[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 38 (Monday, February 27, 2012)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 11452-11476]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-4516]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R04-OAR-2010-0936-201150, FRL-9637-9]


Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; 
State of Georgia; Regional Haze State Implementation Plan

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing a limited approval of a revision to the 
Georgia state implementation plan (SIP) submitted by the State of 
Georgia through the Georgia Department of Natural Resources, 
Environmental Protection Division (GA EPD), on February 11, 2010, as 
supplemented on November 19, 2010, that addresses regional haze for the 
first implementation period. This SIP

[[Page 11453]]

revision, as supplemented, addresses the requirements of the Clean Air 
Act (CAA) 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 
proposing a limited approval of this SIP revision to implement the 
regional haze requirements for Georgia on the basis that the revision, 
as a whole, strengthens the Georgia SIP. EPA has previously proposed a 
limited disapproval of the Georgia regional haze SIP because of 
deficiencies in the State's regional haze SIP submittal 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). 
Consequently, EPA is not proposing to take action in this rulemaking to 
address the State's reliance on CAIR to meet certain regional haze 
requirements.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before March 28, 2012.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R04-
OAR-2010-0936, by one of the following methods:
    1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for 
submitting comments.
    2. Email: [email protected].
    3. Fax: 404-562-9019.
    4. Mail: EPA-R04-OAR-2010-0936, Regulatory Development Section, Air 
Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., 
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960.
    5. Hand Delivery or Courier: Lynorae Benjamin, Chief, Regulatory 
Development Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics 
Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 
Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. Such deliveries are 
only accepted during the Regional Office's normal hours of operation. 
The Regional Office's official hours of business are Monday through 
Friday, 8:30 to 4:30, excluding Federal holidays.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. ``EPA-R04-OAR-
2010-0936.'' EPA's policy is that all comments received will be 
included in the public docket without change and may be made available 
online at www.regulations.gov, including any personal information 
provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be 
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose 
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit through 
www.regulations.gov or email, information that you consider to be CBI 
or otherwise protected. The www.regulations.gov Web site is an 
``anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know your 
identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of 
your comment. If you send an email comment directly to EPA without 
going through www.regulations.gov, your email address will be 
automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is 
placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you 
submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name 
and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any 
disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to 
technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA 
may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid 
the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of 
any defects or viruses. For additional information about EPA's public 
docket visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.
    Docket: All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the 
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some 
information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information 
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such 
as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be 
publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket 
materials are available either electronically in www.regulations.gov or 
in hard copy at the Regulatory Development Section, Air Planning 
Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., 
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. EPA requests that if at all possible, you 
contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT 
section to schedule your inspection. The Regional Office's official 
hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 to 4:30, excluding 
Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sara Waterson or 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. Sara 
Waterson can be reached at telephone number (404) 562-9061 and by 
electronic mail at [email protected]. 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 action is EPA proposing to take?
II. What is the background for EPA's proposed action?
    A. The Regional Haze Problem
    B. Requirements of the CAA and EPA's Regional Haze Rule (RHR)
    C. Roles of Agencies in Addressing Regional Haze
III. What are the requirements for the regional haze SIPs?
    A. The CAA and the RHR
    B. Determination of Baseline, Natural, and Current Visibility 
Conditions
    C. Determination of Reasonable Progress Goals (RPGs)
    D. Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART)
    E. Long-Term Strategy (LTS)
    F. Coordinating Regional Haze and Reasonably Attributable 
Visibility Impairment (RAVI) LTS
    G. Monitoring Strategy and Other Implementation Plan 
Requirements
    H. Consultation With States and Federal Land Managers (FLMs)
IV. What is EPA's analysis of Georgia's regional haze submittal?
    A. Affected Class I Areas
    B. Determination of Baseline, Natural and Current Visibility 
Conditions
    1. Estimating Natural Visibility Conditions
    2. Estimating Baseline Conditions
    3. Summary of Baseline and Natural Conditions
    4. Uniform Rate of Progress
    C. Long-Term Strategy/Strategies
    1. Emissions Inventory for 2018 With Federal and State Control 
Requirements
    2. Modeling To Support the LTS and Determine Visibility 
Improvement for Uniform Rate of Progress
    3. Relative Contributions To Visibility Impairment: Pollutants, 
Source Categories, and Geographic Areas
    4. Procedure for Identifying Sources To Evaluate for Reasonable 
Progress Controls in Georgia and Surrounding Areas
    5. Application of the Four CAA Factors in the Reasonable 
Progress Analysis
    A. Facilities With Emissions Unit(s) Subject To Reasonable 
Progress Analysis
    B. Facilities With Emissions Unit(s) Not Subject To Reasonable 
Progress Analysis
    6. BART

[[Page 11454]]

    A. BART-Eligible Sources
    B. BART-Subject Sources
    C. BART Determinations
    7. RPGs
    D. Coordination of RAVI and Regional Haze Requirements
    E. Monitoring Strategy and Other Implementation Plan 
Requirements
    F. Consultation With States and FLMs
    1. Consultation With Other States
    2. Consultation With the FLMs
    G. Periodic SIP Revisions and Five-Year Progress Reports
V. What action is EPA taking?
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
    A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review
    B. Paperwork Reduction Act
    C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
    D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)
    E. Executive Order 13132, Federalism
    F. Executive Order 13175, Coordination With Indian Tribal 
Governments
    G. Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children From 
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
    H. Executive Order 13211, Actions That Significantly Affect 
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
    I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

I. What action is EPA proposing To take?

    EPA is proposing a limited approval of Georgia's February 11, 2010, 
SIP revision and November 19, 2010, SIP supplement, addressing regional 
haze under CAA sections 301(a) and 110(k)(3) because these revisions, 
as a whole, strengthen the Georgia SIP. Throughout this document, 
references To Georgia's ``regional haze SIP'' or ``SIP submittal'' or 
``SIP revision'' collectively refer To Georgia's original February 11, 
2010, SIP revision and the supplement to this February 2010 SIP 
revision submitted on November 19, 2010. This proposed rulemaking and 
the accompanying Technical Support Document \1\ (TSD) explain the basis 
for EPA's proposed limited approval action.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ EPA's TSD to this action, entitled ``Technical Support 
Document for Georgia Regional Haze SIP Submittal,'' is included in 
the public docket for this action.
    \2\ 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. 
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In a separate action, EPA has proposed 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. See 76 FR 82219 (December 
30, 2011). EPA is not proposing to take action in today's rulemaking on 
issues associated with Georgia's reliance on CAIR in its regional haze 
SIP. Comments on EPA's proposed limited disapproval of Georgia's 
regional haze SIP are accepted at the docket for EPA's December 30, 
2011, proposed rulemaking (see Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0729). The 
comment period for EPA's December 30, 2011, proposed rulemaking is 
scheduled to end on February 28, 2012.

II. What is the background for EPA's proposed action?

A. The Regional Haze Problem

    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 (PM2.5) (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 (NH3) 
and volatile organic compounds (VOC)). Fine particle precursors react 
in the atmosphere to form fine particulate matter 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.
    Data from the existing visibility monitoring network, the 
``Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual Environments'' (IMPROVE) 
monitoring network, show that visibility impairment caused by air 
pollution occurs virtually all the time at most national park and 
wilderness areas. The average visual range \3\ in many Class I areas 
\4\ (i.e., national parks and memorial parks, wilderness areas, and 
international parks meeting certain size criteria) in the western 
United States is 100-150 kilometers, or about one-half to two-thirds of 
the visual range that would exist without anthropogenic air pollution. 
In most of the eastern Class I areas of the United States, the average 
visual range is less than 30 kilometers, or about one-fifth of the 
visual range that would exist under estimated natural conditions. See 
64 FR 35715 (July 1, 1999).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Visual range is the greatest distance, in kilometers or 
miles, at which a dark object can be viewed against the sky.
    \4\ Areas designated as mandatory Class I areas consist of 
national parks exceeding 6,000 acres, wilderness areas and national 
memorial parks exceeding 5,000 acres, and all international parks 
that were in existence on August 7, 1977. See 42 U.S.C. 7472(a). In 
accordance with section 169A of the CAA, EPA, in consultation with 
the Department of Interior, promulgated a list of 156 areas where 
visibility is identified as an important value. See 44 FR 69122 
(November 30, 1979). The extent of a mandatory Class I area includes 
subsequent changes in boundaries, such as park expansions. See 42 
U.S.C. 7472(a). Although states and tribes may designate as Class I 
additional areas which they consider to have visibility as an 
important value, the requirements of the visibility program set 
forth in section 169A of the CAA apply only to ``mandatory Class I 
Federal areas.'' Each mandatory Class I area is the responsibility 
of a ``Federal Land Manager.'' See 42 U.S.C. 7602(i). When the term 
``Class I area'' is used in this action, it means a ``mandatory 
Class I Federal area.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Requirements of the CAA and EPA's Regional Haze Rule (RHR)

    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 (64 FR 35713), the 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. Some of the 
main elements of the regional haze requirements are summarized in 
section III of this preamble. The requirement to submit a regional haze 
SIP applies to all 50 states, the District

[[Page 11455]]

of Columbia, and the Virgin Islands.\5\ 40 CFR 51.308(b) requires 
states to submit the first implementation plan addressing regional haze 
visibility impairment no later than December 17, 2007.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Albuquerque/Bernalillo County in New Mexico must also submit 
a regional haze SIP to completely satisfy the requirements of 
section 110(a)(2)(D) of the CAA for the entire State of New Mexico 
under the New Mexico Air Quality Control Act (section 74-2-4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Roles of Agencies in Addressing Regional Haze

    Successful implementation of the regional haze program will require 
long-term regional coordination among states, tribal governments and 
various Federal agencies. As noted above, pollution affecting the air 
quality in Class I areas can be transported over long distances, even 
hundreds of kilometers. Therefore, to effectively address the problem 
of visibility impairment in Class I areas, states need to develop 
strategies in coordination with one another, taking into account the 
effect of emissions from one jurisdiction on the air quality in 
another.
    Because the pollutants that lead to regional haze can originate 
from sources located across broad geographic areas, EPA has encouraged 
the states and tribes across the United States to address visibility 
impairment from a regional perspective. Five regional planning 
organizations (RPOs) were developed to address regional haze and 
related issues. The RPOs first evaluated technical information to 
better understand how their states and tribes impact Class I areas 
across the country, and then pursued the development of regional 
strategies to reduce emissions of particulate matter (PM) and other 
pollutants leading to regional haze.
    The Visibility Improvement State and Tribal Association of the 
Southeast (VISTAS) RPO is a collaborative effort of state governments, 
tribal governments, and various Federal agencies established to 
initiate and coordinate activities associated with the management of 
regional haze, visibility and other air quality issues in the 
southeastern United States. Member state and tribal governments 
include: Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, North 
Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia, West Virginia, and the 
Eastern Band of the Cherokee Indians.

III. What are the requirements for the regional haze SIPs?

A. The CAA and the RHR

    Regional haze SIPs must assure reasonable progress toward the 
national goal of achieving natural visibility conditions in Class I 
areas. Section 169A of the CAA and EPA's implementing regulations 
require states to establish long-term strategies for making reasonable 
progress toward meeting this goal. Implementation plans must also give 
specific attention to certain stationary sources that were in existence 
on August 7, 1977, but were not in operation before August 7, 1962, and 
require these sources, where appropriate, to install BART controls for 
the purpose of eliminating or reducing visibility impairment. The 
specific regional haze SIP requirements are discussed in further detail 
below.

B. Determination of Baseline, Natural, and Current Visibility 
Conditions

    The RHR establishes the deciview as the principal metric or unit 
for expressing visibility. This visibility metric expresses uniform 
changes in haziness in terms of common increments across the entire 
range of visibility conditions, from pristine to extremely hazy 
conditions. Visibility expressed in deciviews is determined by using 
air quality measurements to estimate light extinction and then 
transforming the value of light extinction using a logarithm function. 
The deciview is a more useful measure for tracking progress in 
improving visibility than light extinction itself because each deciview 
change is an equal incremental change in visibility perceived by the 
human eye. Most people can detect a change in visibility at one 
deciview.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ The preamble to the RHR provides additional details about 
the deciview. See 64 FR 35714, 35725 (July 1, 1999).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The deciview is used in expressing RPGs (which are interim 
visibility goals towards meeting the national visibility goal), 
defining baseline, current, and natural conditions, and tracking 
changes in visibility. The regional haze SIPs must contain measures 
that ensure ``reasonable progress'' toward the national goal of 
preventing and remedying visibility impairment in Class I areas caused 
by anthropogenic air pollution by reducing anthropogenic emissions that 
cause regional haze. The national goal is a return to natural 
conditions, i.e., anthropogenic sources of air pollution would no 
longer impair visibility in Class I areas.
    To track changes in visibility over time at each of the 156 Class I 
areas covered by the visibility program (40 CFR 81.401-437), and as 
part of the process for determining reasonable progress, states must 
calculate the degree of existing visibility impairment at each Class I 
area at the time of each regional haze SIP submittal and periodically 
review progress every five years, i.e., midway through each 10-year 
implementation period. To do this, the RHR requires states to determine 
the degree of impairment (in deciviews) for the average of the 20 
percent least impaired (``best'') and 20 percent most impaired 
(``worst'') visibility days over a specified time period at each of 
their Class I areas. In addition, states must also develop an estimate 
of natural visibility conditions for the purpose of comparing progress 
toward the national goal. Natural visibility is determined by 
estimating the natural concentrations of pollutants that cause 
visibility impairment and then calculating total light extinction based 
on those estimates. EPA has provided guidance to states regarding how 
to calculate baseline, natural, and current visibility conditions in 
documents titled, EPA's Guidance for Estimating Natural Visibility 
Conditions Under the Regional Haze Rule, September 2003, (EPA-454/B-03-
005 located at http://www.epa.gov/ttncaaa1/t1/memoranda/rh_envcurhr_gd.pdf), (hereinafter referred to as ``EPA's 2003 Natural Visibility 
Guidance''), and Guidance for Tracking Progress Under the Regional Haze 
Rule, September 2003, (EPA-454/B-03-004 located at http://www.epa.gov/ttncaaa1/t1/memoranda/rh_tpurhr_gd.pdf), (hereinafter referred to as 
``EPA's 2003 Tracking Progress Guidance'').
    For the first regional haze SIPs that were due by December 17, 
2007, ``baseline visibility conditions'' were the starting points for 
assessing ``current'' visibility impairment. Baseline visibility 
conditions represent the degree of visibility impairment for the 20 
percent least impaired days and 20 percent most impaired days for each 
calendar year from 2000 to 2004. Using monitoring data for 2000 through 
2004, states are required to calculate the average degree of visibility 
impairment for each Class I area, based on the average of annual values 
over the five-year period. The comparison of initial baseline 
visibility conditions to natural visibility conditions indicates the 
amount of improvement necessary to attain natural visibility, while the 
future comparison of baseline conditions to the then current conditions 
will indicate the amount of progress made. In general, the

[[Page 11456]]

2000-2004 baseline period is considered the time from which improvement 
in visibility is measured.

