline for the one-hour 

SO2 NAAQS (Option 2). 

A. Modified Compliance Date for the 

Eastman BART Determination 

The May 14, 2012, SIP revision 

requires Eastman to install, operate, and 

maintain BART no later than April 30, 

2017, should Eastman decide not to 

pursue the BART alternative option 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 166 / Monday, August 27, 2012 / Proposed Rules 51741 

4 40 CFR 51.308(f). See also 64 FR 35713, 35732– 

33, 35746 (July 1, 1999) (providing examples that 

include uniform rate of progress projections for the 

entire year of 2018). 

(Option 1). This compliance date 

supplements the original Eastman BART 

determination and technical analysis 

provided in the State’s April 4, 2008, 

SIP revision. EPA previously proposed 

approval of the original Eastman BART 

determination in its June 9, 2011, 

proposal on Tennessee’s regional haze 

SIP. The comment period on that action 

closed August 10, 2011. As such, EPA 

is not reopening comment on the 

original Eastman BART determination. 

In today’s rulemaking, EPA is taking 

comment only on the proposed approval 

of the April 30, 2017, compliance date 

for the original Eastman BART 

determination. 

EPA proposes to find that the change 

in Tennessee’s May 14, 2012, SIP 

revision to set a compliance date of 

April 30, 2017, for the original BART 

determination (as included in condition 

1 of the May 9, 2012, permit for 

Eastman—number 066116H) is 

consistent with the CAA as well as 

EPA’s regulations and guidance for 

BART determinations. Had EPA 

finalized its proposed action regarding 

the original Eastman BART 

determination on April 24, 2012, when 

the Agency took final action on the 

remainder of Tennessee’s April 4, 2008, 

SIP revision, the compliance date for the 

original BART determination would 

have been May 24, 2017. Therefore, this 

proposed compliance date accelerates 

the implementation of BART at 

Eastman, should Eastman decide not to 

implement the BART alternative option 

evaluated below. 

B. BART Alternative Option 

The May 14, 2012, SIP revision also 

provides Eastman with the option to 

implement a BART alternative, in lieu 

of the original BART, that requires 

repowering the B–253 Powerhouse to 

natural gas by the earlier of the 

following: December 31, 2018; the end 

of the period of the first LTS for regional 

haze as determined by EPA; or the 

compliance deadline for the one-hour 

SO2 NAAQS (Option 2). A December 31, 

2018, date for the end of the period of 

the first LTS is consistent with the 

requirement to evaluate visibility over 

calendar year periods and the 

requirement for each state to submit an 

initial regional haze SIP that covers the 

period from submittal through 2018.4

The BART alternative option is 

subject to the provisions of 40 CFR 

51.308(e)(2), as discussed in Section II 

of this proposed rulemaking, and is 

evaluated under these provisions in the 

following subsections. 

1. A List of All BART-Eligible Sources 

Within the State 

Tennessee’s May 14, 2012, SIP 

revision identified the following BARTeligible sources within Tennessee: 

(1) Aluminum Company of America 

(Alcoa)—South Plant; 

(2) DuPont White Pigment and 

Mineral Products (Humphreys County); 

(3) Eastman Chemical Company— 

Tennessee Operations; 

(4) E. I. DuPont de Nemours and 

Company, Inc. (Old Hickory); 

(5) E. I. DuPont de Nemours and 

Company, Inc. (Shelby County); 

(6) Holston Army Ammunition Plant; 

(7) Inter-trade Holdings, Inc.; 

(8) Liberty Fibers Corporation; 

(9) Lucite International; 

(10) Owens Corning; 

(11) Packaging Corporation of 

America; 

(12) PCS Nitrogen; 

(13) Tennessee Valley Authority 

(WA)—Bull Run Fossil Plant; 

(14) Tennessee Valley Authority— 

Cumberland Fossil Plant; 

(15) Zinifex; and 

(16) Weyerhaeuser Corporation (now 

Domtar Paper Company)—Sullivan 

County. 

This list includes all BART-eligible 

sources in Tennessee, as determined by 

EPA in its April 24, 2012, final action 

on Tennessee’s April 4, 2008, regional 

haze SIP. 

