Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans: Revisions to the Tennessee Nitrogen Oxides Budget and Allowance Trading Program, 25072-25077 [06-4023]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
25072
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 82 / Friday, April 28, 2006 / Rules and Regulations
required to submit a rule report
regarding today’s action under section
801 because this is a rule of particular
applicability establishing sourcespecific requirements for five named
sources.
the Clean Air Act. Thus, the
requirements of section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C.
272 note) do not apply. This rule does
not impose an information collection
burden under the provisions of the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).
B. Submission to Congress and the
Comptroller General
The Congressional Review Act, 5
U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small
Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides
that before a rule may take effect, the
agency promulgating the rule must
submit a rule report, which includes a
copy of the rule, to each House of the
Congress and to the Comptroller General
of the United States. Section 804
exempts from section 801 the following
types of rules: (1) Rules of particular
applicability; (2) rules relating to agency
management or personnel; and (3) rules
of agency organization, procedure, or
practice that do not substantially affect
the rights or obligations of non-agency
parties. 5 U.S.C. 804(3). EPA is not
Name of source
C. Petitions for Judicial Review
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 June 27, 2006.
Filing a petition for reconsideration by
the Administrator of this final rule does
not affect the finality of this rule 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 approving source-specific
RACT requirements for five sources in
the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
may not be challenged later in
proceedings to enforce its requirements.
(See section 307(b)(2).)
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Nitrogen dioxide,
Permit No.
County
State effective
date
*
*
Pennsylvania Electric Company ....
*
32–000–059
Indiana .........
12/29/94
The Harrisburg Authority ................
22–2007
Dauphin .......
6/2/95
Texas Eastern Transmission Corp
50–02001
Perry ............
4/12/99
Graybec Lime, Inc ..........................
OP–14–0004
Centre ..........
4/16/99
Techneglas, Inc ..............................
40–0009A
Luzerne ........
1/29/95
*
*
*
*
*
ACTION:
[FR Doc. 06–3996 Filed 4–27–06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
wwhite on PROD1PC61 with RULES
[EPA–R04–OAR–2003–TN–0001, EPA–R04–
OAR–2004–TN–0001–200413(a); FRL–8163–
3]
Approval and Promulgation of
Implementation Plans: Revisions to the
Tennessee Nitrogen Oxides Budget
and Allowance Trading Program
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
AGENCY:
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:28 Apr 27, 2006
*
Jkt 208001
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
I
40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:
PART 52—[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 52
continues to read as follows:
I
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Subpart NN—Pennsylvania
2. In § 52.2020, the table in paragraph
(d)(1) is amended by adding the entries
for Pennsylvania Electric Company; The
Harrisburg Authority; Texas Eastern
Transmission Corp; Graybec Lime, Inc.;
and Techneglas, Inc. at the end of the
table to read as follows:
I
§ 52.2020
*
Identification of plan.
*
*
(d) * * *
(1) * * *
*
*
4/28/06 [Insert page number
the document begins].
4/28/06 [Insert page number
the document begins].
4/28/06 [Insert page number
the document begins].
4/28/06 [Insert page number
the document begins].
4/28/06 [Insert page number
the document begins].
Direct final rule.
Frm 00010
Dated: April 19, 2006.
William C. Early,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region III.
*
*
Additional
explanation/
§ 52.2063 citation
EPA approval date
SUMMARY: EPA is approving two State
Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions to
the Tennessee Department of
Environment and Conservation’s
Nitrogen Oxides (NOX) Budget Trading
Program (Trading Program) submitted
October 27, 2003, and December 10,
2003, by the State of Tennessee. The
first revision corrects a miscalculation
in Tennessee’s NOX trading budget for
non-electric generating units (nonEGUs) resulting from the use of an
incorrect control efficiency percentage
for one of the Trading Program’s nonEGU sources—an Eastman Chemical
Company boiler. The correction of this
miscalculation results in a 147 tons per
season (tps) increase in Tennessee’s
NOX trading budget for non-EGUs—
PO 00000
Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
where
*
52.2020(d)(1)(n)
where
52.2020(d)(1)(n)
where
52.2020(d)(1)(n)
where
52.2020(d)(1)(n)
where
52.2020(d)(1)(n)
making its non-EGU trading budget
5,666 tps, instead of 5,519 tps, and
increasing Tennessee’s total State-wide
NOX budget from 163,928 tpy to 164,075
tpy. Based on this correction,
Tennessee’s second revision reallocates
trading allowances to Eastman Chemical
Company—increasing the NOX trading
allowances from 416 tps to 549 tps for
the Eastman Chemical Company boiler.
DATES: This direct final rule is effective
June 27, 2006 without further notice,
unless EPA receives adverse comment
by May 30, 2006. If adverse comment is
received, EPA will publish a timely
withdrawal of the direct final rule in the
Federal Register and inform the public
that the rule will not take effect.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R04–
E:\FR\FM\28APR1.SGM
28APR1
25073
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 82 / Friday, April 28, 2006 / Rules and Regulations
OAR–2003–TN–0001 or EPA–R04–
OAR–2004–TN–0001, by one of the
following methods:
1. https://www.regulations.gov: Follow
the on-line instructions for submitting
comments.
2. E-mail: difrank.stacy@epa.gov.
3. Fax: 404–562–9019.
4. Mail: ‘‘EPA–R04–OAR–2003–TN–
0001 or EPA–R04–OAR–2004–TN–
0001’’, 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: Stacy
DiFrank, 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–2003–
TN–0001 or EPA–R04–OAR–2004–TN–
0001.’’ EPA’s policy is that all
comments received will be included in
the public docket without change and
may be made available online at
https://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 https://www.regulations.gov or
e-mail, information that you consider to
be CBI or otherwise protected. The
https://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 e-mail comment directly
to EPA without going through https://
www.regulations.gov, your e-mail
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 https://
www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.
Docket: All documents in the
electronic docket are listed in the
https://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 https://
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 legal holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Stacy DiFrank, 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. The
telephone number is (404) 562–9042.
Ms. DiFrank can also be reached via
electronic mail at
difrank.stacy@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
On October 27, 1998, EPA published
the NOX SIP Call (63 FR 57356). In the
NOX SIP Call, EPA took final action to
prohibit specified amounts of emissions
of one of the main precursors of ground
level ozone, NOX, in order to reduce
ozone transport across state boundaries
in the eastern half of the United States.
EPA also set forth requirements for each
of the affected upwind states to submit
SIP revisions prohibiting those amounts
of NOX emissions which significantly
contribute to downwind air quality
problems. In addition, EPA established
state-wide NOX emissions budgets for
the affected states to be met by the year
2007. See 40 CFR 51.121(e)(2). The
state-wide NOX emissions budgets were
calculated by assuming the emissions
reductions that would be achieved by
applying available, highly cost-effective
controls to source categories of NOX.