C. Determination of Reasonable Progress Goals (RPGs)

    The vehicle for ensuring continuing progress toward achieving the 
natural visibility goal is the submission of a series of regional haze 
SIPs from the states that establish two RPGs (i.e., two distinct goals, 
one for the ``best'' and one for the ``worst'' days) for every Class I 
area for each (approximately) 10-year implementation period. The RHR 
does not mandate specific milestones or rates of progress, but instead 
calls for states to establish goals that provide for ``reasonable 
progress'' toward achieving natural (i.e., ``background'') visibility 
conditions. In setting RPGs, states must provide for an improvement in 
visibility for the most impaired days over the (approximately) 10-year 
period of the SIP, and ensure no degradation in visibility for the 
least impaired days over the same period.
    States have significant discretion in establishing RPGs, but are 
required to consider the following factors established in section 169A 
of the CAA and in EPA's RHR at 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1)(i)(A): (1) The costs 
of compliance; (2) the time necessary for compliance; (3) the energy 
and non-air quality environmental impacts of compliance; and (4) the 
remaining useful life of any potentially affected sources. States must 
demonstrate in their SIPs how these factors are considered when 
selecting the RPGs for the best and worst days for each applicable 
Class I area. States have considerable flexibility in how they take 
these factors into consideration, as noted in EPA's Guidance for 
Setting Reasonable Progress Goals Under the Regional Haze Program 
(``EPA's Reasonable Progress Guidance''), July 1, 2007, memorandum from 
William L. Wehrum, Acting Assistant Administrator for Air and 
Radiation, to EPA Regional Administrators, EPA Regions 1-10 (pp. 4-2, 
5-1). In setting the RPGs, states must also consider the rate of 
progress needed to reach natural visibility conditions by 2064 
(referred to as the ``uniform rate of progress'' or the ``glidepath'') 
and the emissions reduction measures needed to achieve that rate of 
progress over the 10-year period of the SIP. Uniform progress towards 
achievement of natural conditions by the year 2064 represents a rate of 
progress which states are to use for analytical comparison to the 
amount of progress they expect to achieve. In setting RPGs, each state 
with one or more Class I areas (``Class I state'') must also consult 
with potentially ``contributing states,'' i.e., other nearby states 
with emissions sources that may be affecting visibility impairment at 
the Class I state's areas. See 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1)(iv).

D. Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART)

    Section 169A of the CAA directs states to evaluate the use of 
retrofit controls at certain larger, often uncontrolled, older 
stationary sources in order to address visibility impacts from these 
sources. Specifically, section 169A(b)(2)(A) of the CAA requires states 
to revise their SIPs to contain such measures as may be necessary to 
make reasonable progress towards the natural visibility goal, including 
a requirement that certain categories of existing major stationary 
sources \7\ built between 1962 and 1977 procure, install, and operate 
the ``Best Available Retrofit Technology'' as determined by the state. 
Under the RHR, states are directed to conduct BART determinations for 
such ``BART-eligible'' sources that may be anticipated to cause or 
contribute to any visibility impairment in a Class I area. Rather than 
requiring source-specific BART controls, states also have the 
flexibility to adopt an emissions trading program or other alternative 
program as long as the alternative provides greater reasonable progress 
towards improving visibility than BART.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ The set of ``major stationary sources'' potentially subject 
to BART is listed in CAA section 169A(g)(7).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On July 6, 2005, EPA published 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'') to assist 
states in determining which of their sources should be subject to the 
BART requirements and in determining appropriate emissions limits for 
each applicable source. In making a BART determination for a fossil 
fuel-fired electric generating plant with a total generating capacity 
in excess of 750 megawatts (MW), a state must use the approach set 
forth in the BART Guidelines. A state is encouraged, but not required, 
to follow the BART Guidelines in making BART determinations for other 
types of sources.
    States must address all visibility-impairing pollutants emitted by 
a source in the BART determination process. The most significant 
visibility impairing pollutants are SO2, NOX, and 
PM. EPA has stated that states should use their best judgment in 
determining whether VOC or NH3 compounds impair visibility 
in Class I areas.
    Under the BART Guidelines, states may select an exemption threshold 
value for their BART modeling, below which a BART-eligible source would 
not be expected to cause or contribute to visibility impairment in any 
Class I area. The state must document this exemption threshold value in 
the SIP and must state the basis for its selection of that value. Any 
source with emissions that model above the threshold value would be 
subject to a BART determination review. The BART Guidelines acknowledge 
varying circumstances affecting different Class I areas. States should 
consider the number of emissions sources affecting the Class I areas at 
issue and the magnitude of the individual sources' impacts. Any 
exemption threshold set by the state should not be higher than 0.5 
deciview.
    In their SIPs, states must identify potential BART sources, 
described as ``BART-eligible sources'' in the RHR, and document their 
BART control determination analyses. In making BART determinations, 
section 169A(g)(2) of the CAA requires that states consider the 
following factors: (1) The costs of compliance, (2) the energy and non-
air quality environmental impacts of compliance, (3) any existing 
pollution control technology in use at the source, (4) the remaining 
useful life of the source, and (5) the degree of improvement in 
visibility which may reasonably be anticipated to result from the use 
of such technology. States are free to determine the weight and 
significance to be assigned to each factor.
    A regional haze SIP must include source-specific BART emissions 
limits and compliance schedules for each source subject to BART. Once a 
state has made its BART determination, the BART controls must be 
installed and in operation as expeditiously as practicable, but no 
later than five years after the date of EPA approval of the regional 
haze SIP. See CAA section 169(g)(4)); see 40 CFR 51.308(e)(1)(iv). In 
addition to what is required by the RHR, general SIP requirements 
mandate that the SIP must also include all regulatory requirements 
related to monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting for the BART 
controls on the source.
    As noted above, the RHR allows states to implement an alternative 
program in lieu of BART so long as the alternative program can be 
demonstrated to achieve greater reasonable progress toward the national 
visibility goal than would BART. Under regulations issued in 2005

[[Page 11457]]

revising the regional haze program, EPA made just such a demonstration 
for CAIR. See 70 FR 39104 (July 6, 2005). EPA's regulations provide 
that states participating in the CAIR cap-and trade program under 40 
CFR part 96 pursuant to an EPA-approved CAIR SIP or which remain 
subject to the CAIR Federal Implementation Plan in 40 CFR part 97 need 
not require affected BART-eligible electrical generating (EGUs) to 
install, operate, and maintain BART for emissions of SO2 and 
NOX. See 40 CFR 51.308(e)(4). Because CAIR did not address 
direct emissions of PM, states were still required to conduct a BART 
analysis for PM emissions from EGUs subject to BART for that pollutant. 
Challenges to CAIR, however, resulted in the remand of the rule to EPA. 
See North Carolina v. EPA, 550 F.3d 1175 (DC Cir. 2008).
    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). 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 than would BART 
in the states in which the Transport Rule applies. 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 has not yet taken 
final action on that rule. Also on December 30, 2011, the DC Circuit 
issued an order addressing the status of the Transport Rule and CAIR in 
response to motions filed by numerous parties seeking a stay of the 
Transport Rule pending judicial review. In that order, the D.C. Circuit 
stayed the Transport Rule pending the court's resolutions of the 
petitions for review of that rule in EME Homer Generation, L.P. v. EPA 
(No. 11-1302 and consolidated cases). The court also indicated that EPA 
is expected to continue to administer CAIR in the interim until the 
court rules on the petitions for review of the Transport Rule.

E. Long-Term Strategy (LTS)

    Consistent with the requirement in section 169A(b) of the CAA that 
states include in their regional haze SIP a 10 to 15 year strategy for 
making reasonable progress, section 51.308(d)(3) of the RHR requires 
that states include a LTS in their regional haze SIPs. The LTS is the 
compilation of all control measures a state will use during the 
implementation period of the specific SIP submittal to meet applicable 
RPGs. The LTS must include ``enforceable emissions limitations, 
compliance schedules, and other measures as necessary to achieve the 
reasonable progress goals'' for all Class I areas within, or affected 
by emissions from, the state. See 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3).
    When a state's emissions are reasonably anticipated to cause or 
contribute to visibility impairment in a Class I area located in 
another state, the RHR requires the impacted state to coordinate with 
the contributing states in order to develop coordinated emissions 
management strategies. See 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(i). In such cases, the 
contributing state must demonstrate that it has included, in its SIP, 
all measures necessary to obtain its share of the emissions reductions 
needed to meet the RPGs for the Class I area. The RPOs have provided 
forums for significant interstate consultation, but additional 
consultations between states may be required to sufficiently address 
interstate visibility issues. This is especially true where two states 
belong to different RPOs.
    States should consider all types of anthropogenic sources of 
visibility impairment in developing their LTS, including stationary, 
minor, mobile, and area sources. At a minimum, states must describe how 
each of the following seven factors listed below are taken into account 
in developing their LTS: (1) Emissions reductions due to ongoing air 
pollution control programs, including measures to address RAVI; (2) 
measures to mitigate the impacts of construction activities; (3) 
emissions limitations and schedules for compliance to achieve the RPG; 
(4) source retirement and replacement schedules; (5) smoke management 
techniques for agricultural and forestry management purposes including 
plans as currently exist within the state for these purposes; (6) 
enforceability of emissions limitations and control measures; and (7) 
the anticipated net effect on visibility due to projected changes in 
point, area, and mobile source emissions over the period addressed by 
the LTS. See 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(v).

F. Coordinating Regional Haze and Reasonably Attributable Visibility 
Impairment (RAVI) LTS

    As part of the RHR, EPA revised 40 CFR 51.306(c) regarding the LTS 
for RAVI to require that the RAVI plan must provide for a periodic 
review and SIP revision not less frequently than every three years 
until the date of submission of the state's first plan addressing 
regional haze visibility impairment, which was due December 17, 2007, 
in accordance with 40 CFR 51.308(b) and (c). On or before this date, 
the state must revise its plan to provide for review and revision of a 
coordinated LTS for addressing RAVI and regional haze, and the state 
must submit the first such coordinated LTS with its first regional haze 
SIP. Future coordinated LTSs, and periodic progress reports evaluating 
progress towards RPGs, must be submitted consistent with the schedule 
for SIP submission and periodic progress reports set forth in 40 CFR 
51.308(f) and 51.308(g), respectively. The periodic review of a state's 
LTS must report on both regional haze and RAVI impairment and must be 
submitted to EPA as a SIP revision.

G. Monitoring Strategy and Other Implementation Plan Requirements

    Section 51.308(d)(4) of the RHR includes the requirement for a 
monitoring strategy for measuring, characterizing, and reporting of 
regional haze visibility impairment that is representative of all 
mandatory Class I areas within the state. The strategy must be 
coordinated with the monitoring strategy required in section 51.305 for 
RAVI. Compliance with this requirement may be met through 
``participation'' in the IMPROVE network, i.e., review and use of 
monitoring data from the network. The monitoring strategy is due with 
the first regional haze SIP, and it must be reviewed every five years. 
The monitoring strategy must also provide for additional monitoring 
sites if the IMPROVE network is not sufficient to determine whether 
RPGs will be met.
    The SIP must also provide for the following:
     Procedures for using monitoring data and other information 
in a state with mandatory Class I areas to determine the contribution 
of emissions from within the state to regional haze visibility 
impairment at Class I areas both within and outside the state;
     Procedures for using monitoring data and other information 
in a state with no mandatory Class I areas to determine the 
contribution of emissions from within the state to regional haze 
visibility impairment at Class I areas in other states;
     Reporting of all visibility monitoring data to the 
Administrator at least annually for each Class I area in the state, and 
where possible, in electronic format;
     Developing a statewide inventory of emissions of 
pollutants that are reasonably anticipated to cause or contribute to 
visibility impairment in any Class I area. The inventory must include 
emissions for a baseline year,

[[Page 11458]]

emissions for the most recent year for which data are available, and 
estimates of future projected emissions. A state must also make a 
commitment to update the inventory periodically; and
     Other elements, including reporting, recordkeeping, and 
other measures necessary to assess and report on visibility.
    The RHR requires control strategies to cover an initial 
implementation period extending to the year 2018, with a comprehensive 
reassessment and revision of those strategies, as appropriate, every 10 
years thereafter. Periodic SIP revisions must meet the core 
requirements of section 51.308(d) with the exception of BART. The 
requirement to evaluate sources for BART applies only to the first 
regional haze SIP. Facilities subject to BART must continue to comply 
with the BART provisions of section 51.308(e), as noted above. Periodic 
SIP revisions will assure that the statutory requirement of reasonable 
progress will continue to be met.

H. Consultation With States and Federal Land Managers (FLMs)

    The RHR requires that states consult with FLMs before adopting and 
submitting their SIPs. See 40 CFR 51.308(i). States must provide FLMs 
an opportunity for consultation, in person and at least 60 days prior 
to holding any public hearing on the SIP. This consultation must 
include the opportunity for the FLMs to discuss their assessment of 
impairment of visibility in any Class I area and to offer 
recommendations on the development of the RPGs and on the development 
and implementation of strategies to address visibility impairment. 
Further, a state must include in its SIP a description of how it 
addressed any comments provided by the FLMs. Finally, a SIP must 
provide procedures for continuing consultation between the state and 
FLMs regarding the state's visibility protection program, including 
development and review of SIP revisions, five-year progress reports, 
and the implementation of other programs having the potential to 
contribute to impairment of visibility in Class I areas.

IV. What is EPA's analysis of Georgia's regional haze submittal?

    On February 11, 2010, GA EPD submitted revisions to the Georgia SIP 
to address regional haze in the State's Class I areas as required by 
EPA's RHR. The State supplemented this February 2010 submittal on 
November 19, 2010, with title V permit amendments that contain 
emissions limitations for three facilities.

