[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 125 (Thursday, June 28, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 38501-38509]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-15691]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R04-OAR-2010-0936; FRL-9692-1]
Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; State of
Georgia; Regional Haze State Implementation Plan
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: EPA is finalizing a limited approval of a revision to the
Georgia State Implementation Plan (SIP) submitted by the State of
Georgia through the Georgia Department of Environmental Protection
Division (GA EPD) on February 11, 2010, as supplemented November 19,
2010 (hereafter also referred to as ``Georgia's regional haze SIP'').
Georgia's SIP revisions address regional haze for the first
implementation period. Specifically, these 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''). States are
required to assure reasonable progress toward the national goal of
achieving natural visibility conditions in Class I areas. EPA is
finalizing a limited approval of Georgia's SIP revisions to implement
the regional haze requirements on the basis that these SIP revisions,
as a whole, strengthen the Georgia SIP. In a separate action published
on June 7, 2012, EPA proposed a limited disapproval of these same SIP
revisions because of the deficiencies in the State's regional haze SIP
arising from the remand by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District
of Columbia Circuit (D.C. Circuit) to EPA of the Clean Air Interstate
Rule (CAIR).
DATES: Effective Date: This rule will be effective July 30, 2012.
ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket
Identification No. EPA-R04-OAR-2010-0936. All documents in the docket
are listed on the www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the
index, some information is not publicly available, i.e., Confidential
Business Information 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 through 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 for
further information. 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
[email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. What is the background for this final action?
II. What is EPA's response to comments received on this action?
III. What is the effect of this final action?
IV. Final Action
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. What is the background for this final action?
Regional haze is visibility impairment that is produced by a
multitude of sources and activities which are located across a broad
geographic area and emit fine particles (e.g., sulfates, nitrates,
organic carbon, elemental carbon, and soil dust), and their precursors
(e.g., sulfur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen oxides
(NOX), and in some cases, ammonia and volatile organic
compounds. Fine particle precursors react in the atmosphere to form
fine particulate matter (PM2.5) which impairs visibility by
scattering and absorbing light. Visibility impairment reduces the
clarity, color, and visible distance that one can see. PM2.5
can also cause serious health effects and mortality in humans and
contributes to environmental effects such as acid deposition and
eutrophication.
In section 169A of the 1977 Amendments to the CAA, Congress created
a program for protecting visibility in the nation's national parks and
wilderness areas. This section of the CAA establishes as a national
goal the ``prevention of any future, and the remedying of any existing,
impairment of visibility in mandatory Class I areas which impairment
results from manmade air pollution.'' On December 2, 1980, EPA
promulgated regulations to address visibility impairment in Class I
areas that is ``reasonably attributable'' to a single source or small
group of sources, i.e., ``reasonably attributable visibility
impairment.'' See 45 FR 80084. These regulations represented the first
phase in addressing visibility impairment. EPA deferred action on
regional haze that emanates from a variety of sources until monitoring,
modeling, and scientific knowledge about the relationships between
pollutants and visibility impairment were improved.
Congress added section 169B to the CAA in 1990 to address regional
haze issues. EPA promulgated a rule to address regional haze on July 1,
1999
[[Page 38502]]
(64 FR 35714), the Regional Haze Rule (RHR). The RHR revised the
existing visibility regulations to integrate into the regulation
provisions addressing regional haze impairment and established a
comprehensive visibility protection program for Class I areas. The
requirements for regional haze, found at 40 CFR 51.308 and 51.309, are
included in EPA's visibility protection regulations at 40 CFR 51.300-
309. The requirement to submit a regional haze SIP applies to all 50
states, the District of Columbia, and the Virgin Islands. 40 CFR
51.308(b) requires states to submit the first implementation plan
addressing regional haze visibility impairment no later than December
17, 2007.
On February 11, 2010, as supplemented November 19, 2010, GA EPD
submitted revisions to Georgia's SIP to address regional haze in the
State's and other states' Class I areas. On February 27, 2012, EPA
published an action proposing a limited approval of Georgia's regional
haze SIP revision to address the first implementation period for
regional haze.\1\ See 77 FR 11452. EPA proposed a limited approval of
Georgia's SIP revisions to implement the regional haze requirements for
Georgia on the basis that these revisions, as a whole, strengthen the
Georgia SIP. See section II of this rulemaking for a summary of the
comments received on the proposed actions and EPA's responses to these
comments. Detailed background information and EPA's rationale for the
proposed action is provided in EPA's February 27, 2012, proposed
rulemaking. See 77 FR 11452.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ In a separate action published on June 7, 2012 (77 FR
33642), EPA finalized a limited disapproval of the Georgia regional
haze SIP because of deficiencies in the State's regional haze SIP
submittal arising from the State's reliance on CAIR to meet certain
regional haze requirements. Also, in that June 7, 2012, action, EPA
finalized a Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) for Georgia to address
the deficiencies that resulted from the State's reliance on CAIR for
their regional haze SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Following the remand of CAIR, EPA issued a new rule in 2011 to
address the interstate transport of NOX and SO2
in the eastern United States. See 76 FR 48208 (August 8, 2011) (``the
Transport Rule,'' also known as the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule
(CSAPR)). On December 30, 2011, EPA proposed to find that the trading
programs in the Transport Rule would achieve greater reasonable
progress towards the national goal of achieving natural visibility
conditions than would Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) in the
states in which the Transport Rule applies (including Georgia). See 76
FR 82219. Based on this proposed finding, EPA also proposed to revise
the RHR to allow states to substitute participation in the trading
programs under the Transport Rule for source-specific BART. EPA
finalized this finding and RHR revision on June 7, 2012 (77 FR 33642).