The source categories identified and
regulated in the NOX SIP Call were
electric generating units (EGUs), nonelectric generating units (non-EGUs),
internal combustion engines, and
cement kilns. For the State of
Tennessee, EPA determined the total
2007 State-wide NOX emissions budget
to be 163,928 tons per season (tps), with
the following 5 sub-budgets:
EGU
Non-EGU
Area
Nonroad
Highway
Total
25,814 tps
5,519 tps
13,333 tps
52,920 tps
66,342 tps
163,928 tps
wwhite on PROD1PC61 with RULES
See 69 FR 3015, 3016 (January 22, 2004).
To assist the states in their efforts to
meet the NOX SIP Call, the NOX SIP Call
final rulemaking included a model NOX
allowance trading regulation, called the
‘‘NOX Budget Trading Program for State
Implementation Plans,’’ (40 CFR part
96), that could be used by states to
develop their regulations. In the NOX
SIP Call, EPA explained that if states
developed an allowance trading
regulation consistent with the EPA
model rule, they could participate in a
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:28 Apr 27, 2006
Jkt 208001
regional allowance trading program that
would be administered by EPA. See 63
FR 57458–57459. EPA’s model NOX
budget and allowance trading rule sets
forth a NOX emissions trading program
for large EGUs and non-EGUs. For a full
description of EPA’s model NOX budget
trading program, see 63 FR 57514–
56538 and 40 CFR part 96.
In an emissions budget and allowance
trading program, the state sets an
emissions trading budget for covered
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
sources. The trading budget limits the
total number of allowances for each
source covered by the program during a
particular control period. After setting
the trading budget, the state then
assigns, or allocates, allowances to the
participating entities up to the level of
the trading budget. Each allowance
authorizes the emission of a quantity of
pollutant, e.g., one ton of airborne NOX.
At the end of the control period, each
source must demonstrate that its actual
E:\FR\FM\28APR1.SGM
28APR1
25074
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 82 / Friday, April 28, 2006 / Rules and Regulations
wwhite on PROD1PC61 with RULES
emissions during the control period
were less than or equal to the number
of available allowances it holds. Sources
that reduce their emissions below their
allocated allowance level may sell their
extra allowances. Sources that emit
more than the amount of their allocated
allowance level may buy allowances
from the sources with extra reductions.
In response to the NOX SIP Call,
Tennessee submitted SIP revisions in
2000, 2001, and 2003 that consisted of
standards for cement kilns and a NOX
Budget Trading Program for large EGU’s
and certain non-EGUs (Trading
Program). Tennessee’s Trading Program
applies to all large EGUs and to nonEGUs that have a heat input capacity
equal to or greater than 250 million
Brithish thermal units (mmBtu) per
hour. Under the Trading Program, each
NOX allowance permits a source to emit
one ton of NOX during the seasonal
control period. NOX allowances may be
bought or sold. Unused NOX allowances
may also be banked for future use, with
certain limitations. Upon finding that
the submittals met the requirements of
Phase I of the NOX SIP Call, EPA fully
approved the State’s Trading Program
on January 22, 2004 (69 FR 3015). Under
the approved Trading Program,
Tennessee’s NOX trading budget was as
follows:
tpy. Based on this correction,
Tennessee’s second SIP revision
submittal reallocates trading allowances
to Eastman Chemical Company.
II. Analysis of Tennessee’s October 27,
2003 Submittal: Correction to Non-EGU
Trading Budget
At the time it developed its Trading
Program, Tennessee calculated its 2007
trading budget for covered non-EGUs to
be 5,519 tps. This 2007 trading budget
reflects calculations for 24 units at 10
plants. The calculations, based upon
EPA’s NOX SIP Call methodology,
require (1) the determination of an
adjusted baseline emissions amount
(total uncontrolled emissions) at each
unit; (2) the application of a growth
factor of 1.65; (3) the application of
presumptive controls of 60 percent; (4)
the calculation of each unit’s budget—
which represents the difference between
the total uncontrolled emissions and the
presumptively controlled emissions;
and (5) the summation of the total
resulting budgets for all units to
establish a total non-EGU trading
budget. Where units already had
controls in place during the period used
for the NOX SIP Call inventory,
uncontrolled emissions were
determined by calculating the control
efficiency of those controls and adding
those ‘‘controlled’’ emissions back into
TENNESSEE’S PREVIOUSLY APPROVED the baseline amount. Using this formula,
Tennessee determined its non-EGU
NOX TRADING BUDGET
trading budget to be 5,519 tps. See
Tennessee 2007 Tennessee Rule 1200–3–27–.06(1)(f).
The State of Tennessee’s SIP
NOX Trading
Source category
Program budget submittal, dated October 27, 2003, seeks
emissions (tps)
EPA approval to change Tennessee’s SIP
(specifically Tennessee Rule 1200–3–
EGU ..................................
25,814
Non-EGU ..........................
5,519 27–.06(1)(f)) to reflect a non-EGU
trading budget of 5,666 tps, instead of
Total ...........................
31, 333 5,519 tps. The basis for this change is
information from Eastman Chemical
In addition, and also pursuant to the
Company indicating that the control
Trading Program, the State made
efficiency for the low-NOX burners and
allocations under the trading budget to
overfire air on its wall-fired, pulverized
its EGU and non-EGU sources.
coal boiler—Boiler Unit 016 (325–31)—
On October 27, 2003, and December
was incorrectly identified as 40 percent
10, 2003, Tennessee submitted SIP
during the development of the State’s
revisions to its Trading Program. The
non-EGU trading budget. The correct
first SIP revision submittal corrects a
control efficiency is 54.5 percent.
miscalculation in Tennessee’s trading
Eastman Chemical Company recognized
budget for non-EGUs. This
this error during preparation of its Clean
miscalculation resulted from the use of
Air Act title V permit application. The
an incorrect control efficiency
corrected control efficiency of 54.5
percentage for one of the Tennessee
percent is calculated as follows:
Trading Program’s non-EGU sources—
• For pulverized coal, dry bottom
an Eastman Chemical Company boiler.
wall-fired bituminous pre-New Source
The correction of this miscalculation
Performance Standards boilers, an
results in a 147 tps increase in
emission factor of 22 pounds per ton
Tennessee’s trading budget for non(lb/ton) was used;
EGUs—making its non-EGU trading
• Assuming coal at 12,500 Btu/lb,
budget 5,666 tps, instead of 5,519 tps,
these factors are equal to 0.88 lb/mmBtu
and increases Tennessee’s State-wide
and 0.6 lb/mmBtu, respectively. Boiler
NOX budget from 163,928 tpy to 164,075 Unit 016 (325–31) has a best available
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:28 Apr 27, 2006
Jkt 208001
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
control technology limit of 0.4 lb/
mmBtu. This would equate to a control
efficiency of (0.88–0.4)/0.88 = 54.5
percent.