A. Affected Class I Areas

    Georgia has three Class I areas within its borders: Cohutta 
Wilderness Area, Okefenokee Wilderness Area, and Wolf Island Wilderness 
Area. Georgia is responsible for developing a regional haze SIP that 
addresses these Class I areas and for consulting with other states that 
impact Georgia's Class I areas.
    The Georgia regional haze SIP establishes RPGs for visibility 
improvement at each of these Class I areas and a LTS to achieve those 
RPGs within the first regional haze implementation period ending in 
2018. In developing the LTS for each area, Georgia considered both 
emissions sources inside and outside of Georgia that may cause or 
contribute to visibility impairment in Georgia's Class I areas. The 
State also identified and considered emissions sources within Georgia 
that may cause or contribute to visibility impairment in Class I areas 
in neighboring states as required by 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3). The VISTAS 
RPO worked with the State in developing the technical analyses used to 
make these determinations, including state-by-state contributions to 
visibility impairment in specific Class I areas, which included the 
three areas in Georgia and those areas affected by emissions from 
Georgia.

B. Determination of Baseline, Natural, and Current Visibility 
Conditions

    As required by the RHR and in accordance with EPA's 2003 Natural 
Visibility Guidance, Georgia calculated baseline/current and natural 
visibility conditions for each of its Class I areas, as summarized 
below (and as further described in sections III.B.1 and III.B.2 of 
EPA's TSD to this Federal Register action).
1. Estimating Natural Visibility Conditions
    Natural background visibility, as defined in EPA's 2003 Natural 
Visibility Guidance, is estimated by calculating the expected light 
extinction using default estimates of natural concentrations of fine 
particle components adjusted by site-specific estimates of humidity. 
This calculation uses the IMPROVE equation, which is a formula for 
estimating light extinction from the estimated natural concentrations 
of fine particle components (or from components measured by the IMPROVE 
monitors). As documented in EPA's 2003 Natural Visibility Guidance, EPA 
allows states to use ``refined'' or alternative approaches to 2003 EPA 
guidance to estimate the values that characterize the natural 
visibility conditions of the Class I areas. One alternative approach is 
to develop and justify the use of alternative estimates of natural 
concentrations of fine particle components. Another alternative is to 
use the ``new IMPROVE equation'' that was adopted for use by the 
IMPROVE Steering Committee in December 2005.\8\ The purpose of this 
refinement to the ``old IMPROVE equation'' is to provide more accurate 
estimates of the various factors that affect the calculation of light 
extinction. Georgia opted to use the default estimates for the natural 
concentrations combined with the ``new IMPROVE equation'' for all of 
its areas. Using this approach, natural visibility conditions using the 
new IMPROVE equation were calculated separately for each Class I area 
by VISTAS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ The IMPROVE program is a cooperative measurement effort 
governed by a steering committee composed of representatives from 
Federal agencies (including representatives from EPA and the FLMs) 
and RPOs. The IMPROVE monitoring program was established in 1985 to 
aid the creation of Federal and state implementation plans for the 
protection of visibility in Class I areas. One of the objectives of 
IMPROVE is to identify chemical species and emissions sources 
responsible for existing anthropogenic visibility impairment. The 
IMPROVE program has also been a key participant in visibility-
related research, including the advancement of monitoring 
instrumentation, analysis techniques, visibility modeling, policy 
formulation and source attribution field studies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The new IMPROVE equation takes into account the most recent review 
of the science \9\ and it accounts for the effect of particle size 
distribution on light extinction efficiency of sulfate, nitrate, and 
organic carbon. It also adjusts the mass multiplier for organic carbon 
(particulate organic matter) by increasing it from 1.4 to 1.8. New 
terms are added to the equation to account for light extinction by sea 
salt and light absorption by gaseous nitrogen dioxide. Site-specific 
values are used for Rayleigh scattering (scattering of light due to 
atmospheric gases) to account for the site-specific effects of 
elevation and temperature. Separate relative humidity

[[Page 11459]]

enhancement factors are used for small and large size distributions of 
ammonium sulfate and ammonium nitrate and for sea salt. The terms for 
the remaining contributors, elemental carbon (light-absorbing carbon), 
fine soil, and coarse mass terms, do not change between the original 
and new IMPROVE equations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ The science behind the revised IMPROVE equation is 
summarized in numerous published papers. See, e.g., Hand, J.L., and 
Malm, W.C., 2006, Review of the IMPROVE Equation for Estimating 
Ambient Light Extinction Coefficients--Final Report. March 2006. 
Prepared for Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual Environments 
(IMPROVE), Colorado State University, Cooperative Institute for 
Research in the Atmosphere, Fort Collins, Colorado. http://vista.cira.colostate.edu/improve/publications/GrayLit/016_IMPROVEeqReview/IMPROVEeqReview.htm; and Pitchford, Marc., 2006, 
Natural Haze Levels II: Application of the New IMPROVE Algorithm to 
Natural Species Concentrations Estimates. Final Report of the 
Natural Haze Levels II Committee to the RPO Monitoring/Data Analysis 
Workgroup. September 2006 http://vista.cira.colostate.edu/improve/Publications/GrayLit/029_NaturalCondII/naturalhazelevelsIIreport.ppt.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Estimating Baseline Conditions
    GA EPD estimated baseline visibility conditions at the Georgia 
Class I areas using available monitoring data from two IMPROVE 
monitoring sites, one in the Okefenokee Wilderness Area and the other 
in the Cohutta Wilderness Area. The Wolf Island Wilderness Area does 
not contain an IMPROVE monitor. In cases where onsite monitoring is not 
available, 40 CFR 51.308(d)(2)(i) requires states to use the most 
representative monitoring available for the 2000-2004 period to 
establish baseline visibility conditions, in consultation with EPA. 
Georgia used, and EPA concurs, with the use of 2000-2004 data from the 
IMPROVE monitor at the Okefenokee Wilderness Area for the Wolf Island 
Wilderness Area. The IMPROVE Steering Committee considers the IMPROVE 
monitor at the Okefenokee Wilderness Area to be representative of 
visibility at Wolf Island. Okefenokee is the nearest Class I area to 
Wolf Island, and they possess similar characteristics, such as 
meteorology and topography.
    As explained in section III.B, baseline visibility conditions are 
the same as current conditions for the first regional haze SIP. A five-
year average of the 2000 to 2004 monitoring data was calculated for 
each of the 20 percent worst and 20 percent best visibility days at 
each Georgia Class I area. IMPROVE data records for Okefenokee for the 
period 2000 to 2004 meet the EPA requirements for data 
completeness.\10\ IMPROVE data for Cohutta did not meet completeness 
criteria in the years 2000, 2001, and 2003. Data records for 2001 and 
2003 were filled using data substitution procedures.\11\ There was too 
little data in 2000 to perform data filling.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ EPA's 2003 Tracking Progress Guidance, page 2-8.
    \11\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Appendix B.1 of the Georgia regional haze SIP lists the 20 percent 
best and worst days for the baseline period of 2000-2004 for the 
Okefenokee and Cohutta areas. This data is also provided at the 
following Web site: http://www.metro4-sesarm.org/vistas/SesarmBext_20BW.htm.
3. Summary of Baseline and Natural Conditions
    For the Georgia Class I areas, baseline visibility conditions on 
the 20 percent worst days range between approximately 27 and 30.5 
deciviews. Natural visibility in these areas is predicted to be between 
approximately 10.5 and 11.5 deciviews on the 20 percent worst days. The 
natural and baseline conditions for Georgia's Class I areas for both 
the 20 percent worst and best days are presented in Table 1 below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ The term, ``dv,'' is the abbreviation for ``deciview.''

 Table 1--Natural Background and Baseline Conditions for Georgia's Class
                                 I Areas
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       Average for 20    Average for 20
            Class I area                percent worst     percent best
                                       days  (dv \12\)     days  (dv)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                      Natural Background Conditions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cohutta Wilderness Area.............             10.78              4.32
Okefenokee Wilderness Area..........             11.21              5.31
Wolf Island Wilderness Area.........             11.21              5.31
------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Baseline Visibility Conditions (2000-2004)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cohutta Wilderness Area.............             30.25             13.77
Okefenokee Wilderness Area..........             27.13             15.23
Wolf Island Wilderness Area.........             27.13             15.23
------------------------------------------------------------------------

4. Uniform Rate of Progress
    In setting the RPGs, Georgia considered the uniform rate of 
progress needed to reach natural visibility conditions by 2064 
(``glidepath'') and the emissions reduction measures needed to achieve 
that rate of progress over the period of the SIP to meet the 
requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1)(i)(B). As explained in EPA's 
Reasonable Progress Guidance document, the uniform rate of progress is 
not a presumptive target, and RPGs may be greater than, less than, or 
equivalent to the glidepath.
    The State's implementation plan presents two sets of graphs, one 
for the 20 percent best days, and one for the 20 percent worst days, 
for its three Class I areas. Georgia constructed the graph for the 
worst days (i.e., the glidepath) in accordance with EPA's 2003 Tracking 
Progress Guidance by plotting a straight graphical line from the 
baseline level of visibility impairment for 2000-2004 to the level of 
visibility conditions representing no anthropogenic impairment in 2064 
for its three areas. For the best days, the graph includes a 
horizontal, straight line spanning from baseline conditions in 2004 out 
to 2018 to depict no degradation in visibility over the implementation 
period of the SIP. Georgia's SIP shows that the State's RPGs for its 
areas provide for improvement in visibility for the 20 percent worst 
days over the period of the implementation plan and ensure no 
degradation in visibility for the 20 percent best days over the same 
period, in accordance with 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1).
    For the Cohutta Class I area, the overall visibility improvement 
necessary to reach natural conditions is the difference between 
baseline visibility of 30.25 deciviews for the 20 percent worst days 
and natural conditions of 10.78 deciviews, i.e., 19.47 deciviews. Over 
the 60-year period from 2004 to 2064, this would require an average 
improvement of 0.325 deciviews per year to reach natural conditions. 
Hence, for the 14-year period from 2004 to 2018, in order to achieve 
visibility improvements at least equivalent to the uniform rate of 
progress for the 20 percent worst days at the Cohutta Wilderness Area, 
Georgia would need to project at least 4.55

[[Page 11460]]

deciviews (approximately) over the first implementation period (i.e., 
0.325 deciviews x 14 years = 4.55 deciviews) of visibility improvement 
from the 30.25 deciviews baseline in 2004, resulting in visibility 
levels at or below approximately 25.7 deciviews in 2018. As discussed 
below in section IV.C.7, ``Reasonable Progress Goals,'' Georgia 
projects a 7.45 deciview improvement to visibility in the Cohutta 
Wilderness Area from the 30.25 deciview baseline to 22.8 deciviews in 
2018 for the 20 percent most impaired days, and a 2.02 deciview 
improvement to 11.75 deciviews from the baseline visibility of 13.77 
deciviews for the 20 percent least impaired days.
    For the Okefenokee and Wolf Island Class I areas, the overall 
visibility improvement necessary to reach natural conditions is the 
difference between baseline visibility of 27.13 deciviews for the 20 
percent worst days and natural conditions of 11.21 deciviews, i.e., 
15.92 deciviews. Over the 60-year period from 2004 to 2064, this would 
require an average improvement of 0.265 deciviews per year to reach 
natural conditions. Hence, for the 14-year period from 2004 to 2018, in 
order to achieve visibility improvements at least equivalent to the 
uniform rate of progress for the 20 percent worst days at the 
Okefenokee and Wolf Island Wilderness Areas, Georgia would need to 
project at least 3.71 deciviews (approximately) over the first 
implementation period (i.e., 0.265 deciviews x 14 years = 3.71 
deciviews) of visibility improvement from the 27.13 deciviews baseline 
in 2004, resulting in visibility levels at or below 23.42 deciviews in 
2018. As discussed below in section IV.C.7, ``Reasonable Progress 
Goals,'' Georgia projects a 3.31 deciview improvement to visibility for 
the Okefenokee and Wolf Island Class I areas from the 27.13 deciview 
baseline to 23.82 deciviews in 2018 for the 20 percent most impaired 
days, and a 1.31 deciview improvement to 13.92 deciviews from the 
baseline visibility of 15.23 deciviews for the 20 percent least 
impaired days.

C. Long-Term Strategy/Strategies

    As described in section III.E of this action, the LTS is a 
compilation of state-specific control measures relied on by the state 
for achieving its RPGs. Georgia's LTS for the first implementation 
period addresses the emissions reductions from Federal, state, and 
local controls that take effect in the State from the end of the 
baseline period starting in 2004 until 2018. The Georgia LTS was 
developed by the State, in coordination with the VISTAS RPO, through an 
evaluation of the following components: (1) Identification of the 
emissions units within Georgia and in surrounding states that likely 
have the largest impacts currently on visibility at the State's three 
Class I areas; (2) estimation of emissions reductions for 2018 based on 
all controls required or expected under Federal and state regulations 
for the 2004-2018 period (including BART); (3) comparison of projected 
visibility improvement with the uniform rate of progress for the 
State's Class I areas; and (4) application of the four statutory 
factors in the reasonable progress analysis for the identified 
emissions units to determine if additional reasonable controls were 
required.
    In a separate action proposing limited disapproval of the regional 
haze SIPs of a number of states, EPA noted that these states relied on 
the trading programs of CAIR to satisfy the BART requirement and the 
requirement for a LTS sufficient to achieve the state-adopted RPGs. See 
76 FR 82219 (December 30, 2011). In that action, EPA proposed a limited 
disapproval of Georgia's regional haze SIP submittal insofar as the SIP 
relied on CAIR. For that reason, EPA is not taking action on that 
aspect of Georgia's regional haze SIP in this rulemaking. Comments on 
the December 30, 2011, proposed determination are accepted at Docket ID 
No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0729. The comment period for EPA's December 30, 
2011, proposed rulemaking is scheduled to end on February 28, 2012.
1. Emissions Inventory for 2018 With Federal and State Control 
Requirements
    The emissions inventory used in the regional haze technical 
analyses was developed by VISTAS with assistance from Georgia. The 2018 
emissions inventory was developed by projecting 2002 emissions and 
applying reductions expected from Federal and state regulations 
affecting the emissions of VOC and the visibility-impairing pollutants 
NOX, PM, and SO2. The BART Guidelines direct 
states to exercise judgment in deciding whether VOC and NH3 
impair visibility in their Class I area(s). As discussed further in 
section IV.C.3, VISTAS performed modeling sensitivity analyses, which 
demonstrated that anthropogenic emissions of VOC and NH3 do 
not significantly impair visibility in the VISTAS region. Thus, while 
emissions inventories were also developed for NH3 and VOC, 
and applicable Federal VOC reductions were incorporated into Georgia's 
regional haze analyses, Georgia did not further evaluate NH3 
and VOC emissions sources for potential controls under BART or 
reasonable progress.
    VISTAS developed emissions for five inventory source 
classifications: stationary point and area sources, off-road and on-
road mobile sources, and biogenic sources. Stationary point sources are 
those sources that emit greater than a specified tonnage per year, 
depending on the pollutant, with data provided at the facility level. 
Stationary area sources are those sources whose individual emissions 
are relatively small, but due to the large number of these sources, the 
collective emissions from the source category could be significant. 
VISTAS estimated emissions on a countywide level for the inventory 
categories of: (a) Stationary area sources; (b) off-road (or non-road) 
mobile sources (i.e., equipment that can move but does not use 
roadways); and (c) biogenic sources (which are natural sources of 
emissions, such as trees). On-road mobile source emissions are 
estimated by vehicle type and road type, and are summed to the 
countywide level.
    There are many Federal and state control programs being implemented 
that VISTAS and Georgia anticipate will reduce emissions between the 
end of the baseline period and 2018. Emissions reductions from these 
control programs are projected to achieve substantial visibility 
improvement by 2018 in the Georgia Class I areas. The control programs 
relied upon by Georgia include: CAIR; Federal 2007 heavy duty diesel 
(2007) engine standards for on-road trucks and buses; Federal Tier 2 
tailpipe controls for on-road vehicles; Federal large spark ignition 
and recreational vehicle controls; EPA's non-road diesel rules; Georgia 
Rule 391-3-1-.02(2)(yy), ``Emissions of Nitrogen Oxides from Major 
Sources'' requiring NOX reasonably available control 
technology for subject sources in the Atlanta 1-hour ozone non-
attainment area; Georgia Rule 391-3-1-.02(2)(sss), ``Multipollutant 
Control for Electric Utility Steam Generating Units;'' and 
NOX and/or VOC reductions from the control rules in 1-hour 
ozone SIPs for Atlanta, Birmingham, and Northern Kentucky. Controls 
from various Federal Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) rules 
were also utilized in the development of the 2018 emissions inventory 
projections. These MACT rules include the industrial boiler/process 
heater MACT (referred to as ``Industrial Boiler MACT''), the combustion 
turbine and reciprocating internal combustion engines MACTs, and the 
VOC 2-, 4-, 7-, and 10-year MACT standards.