Also on December 30, 2011, the DC Circuit stayed the Transport Rule
(including the provisions that would have sunset CAIR and the CAIR
FIPs) and instructed the EPA to continue to administer CAIR pending the
outcome of the court's decision on the petitions for review challenging
the Transport Rule. EME Homer City v. EPA, No. 11-1302.
II. What is EPA's response to comments received on this action?
EPA received 928 sets of comments on the February 27, 2012,
rulemaking proposing a limited approval of Georgia's regional haze SIP
revision. Specifically, the comments were received from the National
Parks Conservation Association (NPCA) (on behalf of NPCA, Friends of
the Chattahoochee, and GreenLaw) and from various individuals through
NPCA (927 emails identical in substantive content). Full sets of the
comments provided by all of the aforementioned entities (hereinafter
referred to as ``the Commenter'') are provided in the docket for
today's final action. A summary of the comments and EPA's responses are
provided below.
Comment 1: The Commenter does not believe that EPA's proposal to
replace Georgia's reliance on CAIR with a reliance on CSAPR to satisfy
BART for SO2 and NOX is credible. The Commenter
incorporates by reference comments that it submitted to EPA on February
28, 2012, regarding the Agency's December 30, 2011, proposed rulemaking
to find that the Transport Rule is ``Better than BART'' and to use the
Transport Rule as an alternative to BART for Georgia through a FIP. See
76 FR 82219. The Commenter enclosed one of the comment letters that it
submitted to EPA on February 28, 2012, and a comment letter that it
submitted to EPA on March 22, 2012, on the Agency's proposed February
21, 2012, direct final rule adjusting several 2012 and 2014 budgets in
the Transport Rule (see 77 FR 10342). The Commenter restates several of
its comments on those rulemaking actions, including the following:
EPA's proposed December 30, 2011, ``Better than BART'' rule is
inconsistent with the CAA and does not provide reasonable progress as
required by the RHR; EPA cannot rely on the Transport Rule because the
DC Circuit has indefinitely stayed the rule; EPA has not complied with
the CAA's statutory requirements for a BART exemption; EPA has failed
to make a state-by-state demonstration that CSAPR is better than BART;
EPA included fatal methodological flaws in its proposed ``Better than
BART'' determination;\2\ EPA failed to account for the geographical and
temporal uncertainties in emissions reductions inherent in a cap-and-
trade program such as the Transport Rule; EPA's ``Better than BART''
analysis overstates the air quality benefits provided by the Transport
Rule; EPA failed to consider that while allowances are issued for a
given year, sources are under no obligation to ration the allowances
out over the year; neither Georgia nor EPA has demonstrated that
Transport Rule is ``better than BART'' as applied to Georgia; EPA
failed to evaluate whether exempting Georgia electric generating units
(EGUs) from BART complies with the CAA's reasonable progress mandate;
and the changes to Georgia's CSAPR emission budget increase the
likelihood that CSAPR will not achieve greater reasonable progress than
BART at many Class I areas. The Commenter contends that these
``shortcomings * * * impede the Agency's ability to finalize the
proposed partial FIP or the proposed limited SIP approval for Georgia.
Instead EPA must rectify these shortcomings and issue a proper federal
plan in its place.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ See footnote 6 in the Commenter's March 28, 2012, letter for
a full description.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Response 1: The comments regarding the alleged ``shortcomings'' in
EPA's proposed ``Better than BART'' rule are beyond the scope of this
rulemaking. In today's action, EPA is finalizing a limited approval of
Georgia's regional haze SIP. EPA did not propose to find that
participation in the Transport Rule is an alternative to BART in this
action nor did EPA reopen discussions on the CAIR provisions as they
relate to BART.\3\ As noted above, EPA proposed to find that the
Transport Rule is ``Better than BART'' and to use the Transport Rule as
an alternative to BART for Georgia in a separate action on December 30,
2011, and the Commenter is merely reiterating and incorporating its
comments on that separate action. EPA addressed the Commenter's
February 28, 2012, comments concerning the Transport Rule as a BART
alternative in a final action that was published on June 7, 2012, and
has determined that they do not affect the
[[Page 38503]]
Agency's ability to issue a limited approval of Georgia's regional haze
SIP. EPA's responses to these comments can be found in Docket ID No.
EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0729 at www.regulations.gov.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ In the final BART Guidelines rulemaking on July 6, 2005, EPA
addressed similar comments related to CAIR and made the
determination that CAIR makes greater reasonable progress than BART
for certain EGUs and pollutants (70 FR 39138-39143). EPA did not
reopen comment on this issue through this rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment 2: The Commenter asserts that EPA does not have the
authority under the CAA to issue a limited approval of Georgia's
regional haze SIP. The Commenter contends that section 110(k) of the
Act only allows EPA to fully approve, partially approve and partially
disapprove, conditionally approve, or fully disapprove a SIP.
Response 2: As discussed in the September 7, 1992, EPA memorandum
cited in the proposed rulemaking,\4\ although section 110(k) of the CAA
may not expressly provide authority for limited approvals, the plain
language of section 301(a) does provide ``gap-filling'' authority
authorizing the Agency to ``prescribe such regulations as are necessary
to carry out'' EPA's CAA functions. EPA may rely on section 301(a) in
conjunction with the Agency's SIP approval authority in section
110(k)(3) to issue limited approvals where it has determined that a
submittal strengthens a given state SIP and that the provisions meeting
the applicable requirements of the Act are not separable from the
provisions that do not meet the Act's requirements. EPA has adopted the
limited approval approach numerous times in SIP actions across the
nation over the last twenty years. A limited approval action is
appropriate here because EPA has determined that Georgia's SIP revision
addressing regional haze, as a whole, strengthen the State's SIP and
because the provisions in the Georgia regional haze SIP are not
separable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Processing of State Implementation Plan (SIP) Revisions, EPA
Memorandum from John Calcagni, Director, Air Quality Management
Division, OAQPS, to Air Division Directors, EPA Regional Offices I-
X, September 7, 1992, (``1992 Calcagni Memorandum'') located at
http://www.epa.gov/ttn/caaa/t1/memoranda/siproc.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Commenter asserts that EPA's action ``directly contradicts the
plain language of the Clean Air Act'' and cites several federal
appellate court decisions to support its contention that section 110(k)
of the Act limits EPA to a full approval, ``a conditional approval, a
partial approval and disapproval, or a full disapproval.'' However,
adopting the Commenter's position would ignore section 301 and violate
the `` `fundamental canon of statutory construction that the words of a
statute must be read in their context and with a view to their place in
the overall statutory scheme' * * *. A court must therefore interpret
the statute `as a symmetrical and coherent regulatory scheme,' * * *
and `fit, if possible, all parts into an harmonious whole.' '' FDA v.
Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 529 U.S. 120, 133 (2000) (quoting
Davis v. Michigan Dept. of Treasury, 489 U.S. 803, 809 (1989),
Gustafson v. Alloyd Co., 513 U.S. 561, 569 (1995), and FTC v. Mandel
Brothers, Inc., 359 U.S. 385, 389 (1959)). Furthermore, the cases cited
by the Commenter did not involve challenges to a limited approval
approach, and one of the cases, Abramowitz v. EPA, 832 F.2d 1071 (9th
Cir. 1988) predates the 1990 CAA amendments enacting section 110(k).
Comment 3: The Commenter asserts that the proposed limited approval
violates the CAA and RHR because EPA failed to evaluate or determine
whether exempting Georgia's EGUs from BART complies with the Act's
reasonable progress mandate. The Commenter supports its position by
repeating statements made in its February 28, 2012, comments on the
Agency's proposed December 30, 2011, rulemaking to find that the
Transport Rule is ``Better than BART'' and to use the Transport Rule as
an alternative to BART for Georgia and other states subject to the
Transport Rule. For example, the Commenter states that because [a]ll
required components of a Regional Haze SIP or FIP affect each other,
are part of a `single administrative action' and must be evaluated
together,'' EPA's ``failure to consider together the proposed
alternative BART program, the long-term strategy and reasonable
progress goals in Georgia's SIP violates the Clean Air Act and RHR and
is arbitrary and capricious.''
Response 3: As discussed in the response to Comment 1, today's
action does not address reliance on CAIR or CSAPR to satisfy BART
requirements. Comments related to the approvability of CAIR or CSAPR
for the Georgia regional haze SIP are therefore beyond the scope of
this rulemaking and were addressed by EPA in a separate action
published on June 7, 2012 (77 FR 33642). EPA addressed the Commenter's
repeated statements regarding the interrelatedness of BART, the long-
term strategy (LTS), and reasonable progress goals (RPGs) in that final
rulemaking action and those responses support this limited approval
action.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ See EPA, Response to Comments Document, Regional Haze:
Revisions to Provisions Governing Alternatives to Source-Specific
Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) Determinations, Limited
SIP Disapprovals, and Federal Implementation Plans (76 FR 82219;
December 30, 2011), Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0729 (May 30,
2012), pages 49-51 (noting that EPA ``disagree[s] with comments that
we cannot evaluate the BART requirements in isolation from the
reasonable progress requirements. We have on several occasions
undertaken evaluations of a state's BART determination or
promulgated a FIP separately from our evaluation of whether the SIP
as a whole will ensure reasonable progress.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA believes that the Commenter overstates the overarching nature
of the changes due to CAIR or CSAPR. The basis for the assertion that
GA EPD exempted EGUs from NOX BART and that it in some way
affected the reasonable progress determinations for other sources is
not clear. The reliance on CAIR in the Georgia submittal was consistent
with EPA policy at the time the submittal was prepared. CSAPR is a
replacement for CAIR, addressing the same regional EGU emissions, with
many similar regulatory attributes. The need to address changes to the
LTS resulting from the replacement of CAIR with CSAPR was acknowledged
in the proposal, and as stated in the proposal, EPA believes the five-
year progress report is the appropriate time to address any changes to
the RPG demonstration and, if necessary, the LTS. EPA expects that this
demonstration will address the impacts on the RPG due to the
replacement of CAIR with CSAPR as well as other adjustments to the
projected 2018 emissions due to updated information on the emissions
for other sources and source categories. If this assessment determines
an adjustment to the regional haze plan is necessary, EPA regulations
require a SIP revision within a year of the five-year progress report.
Comment 4: The Commenter contends that the BART determination for
Interstate Paper is inadequate. Specifically, for the power boiler, the
Commenter does not believe that the permit language limits the
emissions from the power boiler since the permit allows for the use of
fuel oil during times of natural gas curtailment and for the burning of
non-condensable gases (NCG) when two other units are down, but does not
adequately define or place limits on the duration of such events or the
emissions that result. The Commenter states that the BART determination
was also used inappropriately to allow the facility to avoid Prevention
of Significant Deterioration (PSD) review for modifications to the
Recovery Furnace and Paper Machine intended to increase production. The
Commenter is concerned that at all three of these units, EPA proposes
to approve no additional emissions controls for some pollutants but
does not specify an appropriately stringent limit for the existing
emissions. Finally, the Commenter believes there are a number
[[Page 38504]]
of errors in the BART determination for this source including: assuming
a low removal efficiency for selective catalytic reduction (SCR) (80
percent instead of 90 percent); lack of technical, quantified
justification for dismissing SCR as technically infeasible for the
Recovery Boiler; and prematurely removing controls from examination
based on economic factors alone.