The original calculation of Tennesee’s
trading budget for Boiler Unit 016 (325–
31) using the incorrect control efficiency
of 40 percent was 457.776 tps, which,
together with the trading budgets from
other covered non-EGUs, resulted in a
total non-EGU trading budget of 5,519
tps. The 457.776 tps trading budget for
Boiler Unit 016 (325–31) was calculated
using the following information:
• Controlled emissions for the Boiler
are 416.16 tps.
• A 40 percent control efficiency
reflected the control of 277.44 tps.
• When those 277.44 tps of controlled
NOX emissions were added back into
the baseline of 416.16 tps, the resulting
adjusted baseline emissions (reflecting
all uncontrolled emissions) was 693.6
tps.
In calculating the trading budget
using the incorrect control efficiency
figure of 40 percent, the adjusted
baseline emissions for the Boiler (693.6
tps) were multiplied by the growth
factor of 1.65 to render the amount of
uncontrolled emissions for the Unit for
the year 2007 (1,144.44 tps). A
presumptive control of 60 percent was
then applied to the uncontrolled
emissions to render the amount of
emissions that are controllable at the
Boiler (686.664 tps). The difference
between the 2007 uncontrolled
emissions (1,144.44 tps) and the
controllable emissions (686.664 tps)
represented the trading budget for the
Unit (457.776 tps). Thus, the original
calculations for Boiler Unit 016 (325–
31) were as follows:
• Total 2007 uncontrolled emissions:
693.6 tps × 1.65 = 1,144.44 tps.
• Presumptive controlled emissions
(60 percent) 1,144.44 tps × 0.6 = 686.664
tps.
• Trading budget for Boiler: 1,144.44
tps ¥ 686.664 tps = 457.776 tps.
However, using the corrected control
efficiency of 54.5 percent (versus 40
percent) results in more uncontrolled
emissions being added back into the
adjusted baseline emissions amount
(total uncontrolled emissions)
calculated for Boiler Unit 016 (325–31)
and further results in an increase to the
Boiler’s trading budget. That is, using
the corrected control efficiency for the
Boiler of 54.5 percent results in an
additional 222.178 tps of controlled
emissions that should have been added
back into the Boiler’s adjusted baseline
emissions—resulting in an adjusted
baseline emissions for Boiler Unit 016
(325–31) of 915.778 tps.
E:\FR\FM\28APR1.SGM
28APR1
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 82 / Friday, April 28, 2006 / Rules and Regulations
wwhite on PROD1PC61 with RULES
In calculating the trading budget
using this corrected information, the
adjusted baseline emissions for the
Boiler (915.778 tps) are multiplied by
the growth factor of 1.65 to render the
amount of 2007 uncontrolled emissions
for the Boiler (1,511.0337 tps). A
presumptive control of 60 percent is
then applied to the uncontrolled
emissions to render the amount of 2007
emissions that are controllable at the
Boiler (906.62022 tps). The difference
between the 2007 uncontrolled
emissions (1,511.0337 tps) and the
controllable emissions (906.62022 tps)
represents the trading budget for the
Boiler (604.41348 tps). The corrected
calculations for Boiler Unit 016 (325–
31) are as follows:
• Uncontrolled emissions through
2007: 915.778 tps × 1.65 = 1,511.0337
tps.
• Presumptive controlled emissions
(60 percent) 1,511.0337 tps × 0.6 =
906.62022 tps.
• Trading budget for Boiler:
1511.0337 tps ¥ 906.62022 tps =
604.41348 tps.
The corrected calculations result in a
trading budget for Boiler Unit 016 (325–
31) of 604.413 tps rather than 457.776
tps. This is a difference of an additional
146.637 tps (or 147 tps when rounding
up). The corrected, and additional 147
tps, revises Tennessee’s total non-EGU
trading budget upward—from 5,519 tps
to 5,666 tps. This also revises the total
Tennessee State-wide NOX budget
upward from 163,928 tps to 164,075 tps.
EPA has reviewed these calculations
and concurs with this revision to both
the non-EGU trading budget and the
overall State-wide NOX budget for
Tennessee. Therefore, EPA is approving
Tennessee’s October 27, 2003 SIP
revision. Tennessee’s overall NOX
emissions budgets and Trading Program
budgets are now as follows:
TENNESSEE’S CURRENT OVERALL NOX tps, rather than 416 tps (an increase of
133 tps). That is, using the State’s
EMISSIONS BUDGETS
Tennessee 2007
NOX budget
emissions (tps)
Source category
EGUs ................................
Non-EGUs ........................
Area Sources ....................
Non-road Sources ............
Highway Sources ..............
25,814
5,666
13,333
52,920
66,342
Total ...........................
164,075
III. Analysis of Tennessee’s December
10, 2003 Submittal: Reallocation of
Allowances
In light of the above correction to
Tennessee’s non-EGU trading budget,
the State’s second SIP submittal, dated
December 10, 2003, reallocates a portion
of the corrected non-EGU trading budget
(now 5,666 tps) to Eastman Chemical
Company’s Boiler Unit 016 (325–31)
pursuant to the State’s allocation
methodology that is set out in its EPAapproved Trading Program. See
Tennessee Rule 1200–3–27–.06(2),
Subpart E. The reallocation provides the
Eastman Chemical Company Boiler with
133 tps of additional trading
allowances, for a total of 549 tps.
Under its EPA-approved Trading
Program, Tennessee’s NOX trading
budget allowances are submitted as
proposed SIP revisions to EPA for
approval. See Tennessee Rule 1200–3–
27–.06(1)(h)(3). The State’s original EGU
and non-EGU trading allowances
(submitted to EPA on October 4, 2001)
were approved by EPA on January 22,
2004 (69 FR 3015). With very few
exceptions, Tennessee allocates
allowances equivalent to 60 percent of
the adjusted baseline emissions to each
non-EGU unit in its Trading Program.
Under the State’s original (uncorrected)
5, 519 tps trading budget, Tennessee
allocated a total of 5,255 tps to the 24
units in its Trading Program. Of that
5,255 tps, Eastman Chemical’s Boiler
Unit 016 (325–31) was allocated 416 tps
TENNESSEE’S CURRENT NOX TRADING based upon the above-discussed
erroneously calculated adjusted baseline
PROGRAM BUDGETS
emissions of 693.6 tps.