[[Page 11461]]

    Effective July 30, 2007, the D.C. Circuit mandated the vacatur and 
remand of the Industrial Boiler MACT Rule.\13\ This MACT was vacated 
since it was directly affected by the vacatur and remand of the 
Commercial and Industrial Solid Waste Incinerator Definition Rule. EPA 
proposed a new Industrial Boiler MACT rule to address the vacatur on 
June 4, 2010 (75 FR 32006) and issued a final rule on March 21, 2011 
(76 FR 15608). The VISTAS modeling included emissions reductions from 
the vacated Industrial Boiler MACT rule, and Georgia did not redo its 
modeling analysis when the rule was re-issued. Even though Georgia's 
modeling is based on the vacated Industrial Boiler MACT limits, the 
State's modeling conclusions are unlikely to be affected because the 
expected reductions due to the vacated rule were relatively small 
compared to the State's total SO2, PM2.5, and 
coarse particulate matter (PM10) emissions in 2018 (i.e., 
0.1 to 0.7 percent, depending on the pollutant, of the projected 2018 
SO2, PM2.5, and PM10 inventory). Thus, 
EPA does not expect that differences between the vacated and final 
Industrial Boiler MACT emissions limits would affect the adequacy of 
the existing Georgia regional haze SIP. If there is a need to address 
discrepancies between projected emissions reductions from the vacated 
Industrial Boiler MACT and the Industrial Boiler MACT issued March 21, 
2011 (76 FR 15608), EPA expects Georgia to do so in the State's five-
year progress report.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See NRDC v. EPA, 489 F.3d 1250 (D.C. Cir. 2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Tables 2 and 3, below, summarize the 2002 baseline and 2018 
estimated emissions inventories for Georgia.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ Tables 2 and 3 exclude biogenic emissions data provided in 
the February 2010 Georgia regional haze SIP submittal.

                                       Table 2--2002 Emissions Inventory Summary for Georgia (tons per year (tpy))
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 VOC             NOX            PM2.5           PM10             NH3            SO2
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point....................................................        34,964.3       197,376.9        22,531.7        33,077.3         3,669.2      571,410.9
Area.....................................................       333,044.8        49,987.4       159,437.8       757,656.1        83,066.0       60,370.2
On-Road Mobile...........................................       283,420.6       307,731.7         5,167.8         7,245.9        10,546.2       12,183.5
Off-Road Mobile..........................................        85,965.4        97,961.4         8,226.4         8,617.9            60.4        9,005.4
                                                          ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total................................................       737,395.1       653,057.4       195,363.7       806,597.2        97,341.8      652,970
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                               Table 3--2018 Emissions Inventory Summary for Georgia (tpy)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                VOC             NOX            PM2.5           PM10             NH3             SO2
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point...................................................        43,097.8       125,680.0        36,297.4        48,005.1         6,474.4       127,863.6
Area....................................................       353,224.5        55,518.5       180,697.2       944,009.4       102,112.4        62,636.2
On-Road Mobile..........................................       109,763.3       102,179.2         2,380.2         4,843.6        14,873.2         1,457.0
Off-Road Mobile.........................................        56,760.7        64,578.8         5,729.7         6,015.1            78.6         1,708.8
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total...............................................       562,846.3       347,956.5       225,104.5     1,002,873.2       123,538.6       193,665.6
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Modeling To Support the LTS and Determine Visibility Improvement for 
Uniform Rate of Progress
    VISTAS performed modeling for the regional haze LTS for the 10 
southeastern states, including Georgia. The modeling analysis is a 
complex technical evaluation that began with selection of the modeling 
system. VISTAS used the following modeling system:
     Meteorological Model: The Pennsylvania State University/
National Center for Atmospheric Research Mesoscale Meteorological Model 
is a nonhydrostatic, prognostic meteorological model routinely used for 
urban- and regional-scale photochemical, PM2.5, and regional 
haze regulatory modeling studies.
     Emissions Model: The Sparse Matrix Operator Kernel 
Emissions modeling system is an emissions modeling system that 
generates hourly gridded speciated emissions inputs of mobile, non-road 
mobile, area, point, fire, and biogenic emissions sources for 
photochemical grid models.
     Air Quality Model: The EPA's Models-3/Community Multiscale 
Air Quality (CMAQ) modeling system is a photochemical grid model 
capable of addressing ozone, PM, visibility, and acid deposition at a 
regional scale. The photochemical model selected for this study was 
CMAQ version 4.5. It was modified through VISTAS with a module for 
Secondary Organics Aerosols in an open and transparent manner that was 
also subjected to outside peer review.
    CMAQ modeling of regional haze in the VISTAS region for 2002 and 
2018 was carried out on a grid of 12x12 kilometer cells that covers the 
10 VISTAS states (Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, 
North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia, West Virginia) and 
states adjacent to them. This grid is nested within a larger national 
CMAQ modeling grid of 36x36 kilometer cells that covers the continental 
United States, portions of Canada and Mexico, and portions of the 
Atlantic and Pacific Oceans along the east and west coasts. Selection 
of a representative period of meteorology is crucial for evaluating 
baseline air quality conditions and projecting future changes in air 
quality due to changes in emissions of visibility-impairing pollutants. 
VISTAS conducted an in-depth analysis which resulted in the selection 
of the entire year of 2002 (January 1-December 31) as the best period 
of meteorology available for conducting the CMAQ modeling. The VISTAS 
states modeling was developed consistent with EPA's Guidance on the Use 
of Models and Other Analyses for Demonstrating Attainment of Air 
Quality Goals for Ozone, PM2.5, and Regional Haze, located 
at http://www.epa.gov/scram001/guidance/guide/final-03-pm-rh-guidance.pdf, EPA-454/B-07-002, April 2007, and EPA document, Emissions 
Inventory Guidance for Implementation of Ozone and Particulate Matter 
National Ambient Air

[[Page 11462]]

Quality Standards (NAAQS) and Regional Haze Regulations, located at 
http://www.epa.gov/ttnchie1/eidocs/eiguid/index.html, EPA-454/R-05-001, 
August 2005, updated November 2005 (``EPA's Modeling Guidance'').
    VISTAS examined the model performance of the regional modeling for 
the areas of interest before determining whether the CMAQ model results 
were suitable for use in the regional haze assessment of the LTS and 
for use in the modeling assessment. The modeling assessment predicts 
future levels of emissions and visibility impairment used to support 
the LTS and to compare predicted, modeled visibility levels with those 
on the uniform rate of progress. In keeping with the objective of the 
CMAQ modeling platform, air quality model performance was evaluated 
using graphical and statistical assessments based on measured ozone, 
fine particles, and acid deposition from various monitoring networks 
and databases for the 2002 base year. VISTAS used a diverse set of 
statistical parameters from the EPA's Modeling Guidance to stress and 
examine the model and modeling inputs. Once VISTAS determined the model 
performance to be acceptable, VISTAS used the model to assess the 2018 
RPGs using the current and future year air quality modeling 
predictions, and compared the RPGs to the uniform rate of progress.
    In accordance with 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3), the State of Georgia 
provided the appropriate supporting documentation for all required 
analyses used to determine the State's LTS. The technical analyses and 
modeling used to develop the glidepath and to support the LTS are 
consistent with EPA's RHR and interim and final EPA Modeling Guidance. 
EPA proposes to accept the VISTAS technical modeling to support the LTS 
and to determine visibility improvement for the uniform rate of 
progress because the modeling system was chosen and simulated according 
to EPA Modeling Guidance. EPA proposes to agree with the VISTAS model 
performance procedures and results, and that the CMAQ is an appropriate 
tool for the regional haze assessments for the Georgia LTS and regional 
haze SIP.
3. Relative Contributions to Visibility Impairment: Pollutants, Source 
Categories, and Geographic Areas
    An important step toward identifying reasonable progress measures 
is to identify the key pollutants contributing to visibility impairment 
at each Class I area. To understand the relative benefit of further 
reducing emissions from different pollutants, source sectors, and 
geographic areas, VISTAS developed emissions sensitivity model runs 
using CMAQ to evaluate visibility and air quality impacts from various 
groups of emissions and pollutant scenarios in the Class I areas on the 
20 percent worst visibility days.
    Regarding which pollutants are most significantly impacting 
visibility in the VISTAS region, VISTAS' contribution assessment, based 
on IMPROVE monitoring data, demonstrated that ammonium sulfate is the 
major contributor to PM2.5 mass and visibility impairment at 
Class I areas in the VISTAS and neighboring states. On the 20 percent 
worst visibility days in 2000-2004, ammonium sulfate accounted for 75 
to 87 percent of the calculated light extinction at the inland Class I 
areas in VISTAS, and 69 to 74 percent of the calculated light 
extinction for all but one of the coastal Class I areas in the VISTAS 
states. In particular, for the Okefenokee and Cohutta Wilderness Areas, 
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. 
Particulate organic matter (organic carbon) accounted for 20 percent or 
less of the light extinction on the 20 percent worst visibility days at 
the VISTAS Class I areas.
    VISTAS grouped its 18 Class I areas into two types, either 
``coastal'' or ``inland'' (sometimes referred to as ``mountain'') 
sites, based on common/similar characteristics (e.g., terrain, 
geography, meteorology), to better represent variations in model 
sensitivity and performance within the VISTAS region and to describe 
the common factors influencing visibility conditions in the two types 
of Class I areas. The Cohutta Class I area is considered an ``inland'' 
area and the Okefenokee and Wolf Island Class I areas are both 
``coastal'' areas.
    Results from VISTAS' emissions sensitivity analyses indicate that 
sulfate particles resulting from SO2 emissions are the 
dominant contributor to visibility impairment on the 20 percent worst 
days at all Class I areas in VISTAS, including the three Georgia areas. 
Georgia concluded that reducing SO2 emissions from EGU and 
non-EGU point sources in the VISTAS states would have the greatest 
visibility benefits for the Georgia Class I areas. Because ammonium 
nitrate is a small contributor to PM2.5 mass and visibility 
impairment on the 20 percent worst days at the inland Class I areas in 
VISTAS, the benefits of reducing NOX and NH3 
emissions at these sites are small.
    The VISTAS sensitivity analyses show that VOC emissions from 
biogenic sources such as vegetation also contribute to visibility 
impairment. However, control of these biogenic sources of VOC would be 
extremely difficult, if not impossible. The anthropogenic sources of 
VOC emissions are minor compared to the biogenic sources. Therefore, 
controlling anthropogenic sources of VOC emissions would have little, 
if any, visibility benefits at the Class I areas in the VISTAS region, 
including those in Georgia. The sensitivity analyses also show that 
reducing primary carbon from point sources, ground level sources, or 
fires is projected to have small to no visibility benefit at the VISTAS 
Class I areas.
    Georgia considered the factors listed in 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(v) and 
in section III.E of this action to develop its LTS as described below. 
Georgia, in conjunction with VISTAS, demonstrated in its SIP that 
elemental carbon (a product of highway and non-road diesel engines, 
agricultural burning, prescribed fires, and wildfires) and fine soils 
(a product of construction activities and activities that generate 
fugitive dust), are relatively minor contributors to visibility 
impairment at the Class I areas in Georgia. Additionally, the State, in 
conjunction with VISTAS, demonstrated that the benefits of reducing 
point source ammonia emissions are small. With regard to area source 
ammonia emissions, while reducing ammonia emissions would be relatively 
more beneficial for Georgia's two coastal Class I areas than the 
Cohutta area, these emissions are primarily from agricultural activity, 
specifically fertilizing operations and animal farming. The State 
explains in its SIP that because there are no economically feasible 
options for controlling these types of area sources of ammonia 
emissions, and GA EPD does not have regulatory authority to control 
these sources, Georgia did not further evaluate this source category 
for control.
    Georgia considered agricultural and forestry smoke management 
techniques to address visibility impacts from elemental carbon. On July 
11, 2008, GA EPD entered into a memorandum of understanding with the 
Georgia Forestry and Georgia Department of Natural Resources Wildlife 
Resources Division adopting a smoke management program that utilizes 
basic smoke management practices and addresses the issues laid