Response 4: The Commenter overstates the scope and impact of the
exemptions from the use of natural gas to address natural gas
curtailments or for the burning of NCGs. EPA regards these exemptions
as acceptable in this circumstance as permitted. Natural gas
curtailment is commonly understood to be a forced reduction in service
below contracted-for levels in response to inadequate pipeline capacity
or inadequate natural gas supplies, both of which are beyond the
control of the user (see, e.g., 40 CFR 60.7575; Georgia Air Quality
Control Rules 391-3-1-.02(rrr)(5)). Examples of situations that may
trigger curtailment are hurricane damage to supplies or extreme cold
weather requiring allocation of natural supplies to priority needs such
as homes and hospitals. With regard to the NCG exemption, the power
boiler, along with the lime kiln, is used as a backup control device to
burn NCGs from other operations at the mill. The power boiler can only
burn NCGs when the lime kiln (primary NCG control device) and the
multi-fuel boiler (secondary NCG control device) are out-of-service.
Both the latter two sources have existing SO2 control
devices on their exhaust streams. The current title V permit limits the
SO2 from NCG combustion to less than 40 tons per year.
Although actual emissions are expected to be much less, this limit was
used in the modeling of the impacts of this source for BART.
Regarding any relationship between the BART determination and PSD
requirements, decisions on PSD applicability are subject to separate
provisions of the CAA and are therefore beyond the scope of this
rulemaking. With regard the existing emissions limits, all other
emissions limits used in assessing the impact of the facility are
contained in the title V permit and are appropriately stringent.
Finally, with regard to the ``flaws'' cited in the BART determination,
EPA finds that the analysis was conducted in accordance with the
Guidelines for BART Determinations Under the Regional Haze Rule at
Appendix Y to 40 CFR part 51 (hereinafter referred to as the ``BART
Guidelines'') and that the State appropriately considered the statutory
factors. Additional NOX controls were not considered (e.g.,
SCR) as BART due to the relatively small benefit to visibility from
these controls.
Comment 5: The Commenter believes that the PM BART determination
for Georgia Power--Plant Bowen is inadequate, that Georgia did not
demonstrate the appropriateness of only evaluating PM BART for EGUs,
and that the State did not evaluate the impact of PM for a number of
EGUs that are more appropriately considered subject to BART than Plant
Bowen. The Commenter expressed the following concerns with the proposed
BART determination: It concludes that no additional controls are
needed, and therefore does not require an emissions limit; it must
reflect filterable and condensable PM; not all feasible control options
were evaluated (e.g., fabric filters); the cost estimates and cost
effectiveness values were overestimated; and control options that
involve improvements to existing controls were not completely
addressed.
Response 5: Plant Bowen is subject to emissions limits, and the PM
emissions limits from its electrostatic precipitator (ESP) are
identified in the facility's title V permit. Furthermore, all PM was
considered in the BART determination; each evaluated control option in
Georgia's regional haze SIP considered the contribution of total
PM10 and PM2.5 (as a subset of the total
PM10) as well as condensable PM (primarily sulfuric acid
mist) (see Appendix H.8 of Georgia's February 2010 regional haze SIP
submittal). The installed controls on both facilities are effective at
reducing filterable and condensable particulates. Regarding modeling in
Georgia's regional haze SIP that uses PM only for its BART-eligible
EGUs, EPA previously determined that this approach is appropriate for
EGUs where the State proposed to rely on CAIR to satisfy the BART
requirements for SO2 and NOX.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Regional Haze Regulations and Guidelines for Best Available
Retrofit Technology (BART) Determinations, EPA Memorandum from
Joseph Paisie, Group Leader, Geographic Strategies Group, OAQPS, to
Kay Prince, Branch Chief, EPA Region 4, July 19, 2006, located at:
http://www.epa.gov/visibility/pdfs/memo_2006_07_19.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regarding the need to assess all feasible control options,
including improvements to existing controls, as is stated in EPA's BART
Guidelines, available retrofit control options are those air pollution
control technologies with a practical potential for application to the
emissions unit and the regulated pollutant under evaluation. In
identifying ``all'' options, a state must identify the most stringent
option and a reasonable set of options for analysis that reflects a
comprehensive list of available technologies. It is not necessary to
list all permutations of available control levels that exist for a
given technology; the list is complete if it includes the maximum level
of control that each technology is capable of achieving.\7\ In this
instance, each of the EGU's PM emissions is already controlled by ESPs
and wet flue gas desulphurization (FGD), (SO2 scrubbers)
which were installed on Plant Bowen between 2008 and 2010. Georgia
Power identified the following four potential additional control
technologies: (a) High voltage power conditioners (juice cans); (b)
particle agglomerators; (c) the combination of juice cans and particle
agglomerators; and (d) a wet ESP. Wet ESPs are the only control option
that resulted in a modeled visibility improvement greater than 0.01
deciview. Wet ESPs were predicted to improve visibility by
approximately 0.14 to 0.16 deciview for each unit at a cost
effectiveness of $37,107 to $47,909 per ton. In addition, the wet ESP
would consume additional electricity and have non-air environmental
impacts. The combination high voltage power conditioner (juice can);/
particle agglomerator option modeled a visibility benefit of 0.01
deciview for each unit at a cost effectiveness of $12,222 to $21,914
per ton SO2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ EPA's BART Guidelines. See 70 FR 39164.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While the adjustments to the cost analyses suggested by the
Commenter would lower the cost effectiveness of the options evaluated,
the suggested changes would not be large enough to change the BART
determination. The State evaluated the cost effectiveness, visibility
impacts, and energy and non-air environmental impacts of these control
options. GA EPD determined that no additional control was reasonable
for BART for this facility and EPA agrees with this determination. EPA
finds the BART determination for Plant Bowen was conducted in a manner
consistent with EPA guidance.