2. A List of All BART-Eligible Sources 

and All BART Source Categories 

Covered by the Alternative Program 

The BART alternative option 

proposed in this action only pertains to 

the five boilers at Eastman’s B–253 

Powerhouse. It does not establish a 

trading program within the meaning of 

the federal BART regulations or include 

any other BART-eligible facilities. 

3. An Analysis of the Best System of 

Continuous Emissions Control 

Technology Available and Associated 

Emissions Reductions Achievable for 

Each Source Within the State Subject to 

BART and Covered by the Alternative 

Program. This Analysis Must Be 

Conducted by Making a Determination 

of BART for Each Source Subject to 

BART and Covered by the Alternative 

Program 

In its April 4, 2008, regional haze SIP 

revision, Tennessee completed an 

analysis of the best system of 

continuous emissions control 

technology available and associated 

emissions reductions achievable for 

Eastman and included a BART 

determination requiring the boilers in 

the B–253 Powerhouse to either reduce 

uncontrolled SO2 emissions by 92 

percent or meet an emissions limit of 

0.2 pounds per million British thermal 

units (lbs/MMBtu) heat input. EPA 

proposed approval of Tennessee’s BART 

determination for the B–253 

Powerhouse in its June 9, 2011, action 

on Tennessee’s April 4, 2008, regional 

haze SIP revision. On April 24, 2012, 

EPA took final action for Tennessee’s 

April 4, 2008, regional haze SIP 

revision, with the exception of the 

BART determination for Eastman. See 

77 FR 24392. EPA’s proposed action to 

approve the original Eastman BART 

remains in place after EPA’s April 24, 

2012, action on the remainder of 

Tennessee’s regional haze SIP revision. 

4. An Analysis of the Projected 

Emissions Reductions Achievable 

Through the Alternative Measure 

Under the proposed BART alternative 

option for Eastman to convert its B–253 

Powerhouse (Boilers 25–29) to burn 

natural gas (Option 2), the SO2

emissions rate would be 0.0006 lbs/ 

MMBtu heat input based on the 

allowable sulfur in pipeline natural gas. 

This limit is an additional 99.7 percent 

reduction from the compliance limit of 

0.2 lbs/MMBtu heat input for the BART 

determination (Option 1). In addition, 

nitrogen oxide emissions are expected 

to be reduced 50 percent from the 

existing baseline by the conversion to 

natural gas. No NOx reductions are 

expected from the original Eastman 

BART determination. 

5. A Determination That the Alternative 

Measure Achieves Greater Reasonable 

Progress Than Would Be Achieved 

Through the Installation and Operation 

of BART at the Covered Sources 

If there is no difference in the 

geographic distribution of BART-eligible 

source emissions between BART and 

the BART alternative, the BART 

alternative measure may be deemed to 

achieve greater reasonable progress if it 

results in greater emissions reductions 

than BART (i.e., dispersion modeling is 

not required to evaluate the differences 

in visibility between BART and the 

BART alternative). 40 CFR 51.308(e)(3). 

Since the BART alternative measure for 

the Eastman facility would result in a 

lower emission rate than BART and 

since there is no difference in the 

geographic distribution of emissions 

between BART and the BART 

alternative, EPA proposes to find that 

the BART alternative measure results in 

greater reasonable progress than BART. 

The compliance date for BART 

(Option 1) is April 30, 2017, and the 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
51742 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 166 / Monday, August 27, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

final compliance date for the BART 

alternative (Option 2) is the end of the 

first regional haze implementation 

period in accordance with EPA’s 

regulations. If Eastman chooses to adopt 

the BART alternative, phased 

implementation of the conversion of 

natural gas is expected throughout the 

first regional haze implementation 

period with lower emissions rates as 

each unit is converted. Furthermore, the 

lower emissions rates from repowering 

with natural gas will continue to extend 

into the future, providing substantially 

greater reasonable progress than BART. 

EPA therefore proposes to agree with 

Tennessee’s determination that the 

BART alternative for the Eastman B–253 

Powerhouse will result in ‘‘greater 

reasonable progress’’ than BART within 

the meaning of the federal regional haze 

rules. 