Tennessee’s December 10, 2003, SIP
Tennessee 2007
submittal seeks to adjust the allocation
NOX Trading
Source category
Program
of allowances to Boiler Unit 016 (325–
budget
31) in light of the correction to the
emissions (tps)
State’s non-EGU trading budget which
EGU ..................................
25,814 resulted from correcting the Boiler’s
Non-EGU ..........................
5,666 adjusted baseline emissions. Using the
corrected adjusted baseline emissions
Total ...........................
31,480 for Boiler Unit 016 (325–31) of 915.778
tps, the portion of the non-EGU trading
budget allocated to the Eastman
Chemical Boiler under the State’s 60%
allocation methodology becomes 549
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:28 Apr 27, 2006
Jkt 208001
25075
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
allocation methodology, 60 percent of
the Boiler’s adjusted baseline emissions
of 915.778 equals 549 tps.
It should be noted that the 133 tps
increase in allocations to Boiler 016
(325–31) uses only a portion of the
corrected non-EGU trading budget (e.g.,
133 tps of the 147 tps added to the
trading budget after correction). The
remainder of the corrected trading
budget increase (14 tps) has not been reallocated by the State. With the 133 tps
allocations increase to Boiler 016 (325–
31), the resulting corrected total of
allocations to all non-EGUs in the
State’s Trading Program is 5,388 tps.
This total of non-EGU allocations
represents 95 percent of the State’s nonEGU trading budget as required by the
Trading Program (and EPA’s model
trading program). See Tennessee Rule
1200–3–27–.06, Subpart E, Section
92.42(c)(2).
Because Tennessee’s reallocation of
allowances to Eastman Chemical
Company’s Boiler Unit 016 (325–31)
was made in accordance with the State’s
EPA-approved Trading Program, EPA
concurs with the reallocation and is
approving Tennessee’s December 10,
2003, SIP submittal. The allocation to
Eastman Chemical Company’s Boiler
016 (325–31) is now 549 tps.
IV. Final Action
EPA is approving the aforementioned
changes to the Tennessee SIP. EPA has
reviewed the State of Tennessee’s
justification concerning the recalculation of non-EGU NOX emissions
and concurs with Tennessee’s 2007
state-wide NOX budget for non-EGUs of
5,666 tps. With this re-calculation, EPA
is also approving the resulting increase
in Tennessee’s State-wide NOX emission
budget—now at 164,075 tps. In
addition, EPA has also reviewed the
State’s request to re-allocate allowances
of the non-EGU NOX budget to Eastman
Chemical Company’s Boiler Unit 016
(325–31) based upon these corrections
and concurs with the revised allocation
of 549 tps for this Unit.
EPA is publishing this rule without
prior proposal because the Agency
views this as a noncontroversial
submittal and anticipates no adverse
comments. However, in the proposed
rules section of this Federal Register
publication, EPA is publishing a
separate document that will serve as the
proposal to approve the SIP revision
should adverse comments be filed. This
rule will be effective June 27, 2006
without further notice unless the
Agency receives adverse comments by
May 30, 2006.
E:\FR\FM\28APR1.SGM
28APR1
25076
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 82 / Friday, April 28, 2006 / Rules and Regulations
If EPA receives such comments, then
EPA will publish a document
withdrawing the final rule and
informing the public that the rule will
not take effect. All public comments
received will then be addressed in a
subsequent final rule based on the
proposed rule. EPA will not institute a
second comment period. Parties
interested in commenting should do so
at this time. If no such comments are
received, the public is advised that this
rule will be effective on June 27, 2006
and no further action will be taken on
the proposed rule. Please note that if we
receive adverse comment on an
amendment, paragraph, or section of
this rule and if that provision may be
severed from the remainder of the rule,
we may adopt as final those provisions
of the rule that are not the subject of an
adverse comment.
Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR
51735, October 4, 1993), this action is
not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ and
therefore is not subject to review by the
Office of Management and Budget. For
this reason, this action is also not
subject to Executive Order 13211,
‘‘Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use’’ (66 FR 28355, May
22, 2001). This action merely approves
state law as meeting Federal
requirements and imposes no additional
requirements beyond those imposed by
state law. Accordingly, the
Administrator certifies that this rule
will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small
entities under the Regulatory Flexibility
Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Because this
rule approves pre-existing requirements
under state law and does not impose
any additional enforceable duty beyond
that required by state law, it 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).
This rule also does not have tribal
implications because it will not have a
substantial direct effect on one or more
Indian tribes, on the relationship
between the Federal Government and
Indian tribes, or on the distribution of
power and responsibilities between the
Federal Government and Indian tribes,
as specified by Executive Order 13175
(65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This
action also does not have federalism
implications because it does not have
substantial direct effects on the states,
on the relationship between the
National Government and the States, or
on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various
levels of government, as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255,
August 10, 1999). This action merely
approves a state rule implementing a
Federal standard, and does not alter the
relationship or the distribution of power
and responsibilities established in the
Clean Air Act. This rule also is not
subject to Executive Order 13045
‘‘Protection of Children from
Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks’’ (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997),
because it is not economically
significant.
In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA’s
role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of
the Clean Air Act. In this context, in the
absence of a prior existing requirement
for the State to use voluntary consensus
standards (VCS), EPA has no authority
to disapprove a SIP submission for
failure to use VCS. It would thus be
inconsistent with applicable law for
EPA, when it reviews a SIP submission,
to use VCS in place of a SIP submission
that otherwise satisfies the provisions of
the Clean Air Act. Thus, the
requirements of section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C.
272 note) do not apply. This rule does
not impose an information collection
burden under the provisions of the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).
The Congressional Review Act, 5
U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small
Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides
that before a rule may take effect, the
agency promulgating the rule must
submit a rule report, which includes a
copy of the rule, to each House of the
Congress and to the Comptroller General
of the United States. EPA will submit a
report containing this rule and other
required information to the U.S. Senate,
the U.S. House of Representatives, and
the Comptroller General of the United
States prior to publication of the rule in
the Federal Register. A major rule
cannot take effect until 60 days after it
is published in the Federal Register.
This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as
defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
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 June 27, 2006.
Filing a petition for reconsideration by
the Administrator of this final rule does
not affect the finality of this rule 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. (See section
307(b)(2).)
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.
Dated: April 19, 2006.
A. Stanley Meiburg,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4.
I
40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:
PART 52—[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 52
continues to read as follows:
I
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Subpart RR—Tennessee
2. Section 52.2220(c) is amended by
revising the entries in Table 1 for
‘‘Section 1200–3–27–.06’’ to read as
follows:
I
§ 52.2220
*
Identification of plan.
