```

[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 125 (Thursday, June 28, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 38501-38509]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing 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 
notarianni.michele@epa.gov.

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
```