6. A Requirement That All Necessary 

Emissions Reductions Take Place 

During the Period of the First LTS for 

Regional Haze. To Meet This 

Requirement, the State Must Provide a 

Detailed Description of the Alternative 

Measure, Including Schedules for 

Implementation, the Emissions 

Reductions Required by the Program, 

All Necessary Administrative and 

Technical Procedures for Implementing 

the Program, Rules for Accounting and 

Monitoring Emissions, and Procedures 

for Enforcement 

Tennessee’s May 14, 2012, SIP 

revision and associated operating permit 

require that Eastman comply with the 

BART alternative (should Eastman 

chose Option 2) no later than December 

31, 2018, thereby satisfying the 

requirement that a source implement a 

BART alternative during the period of 

the first LTS. The operating permit also 

details the procedures for accounting 

and monitoring the emissions under the 

BART alternative. EPA previously 

approved Division Rule 1200–03–9– 

.02(6) into the Tennessee SIP which 

requires all permittees to comply with 

the conditions of their operating permit. 

Violation of the permit condition is, by 

definition, a violation of Division Rule 

1200–03–9–.02(6) and grounds for 

enforcement action. As previously 

discussed, Tennessee provided a 

detailed description of the BART 

alternative and the expected emissions 

reductions. 

7. A Demonstration That the Emissions 

Reductions Resulting From the 

Alternative Measure Will Be Surplus to 

Those Reductions Resulting From 

Measures Adopted To Meet 

Requirements of the CAA as of the 

Baseline Date of the SIP 

Implementation of the Eastman BART 

alternative would result in surplus 

emissions reductions since the 

additional emissions reductions beyond 

BART are not required to meet any other 

provision of the CAA or any other TDEC 

requirements as of the date that the 

Tennessee Air Pollution Control Board 

adopted Board Order 12–008. 

EPA proposes to find that the change 

in Tennessee’s May 14, 2012, SIP 

revision to establish a BART alternative 

option for Eastman to convert its B–253 

Powerhouse (Boilers 25–29) to burn 

natural gas is consistent with the CAA 

as well as EPA’s regulations and 

guidance for BART alternative 

determinations. 

IV. Proposed Action 

EPA is proposing to approve a 

revision to the Tennessee SIP submitted 

by the State of Tennessee on May 14, 

2012, related to the BART requirements 

for Eastman, which supplements the 

April 4, 2008, revision. Specifically, 

EPA is proposing to approve the BART 

alternative determination option for 

Eastman which would allow for the 

conversion of Eastman’s B–253 

Powerhouse (Boilers 25–29) to burn 

natural gas. As a supplement to EPA’s 

existing proposed action to approve the 

original Eastman BART determination, 

EPA is also now proposing to approve 

a compliance end date of April 17, 2018 

for the original BART determination, 

should Eastman elect not to implement 

the BART alternative determination. 

EPA has preliminarily concluded that 

the Eastman BART alternative 

determination and proposed change to 

the compliance date for the original 

Eastman BART determination meet the 

applicable regional haze requirements 

as set forth in sections 169A and 169B 

of the CAA and in 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2) 

as described previously in this action. 

V. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the CAA, the Administrator is 

required to approve a SIP submission 

that complies with the provisions of the 

Act and applicable federal regulations. 

See 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 proposed 

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 proposed 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 et seq.); 

• 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 et seq.); 

• 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 proposed 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. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Intergovernmental 

relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Volatile organic 

compounds. 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 166 / Monday, August 27, 2012 / Proposed Rules 51743 

Dated: August 9, 2012. 

A. Stanley Meiburg, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4. 

[FR Doc. 2012–21040 Filed 8–24–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Federal Emergency Management 

Agency 

44 CFR Part 67 

[Docket ID FEMA–2010–0003; Internal 

Agency Docket No. FEMA–B–1158] 

Proposed Flood Elevation 

Determinations 

AGENCY: Federal Emergency 

Management Agency, DHS. 

ACTION: Proposed rule; correction. 