*
*
(c) * * *
*
*
TABLE 1.—EPA-APPROVED TENNESSEE REGULATIONS
wwhite on PROD1PC61 with RULES
State citation
*
Section 1200–3–27–.06 .....
*
VerDate Aug<31>2005
Title/subject
State effective date
*
*
NOX Trading Budget for
State Implementation
Plans.
*
16:46 Apr 27, 2006
EPA approval date
*
October 19, 2003 ..............
*
*
April 28, 2006 ...................
*
Jkt 208001
PO 00000
*
Frm 00014
Fmt 4700
*
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\28APR1.SGM
Federal Register notice
*
28APR1
*
[Insert citation of publication].
*
25077
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 82 / Friday, April 28, 2006 / Rules and Regulations
*
*
*
*
*
[FR Doc. 06–4023 Filed 4–27–06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 82
[FRL–8163–1]
RIN 2060–AN18
Protection of Stratospheric Ozone: The
2006 Critical Use Exemption From the
Phaseout of Methyl Bromide
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule; technical correction.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection
Agency published in the Federal
Register of February 6, 2006, a final rule
exempting methyl bromide production
and import for 2006 critical uses.
Specifically, EPA authorized uses that
qualify for the 2006 critical use
exemption, and the amount of methyl
bromide that may be produced,
imported, or made available from
inventory for those uses in 2006. EPA’s
action was taken under the authority of
the Clean Air Act (CAA) and reflects
recent consensus Decisions taken by the
Parties to the Montreal Protocol on
Substances that Deplete the Ozone
Layer (Protocol) at the 16th and 17th
Meetings of the Parties (MOPs) and the
2nd Extraordinary Meeting of the Parties
(ExMOP). This document corrects an
error made in the calculation of critical
use allowances (CUAs) described in that
document.
DATES: Effective Date: April 28, 2006.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Marta Montoro, Office of Atmospheric
Programs, Stratospheric Protection
Division, Mail Code 6205 J,
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200
Pennsylvania Avenue, NW.,
Washington, DC 20460; telephone
number: (202) 343–9321; fax number:
(202) 343–2337; e-mail address:
mebr.allocation@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. General Information
A. Does This Action Apply to Me?
Entities potentially regulated by this
action are those associated with the
production, import, export, sale,
application and use of methyl bromide
covered by an approved critical use
exemption. Potentially regulated
categories and entities include:
Category
Examples of regulated entities
Industry .........
Producers, Importers and Exporters of methyl bromide; Applicators, Distributors of methyl bromide; Users of methyl bromide
such as farmers of vegetable crops, fruits and seedlings, owners of stored food commodities and structures such as grain
mills and processors, and government and non-government researchers.
The above table is not intended to be
exhaustive, but rather to provide a guide
for readers regarding entities likely to be
regulated by this action. This table lists
the types of entities that EPA is aware
could be potentially regulated by this
action. To determine whether your
facility, company, business, or
organization is regulated by this action,
you should carefully examine the
regulations promulgated at 40 CFR part
82, subpart A. If you have questions
regarding the applicability of this action
to a particular entity, consult the person
listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section.
II. What Does This Correction Do?
EPA published a rule in the Federal
Register of February 6, 2006, (71 FR
5985), which contained an error
occurring in the calculation of the
allocation of critical use allowances.
The final rule document contained
aggregated totals for both 2006 critical
use allowances for pre-plant uses of
methyl bromide and 2006 critical use
allowances for post-harvest uses of
methyl bromide, each measured in
kilograms. The totals in Table II of the
final rule labeled ‘‘ALLOCATION OF
CRITICAL USE ALLOWANCES’’, and
§ 82.8(c)(1) ‘‘Allocated critical use
allowances granted for specified control
period,’’ are incorrectly calculated.
Consequently, this technical correction
supersedes the totals found in Table II,
§ 82.8(c)(1), and any other place
wherein the original totals are stated in
the final rule.
The error occurred due to a
spreadsheet miscalculation, which
caused a discrepancy in the summed
totals of the allocated critical use
allowances. This error has been
corrected and is represented in the new
numbers, provided in this technical
correction, for both pre-plant and postharvest critical uses of methyl bromide.
The numerical alterations, which come
as a result of this correction, are minor.
The correct total for 2006 critical use
allowances for pre-plant uses of methyl
bromide is 6,319,080 kilograms. The
final rule, published February 6, 2006
(71 FR 5985) incorrectly stated
6,315,237 kilograms. The correct total
for 2006 critical use allowances for postharvest uses of methyl bromide is
608,569 kilograms, but was incorrectly
stated in the February 6, 2006 final rule
as 506,250 kilograms. For 2006, the
correct total production and import
amount EPA is authorizing for critical
uses is 6,927,649 kilograms. The total
was incorrectly stated in the February 6,
2006 final rule as 6,821,487. The correct
numbers are shown in the table below.
TABLE I.—ALLOCATION OF CRITICAL USE ALLOWANCES
2006 critical use
allowances for
pre-plant uses*
(kilograms)
wwhite on PROD1PC61 with RULES
Company
2006 critical use
allowances for
post-harvest uses*
(kilograms)
Great Lakes Chemical Corp ........................................................................................................................
Albemarle Corp ............................................................................................................................................
Ameribrom, Inc ............................................................................................................................................
TriCal, Inc ....................................................................................................................................................
3,840,406
1,579,235
872,402
27,037
369,856
152,091
84,018
2,604
Total ......................................................................................................................................................
6,319,080
608,569
* For production or import of class I, Group VI controlled substance exclusively for the Pre-Plant or Post-Harvest uses specified in Appendix L
to 40 CFR Part 82.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:28 Apr 27, 2006
Jkt 208001
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\28APR1.SGM
28APR1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 82 (Friday, April 28, 2006)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 25072-25077]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 06-4023]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R04-OAR-2003-TN-0001, EPA-R04-OAR-2004-TN-0001-200413(a); FRL-
8163-3]
Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans: Revisions to
the Tennessee Nitrogen Oxides Budget and Allowance Trading Program
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Direct final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: EPA is approving two State Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions
to the Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation's Nitrogen
Oxides (NOX) Budget Trading Program (Trading Program)
submitted October 27, 2003, and December 10, 2003, by the State of
Tennessee. The first revision corrects a miscalculation in Tennessee's
NOX trading budget for non-electric generating units (non-
EGUs) resulting from the use of an incorrect control efficiency
percentage for one of the Trading Program's non-EGU sources--an Eastman
Chemical Company boiler. The correction of this miscalculation results
in a 147 tons per season (tps) increase in Tennessee's NOX
trading budget for non-EGUs--making its non-EGU trading budget 5,666
tps, instead of 5,519 tps, and increasing Tennessee's total State-wide
NOX budget from 163,928 tpy to 164,075 tpy. Based on this
correction, Tennessee's second revision reallocates trading allowances
to Eastman Chemical Company--increasing the NOX trading
allowances from 416 tps to 549 tps for the Eastman Chemical Company
boiler.