Comment 6: The Commenter states that due to its reliance on CAIR
(and now CSAPR), Georgia failed to evaluate numerous sources that
contribute significantly to visibility impairment at the Cohutta
Wilderness Area (Cohutta). The Commenter also states that none of the
CAIR or CSAPR sources have a completed BART determination for
NOX or SO2 since CSAPR allocations are not
determined on an assessment of many of the same factors that must be
addressed in establishing the RPG. Because of this, the Commenter
states that neither Georgia nor EPA has determined whether additional
progress at Cohutta would be reasonable based on the
[[Page 38505]]
statutory factors, and this responsibility cannot be excused simply
because Cohutta may meet the URP. The Commenter also believes that
Georgia and EPA excused the No. 4 boiler at the Temple-Inland Rome
Linerboard Mill from additional control based on the predicted ability
to meet the URP at Cohutta, despite identifying otherwise cost-
effective control options, and that this decision does not fulfill the
State's obligation to go beyond the URP in evaluating reasonable
progress and in establishing RPGs.
Response 6: The State's reliance on CAIR was consistent with EPA
guidance and has been addressed through the limited disapproval June 7,
2012, final action. The Commenter's concerns regarding CSAPR were also
addressed in that June 7, 2012, rulemaking. Any differences in the RPGs
that result from the reliance on CAIR will be addressed in the five-
year review.
Regarding the Temple-Inland Rome Linerboard Mill, as was stated in
the proposal (77 FR 11468) and in EPA's Reasonable Progress
Guidance,\8\ the states have wide latitude to determine appropriate
additional control requirements for ensuring reasonable progress, and
there are many ways for a state to approach identification of
additional reasonable measures. States must consider the four statutory
factors, at a minimum, in determining reasonable progress, but states
have flexibility in how to take these factors into consideration. GA
EPD's reasonable progress control analysis reviewed: (a) Two wet FGD
configurations (magnesium enhanced lime) and limestone forced
oxidation; (b) dry FGD (lime absorbent); (c) fuel switching; and (d)
dry sorbent injection. The State determined that none of the control
options considered for Power Boiler 4 is reasonable at this time. A key
factor in determining what was considered ``reasonable'' for reasonable
progress requirements for this source is that the improvement in
visibility from the emissions controls evaluated ranged from 0.11 to
0.17 inverse megameters at the affected Class I areas impacted by this
unit. The State determined, and EPA agrees, that none of the control
options considered for Power Boiler 1 is reasonable given the predicted
visibility improvement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Guidance for Setting Reasonable Progress Goals Under the
Regional Haze Program, July 1, 2007, memorandum from William
L.Wehrum, Acting Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation, to
EPA Regional Administrators, EPA Regions 1-10, page 4-2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regarding the need to go beyond the URP analysis when establishing
RPGs, EPA affirmed in the RHR that the URP is not a ``presumptive
target;'' rather, it is an analytical requirement for setting RPGs. See
64 FR 35731, 35732, July 1, 1999. In determining RPGs for Georgia's
Class I areas, the State identified sources through its area of
influence methodology for reasonable progress control evaluation and
described those evaluations in its SIP. Thus, the State went beyond the
URP analysis to identify and evaluate sources for potential control
under reasonable progress in accordance with EPA regulations and
guidance.
Comment 7: According to the Commenter, additional reasonable
progress is necessary at the Wolf Island and Okefenokee Wilderness
Areas, where the URP is not predicted to be met. The Commenter states
that Georgia has a responsibility to ensure that all necessary
emissions reductions take place and must show that its RPGs are
reasonable based on the evaluation of any potentially affected sources.
The Commenter regards Georgia's efforts to only evaluate sources that
contributed to visibility impairment from SO2 over a certain
threshold as inadequate. The Commenter recommends that EPA ensure that
additional sources, if not all contributing sources of all visibility-
impairing pollutants, be evaluated for reasonable progress.
Response 7: EPA's RHR requires states to establish RPGs, measured
in deciviews, for each mandatory federal Class I area for the purpose
of improving visibility on the haziest days and ensuring no degradation
in visibility on the clearest days over the period of each
implementation plan. See 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1). RPGs are interim goals
that represent incremental visibility improvement over time toward the
goal of natural background conditions and are developed in consultation
with other affected states and Federal Land Managers.
The RHR establishes an additional analytical requirement for states
in the process of establishing the RPG. This analytical requirement
requires states to determine the rate of improvement in visibility
needed to reach natural conditions by 2064, and to set each RPG taking
this ``glidepath'' into account. EPA adopted this approach, in part, to
ensure that states use a common analytical framework that accounts for
the regional differences affecting visibility and, in part, to ensure
an informed and equitable decision making process. The glidepath is not
a presumptive target, and states may establish a RPG that provides for
greater, lesser, or equivalent visibility improvement as that described
by the glidepath. As noted in EPA guidance, in deciding what amount of
emissions reduction is appropriate in setting the RPG, the states may
take into account the fact that the long-term goal of no manmade
impairment encompasses several implementation periods.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ Id. at pages 1.3-1.4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consistent with EPA's Reasonable Progress Guidance, GA EPD
performed a detailed analysis to determine which sources and emissions
most contributed to visibility impairment. The conclusion of this
analysis was that Georgia should consider what additional control
measures for electric utilities and industrial boilers are reasonable.
GA EPD also determined that it was appropriate to also consider
additional control measures from industrial sources other than boilers
that contributed to the same magnitude of visibility impairment as
boilers, and EPA agrees with this determination. Under Georgia's rule,
``Clean Air Interstate Rule SO2 Annual Trading Program,''
which incorporates by reference all the provisions of EPA's CAIR rule,
SO2 emissions from Georgia EGUs will be capped at 149,140
tons in 2015, a 70 percent reduction from 2002 actual emissions. See
Georgia Air Quality Control Rules 391-3-1-.02(13).