[[Page 11463]]

out in the EPA's 1998 Interim Air Quality Policy on Wildland and 
Prescribed Fires available at: http://www.epa.gov/ttncaaa1/t1/memoranda/firefnl.pdf. With regard to fine soils, the State considered 
those activities that generate fugitive dust, including construction 
activities. Georgia's Rules for Air Quality Control include 
requirements for precautions to prevent fugitive dust from becoming 
airborne and to limit the opacity of fugitive emissions to less than 20 
percent. The requirements of Georgia Rule 391-3-1-.02(n), ``Fugitive 
Dust,'' include preventive measures for construction activities.
    EPA preliminarily concurs with the State's technical demonstration 
showing that elemental carbon, fine soils, and ammonia are not 
significant contributors to visibility in the State's Class I areas, 
and therefore, proposes to find that Georgia has adequately satisfied 
40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(v). EPA's TSD to this Federal Register action and 
Georgia's SIP provide more details on the State's consideration of 
these factors for Georgia's LTS.
    The emissions sensitivity analyses conducted by VISTAS predict that 
reductions in SO2 emissions from EGU and non-EGU industrial 
point sources will result in the greatest improvements in visibility in 
the Class I areas in the VISTAS region, more than any other visibility-
impairing pollutant. Specific to Georgia, the VISTAS sensitivity 
analysis projects visibility benefits in the Georgia Class I areas and 
Class I areas outside the State impacted by Georgia sources from 
SO2 reductions from EGUs in the VISTAS states. Additional, 
smaller benefits are projected from SO2 emissions reductions 
from non-utility industrial point sources. SO2 emissions 
contributions to visibility impairment from other RPO regions are 
comparatively small in contrast to the VISTAS states' contributions, 
and thus, controlling sources outside of the VISTAS region is predicted 
to provide less significant improvements in visibility in the Class I 
areas in VISTAS.
    Taking the VISTAS sensitivity analyses results into consideration, 
Georgia concluded that reducing SO2 emissions from EGU and 
non-EGU point sources in certain VISTAS states would have the greatest 
visibility benefits for the Georgia Class I areas. The State chose to 
focus solely on evaluating certain SO2 sources contributing 
to visibility impairment to the State's Class I areas for additional 
emissions reductions for reasonable progress in this first 
implementation period (described in sections IV.C.4 and IV.C.5 of this 
action). EPA proposes to agree with the State's analyses and 
conclusions used to determine the pollutants and source categories that 
most contribute to visibility impairment in the Georgia Class I areas, 
and proposes to find the State's approach to focus on developing a LTS 
that includes largely additional measures for point sources of 
SO2 emissions to be appropriate.
    SO2 sources for which it is demonstrated that no 
additional controls are reasonable in this current implementation 
period will not be exempted from future assessments for controls in 
subsequent implementation periods or, when appropriate, from the five-
year periodic SIP reviews. In future implementation periods, additional 
controls on these SO2 sources evaluated in the first 
implementation period may be determined to be reasonable, based on a 
reasonable progress control evaluation, for continued progress toward 
natural conditions for the 20 percent worst days and to avoid further 
degradation of the 20 percent best days. Similarly, in subsequent 
implementation periods, the State may use different criteria for 
identifying sources for evaluation and may consider other pollutants as 
visibility conditions change over time.
4. Procedure for Identifying Sources To Evaluate for Reasonable 
Progress Controls in Georgia and Surrounding Areas
    As discussed in section IV.C.3 of this action, through 
comprehensive evaluations by VISTAS and the Southern Appalachian 
Mountains Initiative (SAMI),\15\ the VISTAS states concluded that 
sulfate particles resulting from SO2 emissions account for 
the greatest portion of the regional haze affecting the Class I areas 
in VISTAS states, including those in Georgia. Utility and non-utility 
boilers are the main sources of SO2 emissions within the 
southeastern United States. VISTAS developed a methodology for Georgia 
that enables the State to focus its reasonable progress analysis on 
those geographic regions and source categories that impact visibility 
at each of its Class I areas. Recognizing that there was neither 
sufficient time nor adequate resources available to evaluate all 
emissions units within a given area of influence (AOI) around each of 
the Class I areas that Georgia's sources impact, the State established 
a threshold to determine which emissions units would be evaluated for 
reasonable progress control. In applying this methodology, GA EPD first 
calculated the fractional contribution to visibility impairment from 
all emissions units within the SO2 AOI for each of its Class 
I areas, and those surrounding areas in other states potentially 
impacted by emissions from emissions units in Georgia. The State then 
identified those emissions units with a contribution of one half (0.5) 
percent or more to the visibility impairment at that particular Class I 
area, and evaluated each of these units for control measures for 
reasonable progress using the following four ``reasonable progress 
factors'' required under 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1)(i)(A): (i) Cost of 
compliance; (ii) time necessary for compliance; (iii) energy and non-
air quality environmental impacts of compliance; and (iv) remaining 
useful life of the emissions unit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ Prior to VISTAS, the southern states cooperated in a 
voluntary regional partnership ``to identify and recommend 
reasonable measures to remedy existing and prevent future adverse 
effects from human-induced air pollution on the air quality related 
values of the Southern Appalachian Mountains.'' States cooperated 
with FLMs, EPA, industry, environmental organizations, and academia 
to complete a technical assessment of the impacts of acid 
deposition, ozone, and fine particles on sensitive resources in the 
Southern Appalachians. The SAMI Final Report was delivered in August 
2002.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Georgia's SO2 AOI methodology captured greater than 70 
percent of the total point source SO2 contribution to 
visibility impairment in two of Georgia's three Class I areas and 
required an evaluation of more than 30 units. At the remaining area, 
Cohutta Wilderness Area, the 0.5-percent threshold represents 69 
percent of the total SO2 contribution to visibility 
impairment and required an evaluation of 38 units. Capturing a 
significantly greater percentage of the total contribution would 
involve an evaluation of many more emissions units that have 
substantially less impact. EPA believes the approach developed by 
VISTAS and implemented for the Class I areas in Georgia is a reasonable 
methodology to prioritize the most significant contributors to regional 
haze and to identify sources to assess for reasonable progress control 
in the State's Class I area. The approach is consistent with EPA's 
Reasonable Progress Guidance. The technical approach of VISTAS and 
Georgia was objective and based on several analyses including the 
evaluation of a large universe of emissions units within and 
surrounding the State of Georgia and all of the 18 VISTAS Class I 
areas. It also included an analysis of the VISTAS emissions units 
affecting nearby Class I areas surrounding the VISTAS states that are 
located in other RPOs' Class I areas.

[[Page 11464]]

5. Application of the Four CAA Factors in the Reasonable Progress 
Analysis
    Under Georgia's state rule 391-3-1-.02(13), ``Clean Air Interstate 
Rule SO2 Annual Trading Program,'' SO2 emissions 
from Georgia EGUs will be capped at 149,140 tons in 2015, a 70-percent 
reduction from 2002 actual emissions. GA EPD concluded that additional 
EGU control for SO2 during this time period is not 
reasonable for the EGU sources that contribute greater than 0.5 percent 
to visibility impairment at Class I areas that are clearly projected to 
meet or exceed the uniform rate of progress in 2018. However, for five 
EGUs at three facilities owned by Georgia Power (see Table 4) that meet 
the State's minimum threshold for reasonable progress evaluation at 
Class I areas not clearly at or below the glidepath (Okefenokee and 
Wolf Island Wilderness Areas), GA EPD did consider additional controls.
    GA EPD initially identified 24 additional non-EGU emissions units 
at 13 facilities in Georgia (see Table 4) which meet the State's 
minimum threshold for a reasonable progress control evaluation (i.e., 
because they were modeled to fall within the SO2 AOI of any 
Class I area and have a 0.5 percent or greater contribution to the 
sulfate visibility impairment in at least one Class I area).\16\ GA EPD 
later determined, based on updated data, that of these 24 non-EGU 
units, seven units at four facilities would not contribute 0.5 percent 
or greater of the total sulfate visibility impairment at any Class I 
area in 2018 and thus, these seven units were not subject to a 
reasonable progress control evaluation. In addition, six units at three 
facilities requested and received emissions limits to reduce the 
projected sulfate visibility impairment from each emissions unit to 
less than 0.5 percent. Finally, one of the emissions units is subject 
to BART review under the RHR. As discussed in EPA's Reasonable Progress 
Guidance, since the BART analysis is based, in part, on an assessment 
of many of the same factors that must be addressed in establishing the 
RPG, EPA believes it is reasonable to conclude that any control 
requirements imposed in the BART determination also satisfy the RPG-
related requirements for source review in the first implementation 
period.\17\ Therefore, reasonable progress control reviews were 
conducted on the remaining 10 non-EGU emissions units at five 
facilities and five EGUs at three facilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See also EPA's TSD, section III.C.2, fractional 
contribution analysis tables for each Class I area, excerpted from 
the Georgia SIP, Appendix H.2.
    \17\ EPA's Reasonable Progress Guidance, pages 4.2-4.3.

   Table 4--Georgia Facilities Subject to Reasonable Progress Analysis
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Facilities With Emissions Unit(s) Subject to Reasonable Progress
                                Analysis
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        Georgia Pacific--Brunswick
                                         Cellulose, Power Boiler 4 (F1),
                                         Recovery Boiler R407 (M24).
                                        Georgia Pacific--Cedar Springs,
                                         Power Boilers U500, U501,
                                         Recovery Boiler R402.
                                        Georgia Pacific--Savannah River
                                         Mill, Boilers B001, B002, B003.
                                        Georgia Power--Plant Kraft,
                                         Steam Generators (SG) 1, 2, 3.
                                        Georgia Power--Plant Mitchell,
                                         SG 3.
                                        Georgia Power--Plant McIntosh,
                                         SG 1.
                                        International Paper--Savannah
                                         Mill, Power Boiler 13.
                                        Temple-Inland Rome Linerboard,
                                         Power Boiler 4.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Facilities With Emissions Unit(s) Not Subject to Reasonable Progress
                                Analysis
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        Non-EGUs Subject to BART
                                           Interstate Paper, Power
                                            Boiler F1.
                                        Not Subject to Evaluation Based
                                         on Updated Information
                                           Miller Brewing, Boilers B001,
                                            B002.
                                           Mount Vernon Mills, Boilers E
                                            U 03, E U 04.
                                           Savannah Sugar Refinery,
                                            Boiler U161.
                                           Mohawk Industries, Boilers
                                            BL06, BL07.
                                        Exempted With Additional
                                         Emission Limits
                                           Packaging Corporation of
                                            America, C E Boiler.
                                           Rayonier Performance Fibers--
                                            Jessup Mill, Power Boilers
                                            2, 3, Recovery Furnace 1,2.
                                           Southern States Phosphate and
                                            Fertilizer, Sulfuric Acid
                                            Plant 2.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. Facilities with Emissions Unit(s) Subject to Reasonable Progress 
Analysis

    The RHR requires that states consider the following factors and 
demonstrate how these factors were taken into consideration in 
selecting the RPGs: costs of compliance; time necessary for compliance; 
energy and non-air quality environmental impacts of compliance; and 
remaining useful life of any potentially-affected sources. As stated 
previously, GA EPD performed reasonable progress control analyses for 
15 emissions units. The results of GA EPD's analyses are summarized 
below, followed by EPA's assessment.
1. Georgia Pacific--Brunswick Cellulose
(a). Power Boiler 4 (F1)
    Georgia Pacific's Brunswick Cellulose facility is located in Glynn 
County near the Georgia coast. Power Boiler No. 4 is an 800 million 
British thermal units per hour (MMBtu/hr) boiler that burns primarily 
No. 6 fuel oil and wood waste, including bark. The boiler is also 
permitted to burn tire-derived fuel (TDF) and wastewater treatment 
sludge. The sulfur content of the fuel oil is three percent or less.
    Power Boiler 4 at the Brunswick Cellulose facility meets Georgia's 
minimum threshold for reasonable progress control evaluation. The unit 
contributes to the total sulfate visibility impairment at two Class I 
areas (i.e., approximately 12.6 percent at Wolf Island and 3.9 percent 
at Okefenokee). The State noted in its SIP that these contributions are 
the highest level of visibility impairment contribution to any Class I 
area caused by any single emissions unit that GA EPD analyzed. The 2018 
projected SO2 emissions developed by VISTAS are 1,642 tpy. 
However, the boiler had already

[[Page 11465]]