DATES: This direct final rule is effective June 27, 2006 without
further notice, unless EPA receives adverse comment by May 30, 2006. If
adverse comment is received, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal of
the direct final rule in the Federal Register and inform the public
that the rule will not take effect.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R04-
[[Page 25073]]
OAR-2003-TN-0001 or EPA-R04-OAR-2004-TN-0001, by one of the following
methods:
1. https://www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
2. E-mail: difrank.stacy@epa.gov.
3. Fax: 404-562-9019.
4. Mail: ``EPA-R04-OAR-2003-TN-0001 or EPA-R04-OAR-2004-TN-0001'',
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: Stacy DiFrank, 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-
2003-TN-0001 or EPA-R04-OAR-2004-TN-0001.'' EPA's policy is that all
comments received will be included in the public docket without change
and may be made available online at https://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 https://www.regulations.gov or e-mail, information
that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected. The https://
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 e-mail comment
directly to EPA without going through https://www.regulations.gov, your
e-mail 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 https://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.
Docket: All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the
https://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 https://
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 legal holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Stacy DiFrank, 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. The telephone number is (404)
562-9042. Ms. DiFrank can also be reached via electronic mail at
difrank.stacy@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
On October 27, 1998, EPA published the NOX SIP Call (63
FR 57356). In the NOX SIP Call, EPA took final action to
prohibit specified amounts of emissions of one of the main precursors
of ground level ozone, NOX, in order to reduce ozone
transport across state boundaries in the eastern half of the United
States. EPA also set forth requirements for each of the affected upwind
states to submit SIP revisions prohibiting those amounts of
NOX emissions which significantly contribute to downwind air
quality problems. In addition, EPA established state-wide
NOX emissions budgets for the affected states to be met by
the year 2007. See 40 CFR 51.121(e)(2). The state-wide NOX
emissions budgets were calculated by assuming the emissions reductions
that would be achieved by applying available, highly cost-effective
controls to source categories of NOX. The source categories
identified and regulated in the NOX SIP Call were electric
generating units (EGUs), non-electric generating units (non-EGUs),
internal combustion engines, and cement kilns. For the State of
Tennessee, EPA determined the total 2007 State-wide NOX
emissions budget to be 163,928 tons per season (tps), with the
following 5 sub-budgets:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EGU Non-EGU Area Nonroad Highway Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
25,814 tps 5,519 tps 13,333 tps 52,920 tps 66,342 tps 163,928 tps
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
See 69 FR 3015, 3016 (January 22, 2004).
To assist the states in their efforts to meet the NOX
SIP Call, the NOX SIP Call final rulemaking included a model
NOX allowance trading regulation, called the
``NOX Budget Trading Program for State Implementation
Plans,'' (40 CFR part 96), that could be used by states to develop
their regulations. In the NOX SIP Call, EPA explained that
if states developed an allowance trading regulation consistent with the
EPA model rule, they could participate in a regional allowance trading
program that would be administered by EPA. See 63 FR 57458-57459. EPA's
model NOX budget and allowance trading rule sets forth a
NOX emissions trading program for large EGUs and non-EGUs.
For a full description of EPA's model NOX budget trading
program, see 63 FR 57514-56538 and 40 CFR part 96.
In an emissions budget and allowance trading program, the state
sets an emissions trading budget for covered sources. The trading
budget limits the total number of allowances for each source covered by
the program during a particular control period. After setting the
trading budget, the state then assigns, or allocates, allowances to the
participating entities up to the level of the trading budget. Each
allowance authorizes the emission of a quantity of pollutant, e.g., one
ton of airborne NOX. At the end of the control period, each
source must demonstrate that its actual
[[Page 25074]]
emissions during the control period were less than or equal to the
number of available allowances it holds. Sources that reduce their
emissions below their allocated allowance level may sell their extra
allowances. Sources that emit more than the amount of their allocated
allowance level may buy allowances from the sources with extra
reductions.
In response to the NOX SIP Call, Tennessee submitted SIP
revisions in 2000, 2001, and 2003 that consisted of standards for
cement kilns and a NOX Budget Trading Program for large
EGU's and certain non-EGUs (Trading Program). Tennessee's Trading
Program applies to all large EGUs and to non-EGUs that have a heat
input capacity equal to or greater than 250 million Brithish thermal
units (mmBtu) per hour. Under the Trading Program, each NOX
allowance permits a source to emit one ton of NOX during the
seasonal control period. NOX allowances may be bought or
sold. Unused NOX allowances may also be banked for future
use, with certain limitations. Upon finding that the submittals met the
requirements of Phase I of the NOX SIP Call, EPA fully
approved the State's Trading Program on January 22, 2004 (69 FR 3015).
Under the approved Trading Program, Tennessee's NOX trading
budget was as follows:
Tennessee's Previously Approved NOX Trading Budget
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tennessee 2007
NOX Trading
Source category Program budget
emissions (tps)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
EGU................................................... 25,814
Non-EGU............................................... 5,519
-----------------
Total............................................. 31, 333
------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, and also pursuant to the Trading Program, the State
made allocations under the trading budget to its EGU and non-EGU
sources.
On October 27, 2003, and December 10, 2003, Tennessee submitted SIP
revisions to its Trading Program. The first SIP revision submittal
corrects a miscalculation in Tennessee's trading budget for non-EGUs.
This miscalculation resulted from the use of an incorrect control
efficiency percentage for one of the Tennessee Trading Program's non-
EGU sources--an Eastman Chemical Company boiler. The correction of this
miscalculation results in a 147 tps increase in Tennessee's trading
budget for non-EGUs--making its non-EGU trading budget 5,666 tps,
instead of 5,519 tps, and increases Tennessee's State-wide
NOX budget from 163,928 tpy to 164,075 tpy. Based on this
correction, Tennessee's second SIP revision submittal reallocates
trading allowances to Eastman Chemical Company.