SUMMARY: On December 16, 2010, FEMA 

published in the Federal Register a 

proposed rule that contained an 

erroneous table. This notice provides 

corrections to that table, to be used in 

lieu of the information published at 75 

FR 78654. The table provided here 

represents the flooding sources, location 

of referenced elevations, effective and 

modified elevations, and communities 

affected for the City of Newport News, 

Virginia. Specifically, it addresses the 

flooding sources Newmarket Creek, 

Newmarket Creek Tributary, Stoney 

Run, Stoney Run-Colony Pines Branch, 

and Stoney Run-Denbigh Branch. 

DATES: Comments are to be submitted 

on or before November 26, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, 

identified by Docket No. FEMA–B– 

1158, to Luis Rodriguez, Chief, 

Engineering Management Branch, 

Federal Insurance and Mitigation 

Administration, Federal Emergency 

Management Agency, 500 C Street SW., 

Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646–4064 

or (email) 

Luis.Rodriguez3@fema.dhs.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Luis 

Rodriguez, Chief, Engineering 

Management Branch, Federal Insurance 

and Mitigation Administration, Federal 

Emergency Management Agency, 500 C 

Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, 

(202) 646–4064 or (email) 

Luis.Rodriguez3@fema.dhs.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

Federal Emergency Management Agency 

(FEMA) publishes proposed 

determinations of Base (1% annualchance) Flood Elevations (BFEs) and 

modified BFEs for communities 

participating in the National Flood 

Insurance Program (NFIP), in 

accordance with section 110 of the 

Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 

42 U.S.C. 4104, and 44 CFR 67.4(a). 

These proposed BFEs and modified 

BFEs, together with the floodplain 

management criteria required by 44 CFR 

60.3, are minimum requirements. They 

should not be construed to mean that 

the community must change any 

existing ordinances that are more 

stringent in their floodplain 

management requirements. The 

community may at any time enact 

stricter requirements of its own or 

pursuant to policies established by other 

Federal, State, or regional entities. 

These proposed elevations are used to 

meet the floodplain management 

requirements of the NFIP and also are 

used to calculate the appropriate flood 

insurance premium rates for new 

buildings built after these elevations are 

made final, and for the contents in those 

buildings. 

Correction 

In the proposed rule published at 75 

FR 78654, in the December 16, 2010, 

issue of the Federal Register, FEMA 

published a table under the authority of 

44 CFR 67.4. The table, entitled ‘‘City of 

Newport News, Virgina’’ addressed the 

flooding sources Newmarket Creek, 

Newmarket Creek Tributary, Stoney 

Run, Stoney Run-Colony Pines Branch, 

and Stoney Run-Denbigh Branch. That 

table contained inaccurate information 

as to the location of referenced 

elevation, effective and modified 

elevation in feet, and/or communities 

affected for the flooding sources Stoney 

Run-Colony Pines Branch and Stoney 

Run-Denbigh Branch. In this notice, 

FEMA is publishing a table containing 

the accurate information, to address 

these prior errors. The information 

provided below should be used in lieu 

of that previously published. 

State City/town/county Source of flooding Location **

* Elevation in feet (NGVD) ∂ Elevation in feet 

(NAVD) # Depth in feet above 

ground 

∧Elevation in meters 

(MSL) 

Existing Modified 

City of Newport News, Virginia 

Virginia ................... City of Newport 

News.

Newmarket Creek ............. Approximately 0.45 mile downstream of 

Hampton Roads Center Parkway.

None +18 

Approximately 0.94 mile upstream of 

Hampton Roads Center Parkway.

None +21 

City of Newport 

News.

Newmarket Creek ............. Approximately 1,287 feet downstream of 

Harpersville Road.

None +24 

Approximately 0.56 mile upstream of 

Harpersville Road.

None +26 

City of Newport 

News.

Newmarket Creek Tributary.Approximately 765 feet downstream of 

Agusta Drive.

None +22 

Approximately 167 feet upstream of 

Agusta Drive.

None +22 

City of Newport 

News.

Stoney Run ....................... Approximately 0.8 mile downstream of 

Old Courthouse Way.

+7 +8 

Approximately 0.56 mile upstream of 

Woodside Lane.

None +47 

City of Newport 

News.

Stoney Run-Colony Pines 

Branch.

Approximately 776 feet downstream of 

Richneck Road.

None +27 

Approximately 1,450 feet upstream of 

Windsor Castle Drive.

None +40 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1