reduced emissions to approximately 1,099 tpy due to a 2002 modification 
achieving higher efficiency.
    The reasonable progress control analysis reviewed wet flue gas 
desulfurization (FGD), in-duct sorbent injection, and a limitation on 
fuel oil usage coupled with lower sulfur content fuel oil (2.2 percent 
and 1.0 percent sulfur fuel oil). Of these control measures, the fuel 
oil changes could take place prior to 2012 and the wet FGD and in-duct 
sorbent injection could be installed before 2013. The remaining useful 
life of the unit extends past 2018 and past the control equipment 
amortization period. The wet FGD would have an impact on water usage 
and wastewater discharge, and in-duct sorbent injection would result in 
additional solid waste. The company did not identify any significant 
energy impacts for any of the options.
    Of the control options considered, both in-duct sorbent injection 
and a switch to 1.0 percent sulfur fuel oil coupled with a five million 
gallon-per-year oil usage limit were considered reasonably cost 
effective. The costs are $3,562 per ton of SO2 removed ($/
ton SO2) and $20.7 million per inverse megameter (MM/Mm-1) 
at Wolf Island for in-duct sorbent injection, and $3,228/ton 
SO2 and $18.8 MM/Mm-1 at Wolf Island for 1.0 percent sulfur 
fuel oil. These controls were considered cost effective due to the 
relatively high visibility impact on two Class I areas and the fact 
that neither of these Class I areas are projected to be clearly at or 
below the glidepath. Both in-duct sorbent injection and 1.0 percent 
sulfur fuel oil achieve approximately the same amount of SO2 
emissions reductions (769 tpy for sorbent injection and 731 tpy for 1.0 
percent sulfur fuel oil) from the current emissions level of 1,099 tpy 
SO2. Implementation of the more cost effective of these two 
options would reduce SO2 emissions to 368 tons of 
SO2 per 12-consecutive months (i.e., 1,099 tpy - 731 tpy = 
368 tpy SO2).
    Supplemental information provided by the facility indicated that 
the two controls deemed to be reasonable would control emissions from 
oil combustion but would not affect SO2 emissions from 
combustion of wood waste and TDF. The facility requested an allowance 
for an additional 200 tons of emissions based on calculations of 
historical emissions from wood waste and TDF. This request was also 
supported by the facility's assertion that the sulfur content of 
locally available TDF may be above what has been burned historically. 
GA EPD concurred with the facility's request and established an 
SO2 emissions limit in the facility's title V permit for the 
power boiler of 568 tpy SO2 (368 + 200 = 568 tpy) for 
reasonable progress with a compliance date of 2012. The revised permit 
is included in Appendix M of the Georgia regional haze submittal.
(b). Recovery Boiler R407 (M24)
    Recovery Boiler R407 (M24) contributes approximately 1.3 percent to 
the total sulfate visibility impairment at the Wolf Island Wilderness 
Area. The 2018 projected SO2 emissions are 193 tpy. Georgia 
Pacific's reasonable progress control analysis found combustion control 
and wet FGD to be the only technically feasible control options. The 
company stated that emissions of SO2 of 38 parts per million 
(ppm), as measured in a 2006 stack test, are too low of a load for 
effective operation of a FGD. Therefore, the company ruled out this 
control technology.
    Combustion control, the other technically feasible control option, 
is already included in the boiler design. Because this emissions unit 
only contributes to visibility impairment at one Class I area and has a 
relatively low 2018 projected emissions level, the State determined 
that no additional controls are required for reasonable progress for 
the Recovery Boiler R407 at Georgia Pacific--Brunswick Cellulose.
2. Georgia Pacific--Cedar Springs
(a). Power Boiler U500 (``Power Boiler 1'') and Power Boiler U501 
(``Power Boiler 2'')
    Power Boilers 1 and 2 at the Georgia Pacific--Cedar Springs 
facility are two nearly identical power boilers. Each of these units 
contributes approximately 1.1 percent to the total sulfate visibility 
impairment at the Saint Marks Class I area in Florida. The 2018 
projected SO2 emissions are 1,976 tpy for each boiler.
    The reasonable progress control analyses for these units reviewed 
six options: (1) Wet FGD, (2) addition of spray towers and caustic to 
the existing venturi scrubbers, (3) adding caustic to the existing 
venturi scrubbers (resulting in a 79 percent SO2 reduction), 
(4) in-duct sorbent injection, (5) coal washing, and (6) coal 
switching. In addition to these control measures, Georgia Pacific 
submitted two variations of option 3 as part of their BART exemption 
modeling request that included the addition of lower amounts of caustic 
to their existing scrubbers (resulting in approximately a 68 percent 
and 37 percent SO2 reduction for these two variations). All 
of the control options could be installed prior to 2012 except the wet 
FGD, which could be installed before 2013. All three of the scrubber 
options (i.e., wet FGD, adding spray towers and caustic to the existing 
scrubbers, and adding caustic to the existing venturi scrubbers) would 
generate approximately 15,000 tpy of solid waste. The company did not 
identify any significant energy impacts associated with the scrubber 
options. The remaining useful life of the unit extends past 2018 and 
past the control equipment amortization period.
    Out of all the control options considered, adding caustic to the 
existing venturi scrubber and installing in-duct sorbent injection were 
considered reasonably cost effective. The costs were $1,675/ton 
SO2 and $849.2 MM/Mm-1 at the Saint Marks Class I area for 
adding caustic to the scrubber, and $1,663/ton SO2 and 
$843.2 MM/Mm-1 at the Saint Marks area for in-duct sorbent injection. 
These figures were considered cost effective even with a relatively low 
visibility impact on only one Class I area because the Saint Marks area 
is not clearly at or below the uniform rate of progress. Since the 
company submitted control options for three different levels of caustic 
use (resulting in 79 percent, 68 percent, and 37 percent SO2 
reduction), GA EPD analyzed the information to determine which level of 
caustic use was considered reasonable. In comparison, in-duct sorbent 
injection achieves approximately 70 percent SO2 reduction, 
which is within the range of control efficiencies for caustic 
scrubbing. GA EPD concluded that a 70 percent SO2 reduction 
was reasonable for this unit. As part of Georgia Pacific's BART 
exemption modeling, the company proposed SO2 emissions 
limits to avoid being subject to BART of 135 pounds of SO2 
per hour (lb SO2/hr) for each power boiler, along with 
additional SO2 limits on Recovery Boiler R402 (``Recovery 
Boiler 3'') as discussed below. The State agreed with this limit of 135 
lb SO2/hr, which would result in maximum annual emissions of 
591 tpy of SO2 (a 70 percent reduction from current 
emissions), and determined that this limit satisfies reasonable 
progress. The actual annual reduction is expected to be even higher 
since the power boilers are not anticipated to emit SO2 at 
the maximum allowable level for an entire year. A copy of the revised 
title V permit is included in Appendix M of the Georgia regional haze 
SIP submittal.
(b). Recovery Boiler 3
    This unit contributes approximately 0.8 percent to the sulfate 
visibility impairment at the Saint Marks Class I area. The 2018 
projected SO2 emissions are 1,726 tpy. However, the State 
notes

[[Page 11466]]

that Georgia Pacific's 2006 and 2007 SO2 emissions were 
significantly lower than this 2018 projected SO2 emissions 
level at 462 and 741 tpy SO2, respectively. The facility 
accepted a limit of 350 ppm SO2 on this unit when firing 
black liquor solids to avoid being subject to BART.
    The reasonable progress control analyses reviewed three additional 
options: (1) Switching from No. 6 residual fuel oil (1.8 percent 
sulfur) to No. 2 distillate fuel oil (0.5 percent sulfur); (2) 
switching to lower sulfur No. 6 residual fuel oil (1.0 percent sulfur); 
and (3) the installation of a new concentrator and new multi-level air 
system. The company did not provide any indications that any of the 
control options could not be installed prior to 2012. No negative 
energy impacts or non-air quality environmental impacts were identified 
by the company. Remaining useful life of the unit extends past 2018 and 
past the control equipment amortization periods.
    Of the control options considered, none were considered reasonable 
because their implementation would have a visibility impact of less 
than 0.01 inverse megameter (Mm-1) on a single Class I area. Therefore, 
no additional controls were required for reasonable progress for 
Recovery Boiler 3 at the Georgia Pacific--Cedar Springs facility.
3. Georgia Pacific--Savannah River Mill, Boilers B001, B002, and B003
    Boilers B001, B002, and B003 at the Georgia Pacific--Savannah River 
Mill facility are three relatively similar boilers, with B002 and B003 
being almost identical. The emissions units exceed Georgia's minimum 
threshold for reasonable progress evaluation at one Class I area 
(approximately 1.1 percent, 0.9 percent, and 0.8 percent of the total 
sulfate visibility impairment at the Wolf Island Wilderness Area for 
B001, B002, and B003, respectively). The 2018 projected SO2 
emissions for B001, B002, and B003 are 1,659 tpy, 1,195 tpy, and 1,190 
tpy, respectively. All three of these boilers are relatively well 
controlled, re-circulating fluidized bed boilers with limestone 
injection in the combustion chamber. B001 currently achieves 
approximately 87 percent SO2 removal and Boilers B002 and 
B003 achieve approximately 90 percent SO2 removal.
    The reasonable progress control analyses reviewed wet FGD, 
circulating fluidized bed scrubber, switching from petroleum coke to 
coal, increased limestone injection, and rotating opposed fire air. Of 
all the proposed changes, only increased limestone injection could 
occur prior to 2012. All other control measures could not be installed 
until after 2012, although estimated control dates were not provided. 
Wet FGD controls would result in increased water use and wastewater 
discharges. No significant energy impacts were identified by the 
company. Remaining useful life of the emissions units extended past 
2018 and past the control equipment amortization periods. Increased 
limestone injection would result in increased solid waste generation. 
Georgia Pacific conducted trial operations with increased limestone 
injection rates and found that SO2 removal could only be 
increased by an additional two percent (from 87 percent to 89 percent 
for B001 and from 90 percent to 92 percent for B002 and B003). Revised 
cost estimates were also derived from the trial operations.
    Of the control options considered, none were considered reasonable 
given their low control efficiencies and a visibility impact of less 
than 0.01 Mm-1 on a single Class I area that would result from their 
implementation. Therefore, no additional controls were required for 
reasonable progress.
4. Georgia Power--Plant Kraft, SGs 1, 2, and 3
    Emissions units SG 1, 2, and 3 at Georgia Power--Plant Kraft are 
three coal-fired steam generating units (i.e., boilers) rated at 50, 
54, and 104 MW, respectively. Units 1 and 2 each contribute to the 
total sulfate visibility impairment at the Wolf Island Class I area by 
approximately 0.5 percent. Unit 3 was initially determined to 
contribute to the total sulfate visibility impairment at three Class I 
areas (approximately 3.3 percent at Wolf Island, 0.9 percent at 
Okefenokee, and 0.8 percent at Cape Romain). However, with projected 
reductions in SO2 emissions by 2018, the visibility impacts 
on Okefenokee and Cape Romain Class I areas from Units 1, 2, and 3 are 
expected to drop below Georgia's minimum threshold for reasonable 
progress evaluation, and the visibility impact at Wolf Island should 
drop below two percent. The 2018 projected SO2 emissions for 
Units 1, 2, and 3 were initially estimated by VISTAS at 691 tpy, 704 
tpy, and 4,474 tpy, respectively. As part of the supporting 
documentation for the reasonable progress control analyses, Georgia 
Power provided projected heat input through 2018 for these units, which 
indicates that SO2 emissions for Units 1, 2, and 3 will be 
632 tpy, 889 tpy, and 2,455 tpy, respectively. While the heat inputs 
provided by Georgia Power for Units 1 and 2 are similar to the VISTAS 
2018 projections, Georgia Power's projection for Unit 3 represents a 45 
percent reduction in heat input and SO2 emissions from the 
VISTAS projections. This was explained by Georgia Power as the result 
of additional capacity coming on-line elsewhere between 2010 and 2017. 
The reduction in heat input for Plant Kraft is expected to occur around 
2015. GA EPD utilized these revised heat inputs in conducting the 
reasonable progress control analyses, and GA EPD plans to verify the 
heat input reduction during development of the next regional haze SIP 
(due in 2018).
    The following control measures were analyzed for the four statutory 
factors for all three units: Wet FGD, coal switching (i.e., using a 
coal with a lower sulfur content), and coal washing (i.e., mechanically 
removing pyritic sulfur from powdered coal by a flotation process, 
which does not separate organic sulfur from the coal). Wet FGD could 
not be installed until 2016 because of required control device 
installations scheduled up until 2015 in Georgia Power's system. The 
company did not address the implementation time for the other control 
options, so GA EPD assumed the controls could be implemented by January 
1, 2012. All three control options would require additional energy 
usage. Wet FGD and coal washing would result in increased water usage 
and wastewater discharges as well as additional solid waste generation. 
The remaining useful life of the units extends past 2018 and past the 
control equipment amortization periods.
    The cost effectiveness of wet FGD and coal switching were $3,216 to 
$8,161/ton SO2 and $56.9 MM to $144.5 MM/Mm-1 for wet FGD 
and $4,041 to $4,306/ton SO2 and $71.5 MM/Mm-1 for coal 
switching. Coal washing cost effectiveness was $1,839 to $1,847/ton 
SO2 and $32.5 to $32.7 MM/Mm-1; the control efficiency is 
six percent. Regarding non-air environmental impacts, the company 
indicated that coal washing could possibly reduce boiler efficiency, 
would use up to 7,500 gallons (at Unit 3) per day of water, would 
result in acidic wastewater requiring treatment, and would result in 
coal refuse in the amount of approximately five percent of the total 
coal consumption. Emissions reductions from these control options are 
projected to achieve very little visibility improvement at the Wolf 
Island Wilderness Area.
    Based on the control efficiency of coal washing, the negative non-
air environmental impacts, and the visibility impact of less than 0.01 
Mm-1, the State determined that this control option is not reasonable. 
The State eliminated coal switching and FGD from

[[Page 11467]]