II. Analysis of Tennessee's October 27, 2003 Submittal: Correction to
Non-EGU Trading Budget
At the time it developed its Trading Program, Tennessee calculated
its 2007 trading budget for covered non-EGUs to be 5,519 tps. This 2007
trading budget reflects calculations for 24 units at 10 plants. The
calculations, based upon EPA's NOX SIP Call methodology,
require (1) the determination of an adjusted baseline emissions amount
(total uncontrolled emissions) at each unit; (2) the application of a
growth factor of 1.65; (3) the application of presumptive controls of
60 percent; (4) the calculation of each unit's budget--which represents
the difference between the total uncontrolled emissions and the
presumptively controlled emissions; and (5) the summation of the total
resulting budgets for all units to establish a total non-EGU trading
budget. Where units already had controls in place during the period
used for the NOX SIP Call inventory, uncontrolled emissions
were determined by calculating the control efficiency of those controls
and adding those ``controlled'' emissions back into the baseline
amount. Using this formula, Tennessee determined its non-EGU trading
budget to be 5,519 tps. See Tennessee Rule 1200-3-27-.06(1)(f).
The State of Tennessee's SIP submittal, dated October 27, 2003,
seeks EPA approval to change Tennessee's SIP (specifically Tennessee
Rule 1200-3-27-.06(1)(f)) to reflect a non-EGU trading budget of 5,666
tps, instead of 5,519 tps. The basis for this change is information
from Eastman Chemical Company indicating that the control efficiency
for the low-NOX burners and overfire air on its wall-fired,
pulverized coal boiler--Boiler Unit 016 (325-31)--was incorrectly
identified as 40 percent during the development of the State's non-EGU
trading budget. The correct control efficiency is 54.5 percent. Eastman
Chemical Company recognized this error during preparation of its Clean
Air Act title V permit application. The corrected control efficiency of
54.5 percent is calculated as follows:
For pulverized coal, dry bottom wall-fired bituminous pre-
New Source Performance Standards boilers, an emission factor of 22
pounds per ton (lb/ton) was used;
Assuming coal at 12,500 Btu/lb, these factors are equal to
0.88 lb/mmBtu and 0.6 lb/mmBtu, respectively. Boiler Unit 016 (325-31)
has a best available control technology limit of 0.4 lb/mmBtu. This
would equate to a control efficiency of (0.88-0.4)/0.88 = 54.5 percent.
The original calculation of Tennesee's trading budget for Boiler
Unit 016 (325-31) using the incorrect control efficiency of 40 percent
was 457.776 tps, which, together with the trading budgets from other
covered non-EGUs, resulted in a total non-EGU trading budget of 5,519
tps. The 457.776 tps trading budget for Boiler Unit 016 (325-31) was
calculated using the following information:
Controlled emissions for the Boiler are 416.16 tps.
A 40 percent control efficiency reflected the control of
277.44 tps.
When those 277.44 tps of controlled NOX
emissions were added back into the baseline of 416.16 tps, the
resulting adjusted baseline emissions (reflecting all uncontrolled
emissions) was 693.6 tps.
In calculating the trading budget using the incorrect control
efficiency figure of 40 percent, the adjusted baseline emissions for
the Boiler (693.6 tps) were multiplied by the growth factor of 1.65 to
render the amount of uncontrolled emissions for the Unit for the year
2007 (1,144.44 tps). A presumptive control of 60 percent was then
applied to the uncontrolled emissions to render the amount of emissions
that are controllable at the Boiler (686.664 tps). The difference
between the 2007 uncontrolled emissions (1,144.44 tps) and the
controllable emissions (686.664 tps) represented the trading budget for
the Unit (457.776 tps). Thus, the original calculations for Boiler Unit
016 (325-31) were as follows:
Total 2007 uncontrolled emissions: 693.6 tps x 1.65 =
1,144.44 tps.
Presumptive controlled emissions (60 percent) 1,144.44 tps
x 0.6 = 686.664 tps.
Trading budget for Boiler: 1,144.44 tps - 686.664 tps =
457.776 tps.
However, using the corrected control efficiency of 54.5 percent
(versus 40 percent) results in more uncontrolled emissions being added
back into the adjusted baseline emissions amount (total uncontrolled
emissions) calculated for Boiler Unit 016 (325-31) and further results
in an increase to the Boiler's trading budget. That is, using the
corrected control efficiency for the Boiler of 54.5 percent results in
an additional 222.178 tps of controlled emissions that should have been
added back into the Boiler's adjusted baseline emissions--resulting in
an adjusted baseline emissions for Boiler Unit 016 (325-31) of 915.778
tps.
[[Page 25075]]
In calculating the trading budget using this corrected information,
the adjusted baseline emissions for the Boiler (915.778 tps) are
multiplied by the growth factor of 1.65 to render the amount of 2007
uncontrolled emissions for the Boiler (1,511.0337 tps). A presumptive
control of 60 percent is then applied to the uncontrolled emissions to
render the amount of 2007 emissions that are controllable at the Boiler
(906.62022 tps). The difference between the 2007 uncontrolled emissions
(1,511.0337 tps) and the controllable emissions (906.62022 tps)
represents the trading budget for the Boiler (604.41348 tps). The
corrected calculations for Boiler Unit 016 (325-31) are as follows:
Uncontrolled emissions through 2007: 915.778 tps x 1.65 =
1,511.0337 tps.
Presumptive controlled emissions (60 percent) 1,511.0337
tps x 0.6 = 906.62022 tps.
Trading budget for Boiler: 1511.0337 tps - 906.62022 tps =
604.41348 tps.
The corrected calculations result in a trading budget for Boiler
Unit 016 (325-31) of 604.413 tps rather than 457.776 tps. This is a
difference of an additional 146.637 tps (or 147 tps when rounding up).
The corrected, and additional 147 tps, revises Tennessee's total non-
EGU trading budget upward--from 5,519 tps to 5,666 tps. This also
revises the total Tennessee State-wide NOX budget upward
from 163,928 tps to 164,075 tps.
EPA has reviewed these calculations and concurs with this revision
to both the non-EGU trading budget and the overall State-wide
NOX budget for Tennessee. Therefore, EPA is approving
Tennessee's October 27, 2003 SIP revision. Tennessee's overall
NOX emissions budgets and Trading Program budgets are now as
follows:
Tennessee's Current NOX Trading Program Budgets
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tennessee 2007
NOX Trading
Source category Program budget
emissions (tps)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
EGU................................................... 25,814
Non-EGU............................................... 5,666
-----------------
Total............................................. 31,480
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tennessee's Current Overall NOX Emissions Budgets
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tennessee 2007
Source category NOX budget
emissions (tps)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
EGUs.................................................. 25,814
Non-EGUs.............................................. 5,666
Area Sources.......................................... 13,333
Non-road Sources...................................... 52,920
Highway Sources....................................... 66,342
-----------------
Total............................................. 164,075
------------------------------------------------------------------------
III. Analysis of Tennessee's December 10, 2003 Submittal: Reallocation
of Allowances
In light of the above correction to Tennessee's non-EGU trading
budget, the State's second SIP submittal, dated December 10, 2003,
reallocates a portion of the corrected non-EGU trading budget (now
5,666 tps) to Eastman Chemical Company's Boiler Unit 016 (325-31)
pursuant to the State's allocation methodology that is set out in its
EPA-approved Trading Program. See Tennessee Rule 1200-3-27-.06(2),
Subpart E. The reallocation provides the Eastman Chemical Company
Boiler with 133 tps of additional trading allowances, for a total of
549 tps.