For sources that significantly contribute to visibility impairment
at mandatory Class I federal areas not clearly meeting the URP (such as
Okefenokee and Wolf Island), GA EPD did consider additional controls at
CAIR-affected units. However, the State concluded, based on the four
statutory factors, that no additional emissions reductions beyond CAIR
from these sources were reasonable for this implementation period, and
EPA agrees with the State's determination. Expected emissions
reductions are projected to achieve a 3.28 deciviews of improvement in
visibility at Okefenokee and Wolf Island by 2018, while 3.6 deciviews
of improvement in visibility would meet URP in 2018. Since the
Okefenokee and Wolf Island RPGs show a slower rate of improvement in
visibility than the rate that would be needed to attain natural
conditions by 2064 (i.e., the URP or glidepath), GA EPD estimated that
an additional 6-7 years are needed to attain natural conditions. EPA
concludes that Georgia's RPGs were developed consistent with the RHR
and EPA guidance.
Comment 8: The Commenter states that in several instances,
Georgia's reasonable progress determinations relied on the predicted
decrease in heat input from the subject sources. According to the
Commenter, this
[[Page 38506]]
assumed decrease in heat input cannot be relied upon unless it is
enforceable.
Response 8: Georgia's modeling for 2018 projects its best estimate
of likely emissions based on the expected capacity utilization at each
facility in 2018, not a worst case based on all facilities operating at
maximum allowable capacity. As part of the Visibility Improvement State
and Tribal Association of the Southeast (VISTAS) air quality modeling,
VISTAS, in cooperation with the other eastern regional planning
organizations (RPOs), generated future-year emissions inventories for
the electric generating sector of the contiguous United States using
the Integrated Planning Model (IPM). IPM is a dynamic linear
optimization model that can be used to examine air pollution control
policies for various pollutants throughout the contiguous United States
for the entire electric power system. The dynamic nature of IPM enables
projection of the behavior of the power system over a specified future
period. The IPM considers growth in demand for electricity, the
construction of new units, changes in fuel mix, as well as a predicted
set of emissions controls results in some units projected as having
greater utilization (and greater heat input) while others are projected
to have less utilization (and less heat input). Optimization logic in
IPM determines the least-cost means of meeting electric generation and
capacity requirements while complying with specified constraints
including air pollution regulations, transmission bottlenecks, and
plant-specific operational constraints. The IPM modeling runs took into
consideration both CAIR implementation and Georgia's rule,
``Multipollutant Control for Electric Utility Steam Generating Units,''
requirements for Georgia Power. See Georgia Air Quality Control Rules
391-3-1-.02(2)(sss). EPA regards this as an appropriate means to
project future emissions and changes in visibility.
The five-year review is a mechanism to assure that differences from
projected emissions are considered and their impact on the 2018 RPGs is
evaluated. In the regional haze program, uncertainties associated with
modeled emissions projections into the future are addressed through the
requirement under the RHR to submit periodic progress reports in the
form of a SIP revision. Specifically, 40 CFR 51.308(g) requires each
state to submit a report every five years evaluating progress toward
the RPGs for each mandatory Class I area located in the state and for
each Class I area outside the state that may be affected by emissions
from the state. Since this five-year progress re-evaluation is a
mandatory requirement, it is unnecessary for EPA to take additional
measures to ``ensure'' that the projections of heat input are legally
enforceable. In the specific instances cited by the Commenter, the
State's analysis of projected capacity utilization and the resultant
heat input and the State's reliance on these projections to establish
its RPGs meet the requirements of the regional haze regulations and EPA
guidance.
Comment 9: The Commenter expresses concern with the
interrelationship of EPA's proposed limited disapproval of Georgia's
regional haze SIP submittal in the December 30, 2011, action proposing
to find that the Transport Rule is ``Better than BART,'' and EPA's
proposed limited approval of the Georgia's regional haze SIP in EPA's
February 27, 2012 action. The ``Better than BART'' action states that
EPA is proposing a limited disapproval of the LTS and that EPA intends
to act on the LTS in a separate action whereas the limited approval
action states that EPA is not taking action on Georgia's regional haze
SIP insofar as it relied on CAIR, which according to the Commenter,
``presumably includes'' Georgia's LTS. The Commenter believes that each
of these actions ``promises that the other will provide a [LTS] but
neither rule actually does * * * underscore[ing] the inappropriateness
of a `limited approval.''' The Commenter contends that the SIP must
include an adequate LTS that has been subject to public notice and
comment. The Commenter also believes that EPA should disapprove
Georgia's regional haze SIP because the State's source retirement
discussion, required under 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(v) as part of a state's
LTS development, was inadequate as it was ``limited to now out of date
information describing existing, not future, emissions'' and
``contained little discussion of changes in energy and other markets
and their likely effect on EGUs and possibly non-EGUs.''
Response 9: EPA explained in its February 27, 2012, action that the
Agency was proposing a limited approval of Georgia's February 11, 2010,
SIP revision and November 19, 2010, SIP supplement, addressing regional
haze because these revisions, as a whole, strengthen the Georgia SIP.
Under CAA sections 301(a) and 110(k)(6) and EPA's long-standing
guidance, a limited approval results in approval of the entire SIP
submittal, even of those parts that are deficient and prevent EPA from
granting a full approval of the SIP revision.
In the February 27 action, EPA also explained that the Agency had
proposed a limited disapproval of the Georgia regional haze SIP in the
December 30 ``Better than BART'' rule because of deficiencies in the
State's regional haze SIP submittal arising from the State's reliance
on CAIR to meet certain regional haze requirements. EPA stated that it
was not proposing to take action in the February 27, 2012, proposed
rulemaking on issues associated with Georgia's reliance on CAIR in its
regional haze SIP. The limited approval action acted as approval of the
entire regional haze SIP, including the LTS, even though it is
deficient due to the State's reliance on CAIR. EPA believes that these
actions provided sufficient notice allowing the public to comment on
the adequacy of the LTS as evidenced by the Commenter's remarks
regarding the substance of the State's strategy.