consideration due to the cost effectiveness considerations. Based on 
the above considerations, no additional controls were required for any 
of the Georgia Power--Plant Kraft units.
5. Georgia Power--Plant McIntosh, SG 1
    Emissions unit SG 1 at Georgia Power--Plant McIntosh is a coal-
fired steam generating unit rated at 178 MW. The 2018 projected 
SO2 emissions were initially estimated by VISTAS at 7,015 
tpy. As part of the supporting documentation for the reasonable 
progress control analyses, Georgia Power provided projected heat input 
through 2018 for this unit. Those projections indicate that 
SO2 emissions will drop to 1,860 tpy by 2018. Georgia 
Power's projection represents a 73 percent reduction in heat input and 
SO2 emissions. This was explained by Georgia Power as a 
result of additional capacity coming on line elsewhere between 2010 and 
2017. The State initially determined that this unit impacts visibility 
at five Class I areas (4.1 percent at Wolf Island, 1.2 percent at 
Okefenokee, 0.6 percent at Saint Marks, 1.5 percent at Cape Romain, and 
0.7 percent at Swanquarter). However, with the projected reduction in 
SO2 emissions by 2018, the visibility impacts on all of 
these areas except Wolf Island are expected to drop below Georgia's 0.5 
percent evaluation threshold, and the impact at Wolf Island is expected 
to drop to approximately one percent. The reduction in heat input for 
Plant McIntosh is to occur between around 2011 and 2016. GA EPD 
utilized this revised SO2 emission rate in conducting the 
reasonable progress control analyses. GA EPD plans to verify the heat 
input reduction during development of the next regional haze SIP.
    Georgia Power analyzed the following control measures: Wet FGD, 
coal switching, and coal washing. Wet FGD could not be installed until 
2016 because required control device installations are scheduled up 
until 2015 in Georgia Power's system. The company did not address the 
time necessary for compliance for the other control options so GA EPD 
assumed the controls could be implemented by January 1, 2012. All three 
control options would require additional energy usage. Wet FGD and coal 
washing would result in increased water usage and wastewater discharges 
as well as additional solid waste generation. The remaining useful life 
of the units extends past 2018 and past the control equipment 
amortization periods. The cost effectiveness of all the control 
operations is $7,131/ton SO2 and $118.5 MM/Mm-1 for wet FGD, 
$4,306/ton SO2 and $71.5 MM/Mm-1 for coal switching, and 
$5,334/ton SO2 and $91.9 MM/Mm-1 for coal washing. Based on 
these factors, GA EPD required no additional controls for SG 1 at 
Georgia Power's Plant McIntosh.
6. Georgia Power--Plant Mitchell, SG 3
    SG 3 at Georgia Power's Plant Mitchell is a coal-fired steam-
generating unit rated at 163 MW and is the only remaining operational 
boiler at Plant Mitchell. The 2018 projected SO2 emissions 
were initially estimated by VISTAS at 4,930 tpy. As part of the 
supporting documentation for the reasonable progress control analyses, 
Georgia Power provided projected heat input through 2018 for this unit. 
Those projections indicate that SO2 emissions will drop to 
1,189 tpy by 2018. The State initially determined this unit to impact 
the total sulfate visibility impairment at two Class I areas at 
approximately 0.8 percent at the Okefenokee Wilderness Area and 
approximately 2.7 percent at the Saint Marks Class I area in Florida. 
However, with the projected reduction in SO2 emissions by 
2018, the visibility impact at Okefenokee is expected to drop below 
Georgia's 0.5 percent reasonable progress evaluation threshold and the 
impact on Saint Marks is predicted to drop to below one percent. 
Georgia Power's projection represents a 76 percent reduction in heat 
input and SO2 emissions. This was explained by Georgia Power 
as a result of additional capacity coming online elsewhere else 
starting in 2010. The reduction in heat input for Plant Mitchell is to 
occur between around 2008 and 2010. GA EPD utilized this revised 
SO2 emissions rate in conducting the reasonable progress 
control analyses. GA EPD plans to verify the heat input reduction 
during the regional haze periodic progress review described in section 
IV.G of this action.
    Georgia Power analyzed wet FGD and coal switching as possible 
control measures at SG 3. Wet FGD could not be installed until 2016 
because required control device installations are scheduled up until 
2015 in Georgia Power's system. The company did not address the time 
necessary for compliance for coal switching so GA EPD assumed this 
control could be implemented by January 1, 2012. Both control options 
would require additional energy usage. Georgia Power did not indicate 
any additional water use, wastewater discharge, or solid waste 
generation issues for any of the control options. The remaining useful 
life of the units extends past 2018 and past the control equipment 
amortization periods. The cost effectiveness for wet FGD was $9,119/ton 
SO2 and $148.5 MM/Mm-1, and the cost effectiveness for coal 
switching was $2,347/ton SO2 and $38.2 MM/Mm-1; the control 
efficiency was at 43 percent. Based on these factors, including the 
projected significant utilization drop within the next few years, 
Georgia required no additional controls for SG 3 at Georgia Power--
Plant Mitchell.
7. International Paper--Savannah Mill, Power Boiler 13
    International Paper's Savannah Mill Power Boiler 13 is a 1,280 
MMBtu/hr coal, oil, and wood waste-fired boiler. The unit also combusts 
both low-volume high-concentration (LVHC) and high-volume low-
concentration (HVLC) non-condensable gases from the pulping process as 
well as stripper off-gas (SOG) from the stripper used to control 
hazardous air pollutant (HAP) emissions from wastewater streams. The 
2018 projected SO2 emissions are 8,578 tpy with 
approximately 1,944 tpy of this amount coming from the combustion of 
LVHC, HVLC, and SOG. The State identified this unit as significantly 
contributing to sulfate visibility impairment at five Class I areas 
(approximately 6.4 percent at Wolf Island, 1.7 percent at Okefenokee, 
0.7 percent at the Saint Marks area in Florida, 1.6 percent at the Cape 
Romain area in South Carolina, and 0.9 percent at the Swanquarter area 
in North Carolina). The State noted in its SIP that this is the highest 
number of Class I areas significantly impacted by any single emissions 
unit of all those reviewed by Georgia.
    The reasonable progress control analysis reviewed the following 
control options: (1) Wet FGD (packed tower), (2) FGD (wet limestone 
spray tower), (3) semi-dry lime spray tower, (4) fuel switching to 
natural gas, (5) dry sorbent injection, and (6) a stand-alone 
regenerative thermal oxidizer (RTO) with SO2 scrubbing for 
the control of LVHC, HVLC, and SOG. The RTO control option was 
presented as three different options for LVHC, HVLC, and SOG 
combustion. International Paper also suggested an SO2 
reduction of 2,000 tpy (a reduction in the SO2 emissions 
limit from 8,758 tpy to 6,758 tpy) as a control option that would 
provide maximum flexibility for compliance. Except for the 2,000 tpy 
SO2 reduction alternative, all of these control options 
could be implemented by 2012. International Paper requested a 2016 
compliance date for the 2,000 tpy SO2 reduction alternative 
in order for the company to take into consideration any reductions that 
will occur as a result of

[[Page 11468]]

the Industrial Boiler MACT and the uncertainty surrounding the final 
requirements of that standard.
    The remaining useful life of the unit extends past 2018 and past 
the control equipment amortization period. The wet FGD and all three 
RTO sub-options increased water usage and wastewater discharge. GA EPD 
evaluated the potential water usage and wastewater discharges 
associated with these controls. One additional consideration was to 
ensure that there would be no additional dissolved oxygen load on the 
Savannah River due to a problem with the dissolved oxygen load in the 
Savannah River. Because of strict limitations on any additional 
dissolved oxygen load to the river, any projects that could possibly 
increase dissolved oxygen load were not considered reasonable at this 
time. Based on the type of chemicals that would be associated with 
effluent from a wet FGD (packed tower option) and the semi-dry lime 
spray tower, GA EPD eliminated these options from further consideration 
because they could potentially increase dissolved oxygen load. FGD (wet 
limestone spray tower), semi-dry lime spray tower, and dry sorbent 
injection also resulted in additional solid waste generation. There 
were energy impacts associated with all but the fuel switching option. 
These energy costs were factored into the overall control cost 
effectiveness.
    Regarding the company's cost effectiveness estimates, GA EPD's 
review indicated that the cost estimates for a packed tower wet FGD and 
wet FGD limestone spray tower were higher than expected based on the 
following factors: The costs per actual cubic feet per minute are about 
four times higher than other units of comparable size, the company's 
estimate is three to eight times higher than results from EPA cost 
estimation software, and International Paper used a conservative 
retrofit factor with a cost estimation model not recommended by EPA. In 
a letter to International Paper dated December 27, 2007, GA EPD 
requested site-specific cost analyses for these control options. In 
that letter, GA EPD stated that if site-specific estimates were not 
provided, control option recommendations would be made with the 
understanding that the cost estimates may be overstated. In response, 
International Paper chose not to provide site-specific cost estimates 
as requested. GA EPD completed its evaluations and determined that the 
cost effectiveness of the FGD--wet limestone spray tower ($4,391/ton 
SO2) was not cost effective in this case. Wet FGD--packed 
tower was not considered reasonable because of the possible impact on 
dissolved oxygen load to the Savannah River. Fuel switching to natural 
gas ($9,506/ton SO2), and dry sorbent injection ($5,223/ton 
SO2) were determined not to be reasonable because of cost 
effectiveness.
    Another cost effective control option that GA EPD evaluated is an 
emissions limit of 6,758 tpy SO2 proposed by the company. 
The 6,758 tpy SO2 limit was determined by reducing the 
projected 2018 SO2 emissions level of 8,758 tpy 
SO2 by 2,000 tons. GA EPD reviewed recent SO2 
emissions data and determined that the projected 8,758 tpy 
SO2 level is reasonable. No specific emissions reduction 
methodologies were associated with this control option. However, 
certain control methodologies are under consideration. A compliance 
date of 2016 was proposed in order to take into consideration any 
controls that will be required under EPA's Industrial Boiler MACT 
currently under development (discussed in section IV.C.1). A 2016 
compliance date should provide sufficient time for the MACT to be 
proposed and promulgated, provide the three years required for 
compliance with the standard, and provide time to determine an 
appropriate method for complying with the 6,758 tpy SO2 
emissions limit for Power Boiler 13 following compliance with this MACT 
standard.
    Of the control options considered, GA EPD determined that the 2,000 
tpy SO2 reduction alternative, which results in an emissions 
limit of 6,758 tpy SO2, was reasonably cost effective. This 
limit will include SO2 emissions resulting from the 
combustion of LVHC, HVLC, and SOG, whether they are combusted in Power 
Boiler 13 or some other combustion device. In order to provide 
flexibility for the facility, an emissions limit of 6,578 tons 
SO2/12-consecutive months is required for Power Boiler 13 as 
a requirement for reasonable progress with a compliance date of 2016. A 
copy of the revised title V permit was included in Appendix M of the 
Georgia regional haze submittal.
8. Temple-Inland Rome Linerboard, Power Boiler 4
    Temple-Inland Rome Linerboard's Power Boiler 4 is a 565 MMBtu/hr 
coal- and oil-fired boiler. The State identified this unit as 
significantly contributing to the total sulfate visibility impairment 
at two Class I areas (4.4 percent at Cohutta and 1.0 percent at Joyce 
Kilmer/Slickrock Wilderness Area in North Carolina/Tennessee).
    The company'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. All of these control options could be 
implemented by 2012. The remaining useful life of the power boiler 
extends past 2018 and past the control equipment amortization period.
    The wet FGD options had an impact on water usage. GA EPD notes that 
the mill had sufficient capacity within their currently permitted water 
withdrawal permit to adequately handle the increased water use 
associated with wet FGD. All of the control options resulted in 
additional solid waste generation, and there were energy impacts 
associated with all of the control options. These energy costs were 
factored into the overall control cost effectiveness.
    The State determined that none of the control options considered 
for Power Boiler 4 are reasonable at this time. A key factor in 
determining what was considered ``reasonable'' for reasonable progress 
requirements for this source is that the affected Class I areas 
impacted by this unit are predicted to meet the uniform rate of 
progress in 2018 with controls that are already required. This 
determination may be revisited at the periodic SIP progress review or 
when determining future RPGs for subsequent implementation periods.
9. EPA Assessment
    As noted in EPA's Reasonable Progress Guidance, 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 applied the methodology developed by VISTAS for identifying 
appropriate sources to be considered for additional controls under 
reasonable progress for the implementation period addressed by this 
SIP, which ends in 2018. Using this methodology, GA EPD first 
identified those emissions and emissions units most likely to have an 
impact on visibility in the State's and neighboring Class I areas. 
Units with emissions of SO2 with a relative contribution to 
total sulfate visibility impairment of at least 0.5 percent 
contribution at any Class I area were then subject to a reasonable 
progress control analysis, except for utilities subject to Georgia's 
state rule 391-3-1-.02(13), ``Clean Air Interstate Rule SO2 
Annual Trading Program,'' that only

[[Page 11469]]

impacted visibility at Class I areas projected to be below the uniform 
rate of progress line.
    Having reviewed GA EPD's methodology and analyses presented in the 
SIP materials prepared by GA EPD, EPA is proposing to approve Georgia's 
reasonable progress determinations. EPA preliminarily agrees with the 
State's approach of identifying the key pollutants contributing to 
visibility impairment at its Class I areas, and proposes to consider 
the State's methodology to identify sources of SO2 most 
likely to have an impact on visibility on any Class I area to be an 
appropriate methodology for narrowing the scope of the State's 
analysis. In general, EPA also proposes to find Georgia's evaluation of 
the four statutory factors for reasonable progress to be reasonable and 
believes that the Georgia regional haze SIP ensures reasonable 
progress. EPA also proposes that, given the emissions reductions 
resulting from CAIR, Georgia's BART determinations, the measures in 
nearby states, and the visibility improvements projected for the 
affected Class I areas, these emissions reductions are in excess of 
that needed to be on the glidepath for the Cohutta Wilderness Area, and 
are close to the glidepaths for the Wolf Island and Okefenokee 
Wilderness Areas.
    In addition, EPA proposes to find that Georgia fully evaluated all 
control technologies available at the time of its analysis and 
applicable to these facilities. EPA also proposes to find that Georgia 
consistently applied its criteria for reasonable compliance costs, and 
where it diverged, the State included justification for the other 
factors influencing the control determination.

B. Facilities With Emissions Unit(s) Not Subject to Reasonable Progress 
Analysis

1. EGUs Subject to CAIR
    In concert with VISTAS, GA EPD applied its reasonable progress 
methodology and identified 20 Georgia Power Company emissions units at 
seven facilities that contributed greater than 0.5 percent of the total 
sulfate visibility impairment at a Class I area: (1) Plant Bowen SG 01, 
SG 02, SG 03, SG 04; (2) Plant Hammond SG 04; (3) Plant Mitchell SG 03; 
(4) Plant Scherer SG 01, SG 02, SG 03, SG 04; (5) Plant Yates SG 02, SG 
03, SG 04, SG 05, SG 06, SG 07; (6) Plant Kraft SG 01, SG 02, SG 03; 
and (7) Plant McIntosh SG 01. Georgia, as part of its long-term 
reasonable progress analysis to consider potential sources contributing 
to visibility impairment, examined other CAA requirements such as CAIR 
and Georgia state rule 391-3-1-.02(13). Under Georgia's rule, 
SO2 emissions from Georgia EGUs will be capped at 149,140 
tons in 2015, a 70 percent reduction from 2002 actual emissions. In 
addition, a 70 percent reduction of SO2 emissions is 
expected during this time period across all CAIR-affected EGUs in 28 
eastern states due to CAIR. Since EGUs will be reducing their 
SO2 emissions by approximately 70 percent through these 
programs and based on detailed analyses in EPA's May 2, 2005, CAIR, GA 
EPD concluded that additional EGU control during this time period is 
not reasonable for sources that significantly contribute to visibility 
impairment at Class I areas that are clearly projected to meet or 
exceed the uniform rate of progress in 2018. However, for sources that 
significantly contribute to visibility impairment at Class I areas not 
clearly meeting the uniform rate of progress (Okefenokee and Wolf 
Island), GA EPD considered additional controls at CAIR-affected units. 
The Cohutta Class I area is expected, based on modeling, to clearly 
meet/exceed the glidepath in 2018. GA EPD has therefore concluded that 
CAIR constitutes reasonable measures for Georgia EGUs that 
significantly impact visibility in Cohutta during this first assessment 
period (between baseline and 2018). Thus, GA EPD concluded that no 
additional controls beyond CAIR are reasonable for the remaining four 
identified Georgia Power facilities (Plants Bowen, Hammond, Scherer, 
and Yates) for SO2 for the first implementation period 
ending in 2018. Because the Okefenokee, Wolf Island, and Saint Marks 
Class I areas are not expected to clearly meet or exceed the glidepath 
in 2018, controls required under CAIR have not been deemed to 
constitute reasonable measures for Georgia EGUs that significantly 
impact visibility in these Class I areas (Georgia Power's Plants 
Mitchell, Kraft and MacIntosh).
2. Non-EGUs Subject to BART
    One of the emissions units considered for reasonable progress 
control, Interstate Paper's Power Boiler F1, is subject to BART and 
subsequently was evaluated for BART controls. GA EPD concluded that 
BART for the power boiler at Interstate Paper is a requirement to burn 
natural gas only, other than during curtailment periods (i.e., during 
reduction or discontinuance of supply in natural gas). GA EPD believes 
that, for this implementation period, the application of BART 
constitutes reasonable progress for this unit, and thus, is not 
requiring any additional controls for reasonable progress. As discussed 
in EPA's Reasonable Progress Guidance, since the BART analysis is 
based, in part, on an assessment of many of the same factors that must 
be addressed in establishing the RPG, EPA believes it is reasonable to 
conclude that any control requirements imposed in the BART 
determination also satisfy the RPG-related requirements for source 
review in the first implementation period.\18\ Thus, EPA proposes to 
agree with the State's conclusions that the BART control evaluations 
satisfy reasonable progress for the first implementation period for 
Interstate Paper--Power Boiler F1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ EPA's Reasonable Progress Guidance, pages 4.2-4.3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Other Emissions Units Not Subject to Preparing a Reasonable Progress 
Control Analysis
    GA EPD requested reasonable progress control analyses from all 
facilities identified as potentially contributing at least 0.5 percent 
of the total sulfate visibility impairment at a Class I area. In 
response to this request, additional information regarding projected 
2018 actual emissions was received from a number of sources. As a 
result of this revised information, seven units at four facilities 
(Miller Brewing, Boilers B001, B002; Mount Vernon Mills, Boilers E U 
03, E U 04; Savannah Sugar Refinery, Boiler U161; and Mohawk 
Industries, Boilers BL06, BL07) were removed from consideration for 
additional controls based on an analysis that the emissions units would 
not contribute 0.5 percent or greater of the total sulfate visibility 
impairment at any Class I area in 2018.
    Due to resource limitations and/or uncertainty regarding future 
operations, the following three facilities with six emissions units 
requested emissions limits on their affected units in lieu of 
performing reasonable progress control analyses: (1) Rayonier 
Performance Fibers, Power Boilers 2 and 3, Recovery Furnaces 1 and 4; 
(2) Southern States Phosphate and Fertilizer, Sulfuric Acid Plant 2; 
and (3) Packaging Corporation of America, C E Boiler. The required 
emissions limits reduced the sulfate contributions of these units below 
0.5 percent of the total sulfate visibility impact on any affected 
Class I areas.
6. BART
    BART is an element of Georgia's LTS for the first implementation 
period. The BART evaluation process consists of three components: (a) 
An identification of all the BART-eligible sources, (b) an assessment 
of whether the BART-