Under its EPA-approved Trading Program, Tennessee's NOX
trading budget allowances are submitted as proposed SIP revisions to
EPA for approval. See Tennessee Rule 1200-3-27-.06(1)(h)(3). The
State's original EGU and non-EGU trading allowances (submitted to EPA
on October 4, 2001) were approved by EPA on January 22, 2004 (69 FR
3015). With very few exceptions, Tennessee allocates allowances
equivalent to 60 percent of the adjusted baseline emissions to each
non-EGU unit in its Trading Program. Under the State's original
(uncorrected) 5, 519 tps trading budget, Tennessee allocated a total of
5,255 tps to the 24 units in its Trading Program. Of that 5,255 tps,
Eastman Chemical's Boiler Unit 016 (325-31) was allocated 416 tps based
upon the above-discussed erroneously calculated adjusted baseline
emissions of 693.6 tps.
Tennessee's December 10, 2003, SIP submittal seeks to adjust the
allocation of allowances to Boiler Unit 016 (325-31) in light of the
correction to the State's non-EGU trading budget which resulted from
correcting the Boiler's adjusted baseline emissions. Using the
corrected adjusted baseline emissions for Boiler Unit 016 (325-31) of
915.778 tps, the portion of the non-EGU trading budget allocated to the
Eastman Chemical Boiler under the State's 60% allocation methodology
becomes 549 tps, rather than 416 tps (an increase of 133 tps). That is,
using the State's allocation methodology, 60 percent of the Boiler's
adjusted baseline emissions of 915.778 equals 549 tps.
It should be noted that the 133 tps increase in allocations to
Boiler 016 (325-31) uses only a portion of the corrected non-EGU
trading budget (e.g., 133 tps of the 147 tps added to the trading
budget after correction). The remainder of the corrected trading budget
increase (14 tps) has not been re-allocated by the State. With the 133
tps allocations increase to Boiler 016 (325-31), the resulting
corrected total of allocations to all non-EGUs in the State's Trading
Program is 5,388 tps. This total of non-EGU allocations represents 95
percent of the State's non-EGU trading budget as required by the
Trading Program (and EPA's model trading program). See Tennessee Rule
1200-3-27-.06, Subpart E, Section 92.42(c)(2).
Because Tennessee's reallocation of allowances to Eastman Chemical
Company's Boiler Unit 016 (325-31) was made in accordance with the
State's EPA-approved Trading Program, EPA concurs with the reallocation
and is approving Tennessee's December 10, 2003, SIP submittal. The
allocation to Eastman Chemical Company's Boiler 016 (325-31) is now 549
tps.
IV. Final Action
EPA is approving the aforementioned changes to the Tennessee SIP.
EPA has reviewed the State of Tennessee's justification concerning the
re-calculation of non-EGU NOX emissions and concurs with
Tennessee's 2007 state-wide NOX budget for non-EGUs of 5,666
tps. With this re-calculation, EPA is also approving the resulting
increase in Tennessee's State-wide NOX emission budget--now
at 164,075 tps. In addition, EPA has also reviewed the State's request
to re-allocate allowances of the non-EGU NOX budget to
Eastman Chemical Company's Boiler Unit 016 (325-31) based upon these
corrections and concurs with the revised allocation of 549 tps for this
Unit.
EPA is publishing this rule without prior proposal because the
Agency views this as a noncontroversial submittal and anticipates no
adverse comments. However, in the proposed rules section of this
Federal Register publication, EPA is publishing a separate document
that will serve as the proposal to approve the SIP revision should
adverse comments be filed. This rule will be effective June 27, 2006
without further notice unless the Agency receives adverse comments by
May 30, 2006.
[[Page 25076]]
If EPA receives such comments, then EPA will publish a document
withdrawing the final rule and informing the public that the rule will
not take effect. All public comments received will then be addressed in
a subsequent final rule based on the proposed rule. EPA will not
institute a second comment period. Parties interested in commenting
should do so at this time. If no such comments are received, the public
is advised that this rule will be effective on June 27, 2006 and no
further action will be taken on the proposed rule. Please note that if
we receive adverse comment on an amendment, paragraph, or section of
this rule and if that provision may be severed from the remainder of
the rule, we may adopt as final those provisions of the rule that are
not the subject of an adverse comment.
Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this
action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' and therefore is not
subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. For this
reason, this action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211,
``Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This action
merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and imposes
no additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law.
Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Because
this rule approves pre-existing requirements under state law and does
not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that required by
state law, it 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).
This rule also does not have tribal implications because it will
not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on
the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or
on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65
FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This action also does not have federalism
implications because it does not have substantial direct effects on the
states, on the relationship between the National Government and the
States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the
various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64
FR 43255, August 10, 1999). This action merely approves a state rule
implementing a Federal standard, and does not alter the relationship or
the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the Clean
Air Act. This rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045
``Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not economically
significant.
In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. In
this context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the
State to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority
to disapprove a SIP submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be
inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a SIP
submission, to use VCS in place of a SIP submission that otherwise
satisfies the provisions of the Clean Air Act. Thus, the requirements
of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. This rule does not
impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other
required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
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 June 27, 2006. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule
does not affect the finality of this rule 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. (See section 307(b)(2).)
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.
Dated: April 19, 2006.
A. Stanley Meiburg,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4.
0
40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:
PART 52--[AMENDED]
0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Subpart RR--Tennessee
0
2. Section 52.2220(c) is amended by revising the entries in Table 1 for
``Section 1200-3-27-.06'' to read as follows:
Sec. 52.2220 Identification of plan.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
Table 1.--EPA-Approved Tennessee Regulations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
State effective Federal Register
State citation Title/subject date EPA approval date notice
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
Section 1200-3-27-.06........... NOX Trading Budget October 19, 2003. April 28, 2006.... [Insert citation
for State of publication].
Implementation
Plans.
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 25077]]
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 06-4023 Filed 4-27-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