Regarding the content of the LTS, as was discussed in the Georgia
SIP revisions and in the February 27, 2012, proposed rulemaking,
Georgia did evaluate the potential contributions of all anthropogenic
sources and concluded that the preponderance of the visibility
impairment was due to sulfates. In particular, for Okefenokee and
Cohutta, sulfate particles resulting from SO2 emissions
contribute roughly 69 and 84 percent, respectively, to the calculated
light extinction on the haziest days. In contrast, ammonium nitrate
contributed five percent or less of the calculated light extinction at
VISTAS Class I areas on the 20 percent worst visibility days. Since
sulfate particles resulting from SO2 emissions are the
dominant contributor to visibility impairment on the 20 percent worst
days at the three Georgia Class I areas, Georgia concluded that
reducing SO2 emissions from EGU and non-EGU point sources in
the VISTAS states would have the greatest visibility benefits.
Georgia considered the factors listed in 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(v) to
develop its LTS as described in detail in the proposed rulemaking.
Source retirement and replacement schedules are explicitly part of the
emissions inventory that is used to project future conditions and
provide a realistic estimate of future visibility impairing emissions
from the identified sources. At the time that the analyses were
completed, they were based on the best information available. The
projected inventories for 2009 and 2018 account for post-2002 emissions
reductions from promulgated and proposed federal, state, local, and
site-specific control programs.
[[Page 38507]]
For EGUs, the IPM was run to estimate emissions of the proposed and
existing units in 2009 and 2018 based on expected future demand. Where
future demand is projected to exceed existing capacity, IPM adds
additional units. Future fuel type usage at individual plants and
changes to fuel types were modeled based on the expected availability
of fuels, capability of the plant and least cost dispatch projections
based on expected price and control requirements. These results were
further adjusted based on state and local air agencies' knowledge of
planned emissions controls at specific EGUs.
For non-EGUs, VISTAS used recently updated growth and control data
consistent with the data used in EPA's CAIR analyses supplemented by
state and local air agencies' data and updated forecasts from the U.S.
Department of Energy. These updates are documented in the MACTEC
emissions inventory report ``Documentation of the 2002 Base Year and
2009 and 2018 Projection Year Emission Inventories for VISTAS'' dated
February 2007 (Appendix C of the February 2010 Georgia regional haze
SIP submittal).
As explained in the proposed rulemaking, these projections can be
expected to change as additional information regarding future
conditions becomes available. For example, new sources may be built,
existing sources may shut down or modify production in response to
changed economic circumstances, and facilities may change their
emissions characteristics as they install control equipment to comply
with new rules. To address this, the RHR calls for a five-year progress
review after submittal of the initial regional haze plan. The purpose
of this progress review is to assess the effectiveness of emissions
management strategies in meeting the RPG and to provide an assessment
of whether current implementation strategies are sufficient for the
state or affected states to meet their RPGs. If a state concludes,
based on its assessment, that the RPGs for a Class I area will not be
met, the RHR requires the state to take appropriate action. See 40 CFR
52.308(h). The nature of the appropriate action will depend on the
basis for the state's conclusion that the current strategies are
insufficient to meet the RPGs. Georgia specifically committed to follow
this process in the LTS portion of its submittal.
Comment 10: The Commenter states that EPA should improve its
proposal, enforce the regional haze program, fully evaluate all
emissions control options, and require controls that are reasonable,
efficient, and cost effective to ``clear the haze along the Appalachian
National Scenic Trail and in Great Smoky Mountains National Park.'' The
Commenter believes that EPA has ``proposed to exempt'' Georgia's oldest
power plants from ``long-standing cleanup requirements in favor of an
existing program that, in some cases, will mean little or no actual
cleanup.'' The Commenter also contends that sources outside of Georgia
contribute to regional haze in the aforementioned areas and that those
sources ``must be made responsible.''
Response 10: As discussed in the proposed rulemaking action, states
have discretion in weighing the factors that they must consider in
evaluating control determinations to satisfy BART and reasonable
progress requirements, and EPA finds that Georgia's determinations are
consistent with the RHR and EPA guidance. EPA did not propose to
``exempt'' any Georgia sources from regional haze requirements in favor
of any existing program. As allowed by the regional haze regulations at
the time, Georgia relied on CAIR for some of its power plants rather
than performing source-specific BART evaluations. For reasonable
progress, Georgia concluded that additional EGU control beyond CAIR
during the first implementation period was not reasonable for these
sources after consideration of the four statutory factors for each of
the affected units.
Regarding sources outside of Georgia and their contribution to
visibility impairment at Georgia's Class I areas, as discussed in the
proposed rulemaking (77 FR 11474-11475), Georgia's regional haze SIP
satisfies the regional haze requirements to identify out-of-state
sources that cause or contribute to visibility impairment in the
State's Class I areas and documents consultations with such states to
obtain any appropriate emissions reductions. The State notes in its SIP
that many of these sources located in other states are subject to
control because of CAIR's requirements.
III. What is the effect of this final action?
Under CAA sections 301(a) and 110(k)(6), and EPA's long-standing
guidance, a limited approval results in approval of the entire SIP
revision, even of those parts that are deficient and prevent EPA from
granting a full approval of the SIP revision.\10\ Today, EPA is
finalizing a limited approval of Georgia's February 11, 2010, and
November 19, 2010, regional haze SIP revisions. This limited approval
results in approval of Georgia's entire regional haze submission and
all its elements. EPA is taking this approach because Georgia's SIP
will be stronger and more protective of the environment with the
implementation of those measures by the State and having federal
approval and enforceability than it would without those measures being
included in its SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ 1992 Calcagni Memorandum.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
IV. Final Action
EPA is finalizing a limited approval of a revision to the Georgia
SIP submitted by the State of Georgia on February 11, 2010, as
supplemented November 19, 2010, as meeting some of the applicable
regional haze requirements as set forth in sections 169A and 169B of
the CAA and in 40 CFR 51.300-308.
