```

[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 166 (Monday, August 27, 2012)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 51739-51743]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-21040]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

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

[[Page 51740]]

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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ On 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.
    \2\ EPA 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Board 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

[[Page 51741]]

(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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 
BART-eligible 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

[[Page 51742]]

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.

[[Page 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
```