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted this
regulatory action from Executive Order 12866, entitled ``Regulatory
Planning and Review.''
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., OMB must
approve all ``collections of information'' by EPA. The Act defines
``collection of information'' as a requirement for answers to * * *
identical reporting or recordkeeping requirements imposed on ten or
more persons. * * * 44 U.S.C. 3502(3)(A). The Paperwork Reduction Act
does not apply to this action.
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
The RFA generally requires an agency to conduct a regulatory
flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment
rulemaking requirements unless the agency certifies that the rule will
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. Small entities include small businesses, small not-for-profit
enterprises, and small governmental jurisdictions.
This rule will not have a significant impact on a substantial
number of small entities because SIP approvals under section 110 and
subchapter I, part D of the CAA do not create any new requirements but
simply approve requirements that the State is already imposing.
Therefore, because the federal SIP approval does not create any new
requirements, I certify that this action will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
[[Page 38508]]
Moreover, due to the nature of the federal-state relationship under
the CAA, preparation of flexibility analysis would constitute federal
inquiry into the economic reasonableness of state action. The CAA
forbids EPA to base its actions concerning SIPs on such grounds. Union
Electric Co., v. EPA, 427 U.S. 246, 255-66 (1976); 42 U.S.C.
7410(a)(2).
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)
Under sections 202 of the UMRA of 1995 (``Unfunded Mandates Act''),
signed into law on March 22, 1995, EPA must prepare a budgetary impact
statement to accompany any proposed or final rule that includes a
federal mandate that may result in estimated costs to state, local, or
tribal governments in the aggregate; or to the private sector, of $100
million or more. Under section 205, EPA must select the most cost-
effective and least burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives
of the rule and is consistent with statutory requirements. Section 203
requires EPA to establish a plan for informing and advising any small
governments that may be significantly or uniquely impacted by the rule.
EPA has determined that today's action does not include a federal
mandate that may result in estimated costs of $100 million or more to
either state, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate, or to the
private sector. This federal action approves pre-existing requirements
under state or local law, and imposes no new requirements. Accordingly,
no additional costs to state, local, or tribal governments, or to the
private sector, result from this action.
E. Executive Order 13132, Federalism
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) revokes and
replaces Executive Orders 12612 (Federalism) and 12875 (Enhancing the
Intergovernmental Partnership). Executive Order 13132 requires EPA to
develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful and timely input
by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies
that have Federalism implications.'' ``Policies that have federalism
implications'' is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations
that 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.'' Under Executive Order 13132, EPA may not issue a
regulation that has Federalism implications, that imposes substantial
direct compliance costs, and that is not required by statute, unless
the federal government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct
compliance costs incurred by state and local governments, or EPA
consults with state and local officials early in the process of
developing the proposed regulation. EPA also may not issue a regulation
that has Federalism implications and that preempts state law unless the
Agency consults with state and local officials early in the process of
developing the proposed regulation.
This rule will 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, because it
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 CAA. Thus, the requirements of
section 6 of the Executive Order do not apply to this rule.
F. Executive Order 13175, Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments
Executive Order 13175, entitled ``Consultation and Coordination
with Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful
and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory
policies that have tribal implications.'' This rule does not have
tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175. It will not
have substantial direct effects on tribal governments. Thus, Executive
Order 13175 does not apply to this rule.
G. Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children From Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks
Protection of Children From Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), applies to any rule that: (1) Is
determined to be ``economically significant'' as defined under
Executive Order 12866, and (2) concerns an environmental health or
safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may have a disproportionate
effect on children. If the regulatory action meets both criteria, the
Agency must evaluate the environmental health or safety effects of the
planned rule on children, and explain why the planned regulation is
preferable to other potentially effective and reasonably feasible
alternatives considered by the Agency.
This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it does
not involve decisions intended to mitigate environmental health or
safety risks.
H. Executive Order 13211, Actions That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use
This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211, ``Actions
Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) because it is not a
significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.
I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA)
Section 12 of the NTTAA of 1995 requires federal agencies to
evaluate existing technical standards when developing a new regulation.
To comply with NTTAA, EPA must consider and use ``voluntary consensus
standards'' (VCS) if available and applicable when developing programs
and policies unless doing so would be inconsistent with applicable law
or otherwise impractical.
EPA believes that VCS are inapplicable to this action. Today's
action does not require the public to perform activities conducive to
the use of VCS.
J. Congressional Review Act
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).
K. Petitions for Judicial Review
Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by June 28, 2012. 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
[[Page 38509]]
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, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Particulate
matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides,
Volatile organic compounds.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Dated: June 15, 2012.
A. Stanley Meiburg,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4.
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 L--Georgia
0
2. Section 52.570, the table in paragraph (e) is amended by adding
entries 34. and 35. in numerical order to read as follows:
Sec. 52.570 Identification of plan.
* * * * *
(e) * * *
EPA-Approved Georgia Non-Regulatory Provisions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
State submittal
Name of nonregulatory SIP provision Applicable geographic date/effective EPA approval date
or nonattainment area date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
34. Regional Haze Plan............. Statewide............. 2/11/10 6/28/12 [Insert citation of
publication]
35. Regional Haze Plan Supplement Statewide............. 11/19/10 6/28/12 [Insert citation of
(including BART and Reasonable publication]
Progress emissions limits).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[FR Doc. 2012-15691 Filed 6-27-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P