[[Page 11470]]

eligible sources are subject to BART and (c) a determination of the 
BART controls. These components, as addressed by GA EPD, and the 
State's findings, are discussed as follows.

A. BART-Eligible Sources

    The first phase of a BART evaluation is to identify all the BART-
eligible sources within the state's boundaries. GA EPD identified the 
BART-eligible sources in Georgia by utilizing the three eligibility 
criteria in the BART Guidelines (70 FR 39158) and EPA's regulations (40 
CFR 51.301): (1) One or more emissions units at the facility fit within 
one of the 26 categories listed in the BART Guidelines; (2) the 
emissions units were not in operation prior to August 7, 1962, and were 
in existence on August 7, 1977; and (3) these units have the potential 
to emit 250 tons or more per year of any visibility-impairing 
pollutant.
    The BART Guidelines also direct states to address SO2, 
NOX, and direct PM (including both PM10 and 
PM2.5) emissions as visibility-impairment pollutants and to 
exercise judgment in determining whether VOC or ammonia emissions from 
a source impair visibility in a Class I area. See 70 FR 39160. VISTAS 
modeling demonstrated that VOC from anthropogenic sources and ammonia 
from point sources, except for potentially one ammonia source, are not 
significant visibility-impairing pollutants in Georgia, as discussed in 
section IV.C.3 of this action. Based on the VISTAS modeling, GA EPD 
determined that ammonia emissions from the State's point sources are 
not anticipated to cause or contribute significantly to any impairment 
of visibility in Class I areas and should be exempt for BART purposes. 
The only ammonia source in Georgia that was identified by VISTAS as a 
possible contributor to visibility impairment, PCS Nitrogen, adequately 
addressed its contribution in its BART exemption modeling analysis.

B. BART-Subject Sources

    The second phase of the BART evaluation is to identify those BART-
eligible sources that may reasonably be anticipated to cause or 
contribute to visibility impairment at any Class I area, i.e., those 
sources that are subject to BART. The BART Guidelines allow states to 
consider exempting some BART-eligible sources from further BART review 
because they may not reasonably be anticipated to cause or contribute 
to any visibility impairment in a Class I area. Consistent with the 
BART Guidelines, Georgia required each of its BART-eligible sources to 
develop and submit dispersion modeling to assess the extent of their 
contribution to visibility impairment at Class I areas in surrounding 
states.
1. Modeling Methodology
    The BART Guidelines allow states to use the CALPUFF \19\ modeling 
system (CALPUFF) or another appropriate model to predict the visibility 
impacts from a single source on a Class I area, and therefore, to 
determine whether an individual source is anticipated to cause or 
contribute to impairment of visibility in Class I areas, i.e., ``is 
subject to BART.'' The Guidelines state that EPA believes that CALPUFF 
is the best regulatory modeling application currently available for 
predicting a single source's contribution to visibility impairment (70 
FR 39162). Georgia, in coordination with VISTAS, used the CALPUFF 
modeling system to determine whether individual sources in the State 
are subject to BART.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ Note that EPA's reference to CALPUFF encompasses the entire 
CALPUFF modeling system, which includes the CALMET, CALPUFF, and 
CALPOST models and other pre and post processors. The different 
versions of CALPUFF have corresponding versions of CALMET, CALPOST, 
etc. which may not be compatible with previous versions (e.g., the 
output from a newer version of CALMET may not be compatible with an 
older version of CALPUFF). The different versions of the CALPUFF 
modeling system are available from the model developer on the 
following Web site: http://www.src.com/verio/download/download.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The BART Guidelines also recommend that states develop a modeling 
protocol for making individual source attributions and suggest that 
states may want to consult with EPA and their RPO to address any issues 
prior to modeling. The VISTAS states, including Georgia, developed a 
``Protocol for the Application of CALPUFF for BART Analyses.'' 
Stakeholders, including EPA, FLMs, industrial sources, trade groups, 
and other interested parties, actively participated in the development 
and review of the VISTAS protocol.
    VISTAS developed a post-processing approach to use the new IMPROVE 
equation with the CALPUFF model results so that the BART analyses could 
consider the old and new IMPROVE equations. GA EPD sent a letter and 
supplemental email to EPA justifying the need for this post-processing 
approach, and the EPA Region 4 Regional Administrator sent the State a 
letter of approval dated September 11, 2008. Georgia's justification 
included a method to process the CALPUFF output and a rationale on the 
benefits of using the new IMPROVE equation. The State's description of 
the new post-processing methodology and the State and Region 4 letters 
are located in Appendices H.9a, H.9b, and H.9c, respectively, of the 
Georgia regional haze SIP submittal and can be accessed at 
www.regulations.gov using Docket ID No. EPA-R04-OAR-2010-0936.
2. Contribution Threshold
    For states using modeling to determine the applicability of BART to 
single sources, the BART Guidelines note that the first step is to set 
a contribution threshold to assess whether the impact of a single 
source is sufficient to cause or contribute to visibility impairment at 
a Class I area. The BART Guidelines state that ``[a] single source that 
is responsible for a 1.0 deciview change or more should be considered 
to `cause' visibility impairment.'' The BART Guidelines also state that 
``the appropriate threshold for determining whether a source 
`contributes to visibility impairment' may reasonably differ across 
states,'' but, ``[a]s a general matter, any threshold that you use for 
determining whether a source `contributes' to visibility impairment 
should not be higher than 0.5 deciviews.'' The Guidelines affirm that 
states are free to use a lower threshold if they conclude that the 
location of a large number of BART-eligible sources in proximity of a 
Class I area justifies this approach.
    Georgia used a contribution threshold of 0.5 deciview for 
determining which sources are subject to BART and concluded that the 
threshold of 0.5 deciview was appropriate in this situation. Georgia 
determined that, considering the results of the visibility impacts 
modeling conducted, a 0.5 deciview threshold was appropriate and a 
lower threshold was not warranted for the following reasons. There are 
a limited number of BART-eligible sources in close proximity to each of 
the State's Class I areas, and the overall impact of the BART-eligible 
sources on visibility in nearby Class I areas is relatively minimal. In 
addition, the results of the visibility impacts modeling demonstrated 
that the majority of the individual BART-eligible sources had 
visibility impacts well below 0.5 deciview. As stated in the BART 
Guidelines, where a state concludes that a large number of these BART-
eligible sources within proximity of a Class I area justify a lower 
threshold, it may warrant establishing a lower contribution threshold. 
See 70 FR 39161-39162 (July 6, 2005). EPA proposes to concur with 
Georgia that the overall impacts of these sources are not sufficient to 
warrant a lower

[[Page 11471]]

contribution threshold and that a 0.5 deciview threshold was 
appropriate in this instance.
3. Identification of Sources Subject to BART
    Georgia identified 24 facilities with BART-eligible sources. All of 
Georgia's 24 BART-eligible sources were required by the State to submit 
exemption-modeling demonstrations. Georgia found that two of its BART-
eligible sources (Interstate Paper and Georgia Power--Plant Bowen) had 
modeled visibility impacts of more than the 0.5 deciview threshold for 
BART exemption. Therefore, these two facilities are subject to BART and 
submitted State permit applications including their proposed BART 
determinations.
    Of the 22 exempted BART-eligible sources, two (Lafarge Building 
Materials and International Paper--Savannah) were exempted because they 
met EPA's model plant exemption criteria in the BART Guidelines (70 FR 
39162-39163), and one, Georgia Pacific--Cedar Springs, was able to 
demonstrate exemption from BART by accepting SO2 emissions 
limits on Power Boilers 1 and 2 (135 lb SO2/hr each) and on 
Recovery Boiler 3 (350 ppm). These limits result in a 0.499 deciview 
impact at the Saint Marks Class I area and a 0.306 deciview impact at 
the Okefenokee Class I area. The remaining 19 sources demonstrated that 
they are not subject to BART by modeling less than a 0.5 deciview 
visibility impact at the affected Class I areas. For the non-EGU BART-
eligible sources, this modeling involved emissions of NOX, 
SO2, and PM10 as applicable to individual 
facilities.
    Ten of Georgia's BART-eligible sources are facilities with EGUs. 
These units are subject to CAIR. Because Georgia relied on CAIR to 
satisfy BART for SO2 and NOX for its EGUs in 
CAIR, in accordance with 40 CFR 51.308(e)(4), Georgia's EGUs were 
allowed to submit BART exemption modeling demonstrations for PM 
emissions only. All EGUs other than Georgia Power--Plant Bowen 
demonstrated that their PM10 emissions do not contribute to 
visibility impairment in any Class I area. Table 5 identifies the 24 
BART-eligible sources located in Georgia.

       Table 5--Georgia BART-Eligible and Subject-to-BART Sources
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Facilities With Unit(s) Subject to BART
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Georgia Power--Plant Bowen
Interstate Paper, LLC
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Facilities With Unit(s) Not Subject to BART
------------------------------------------------------------------------
EGU CAIR and BART Modeling (PM only) Exempt Sources \20\
  Georgia Power--Plant Branch
  Georgia Power--Plant Hammond
  Georgia Power--Plant McDonough
  Georgia Power--Plant Mitchell
  Georgia Power--Plant Scherer
  Georgia Power--Plant Wansley
  Georgia Power--Plant Yates
  Georgia Power--Plant Kraft
  Georgia Power--Plant McIntosh
Non-EGUs Exempt with Additional Model Based Emission Limits
  Georgia Pacific--Cedar Springs
  Non-EGUs Exempt using Model Plant Criteria
  Lafarge Building Materials (Blue Circle Cement--Atlanta Plant)
  International Paper--Savannah
Non-EGU BART Modeling Exempt
  Chemical Products Corporation
  DSM Chemicals, North America
  International Paper--Augusta
  Georgia Pacific--Brunswick Cellulose
  Owens Corning
  PCA--Valdosta (Tenneco Packaging, Inc.)
  PCS Nitrogen
  Prayon, Inc.
  Rayonier (Rayonier ITT, Inc.)
  Tronox (Kerr-McGee/Kemira)
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Prior to the CAIR remand, the State's reliance on CAIR to satisfy 
BART for NOX and SO2 for affected CAIR EGUs was 
fully approvable and in accordance with 40 CFR 51.308(e)(4). However, 
the BART assessments for CAIR EGUs for NOX and 
SO2 and other provisions in this SIP revision are based on 
CAIR. In a separate action, EPA has proposed a limited disapproval of 
the Georgia regional haze SIP because of deficiencies in the State's 
regional haze SIP submittal arising from the remand by the D.C. Circuit 
to EPA of CAIR. See 76 FR 82219. Consequently, EPA is not taking action 
in this proposed rulemaking to address the State's reliance on CAIR to 
meet certain regional haze requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ EGUs were only evaluated for PM emissions. Georgia relied 
on CAIR to satisfy BART for SO2 and NOX for 
its EGUs in CAIR, in accordance with 40 CFR 51.308(e)(4). Thus, 
SO2 and NOX were not analyzed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. BART Determinations

    Two BART-eligible sources (Interstate Paper and Georgia Power--
Plant Bowen) had modeled visibility impacts of more than 0.5 deciview 
and are therefore subject to BART. Consequently, they each submitted to 
the State permit applications that included their proposed BART 
determinations.
    In accordance with the BART Guidelines, to determine the level of 
control that represents BART for each source, the State first reviewed 
existing controls on these units to assess whether these constituted 
the best controls currently available, then identified what other 
technically feasible controls are available, and finally, evaluated the 
technically feasible controls using the five BART statutory factors. 
The State's evaluations and conclusions, and EPA's assessment, are 
summarized below.
1. Georgia Power--Plant Bowen
    Georgia Power--Plant Bowen has four BART-eligible emissions units 
that comprise the BART-eligible source. These units are coal fired 
EGUs, numbers 1, 2, 3, and 4. Each of the EGU's PM emissions are 
already controlled by electrostatic precipitators (ESPs) and wet FGD. 
The SO2 scrubbers were installed on Plant Bowen between 2008 
and 2010. Modeling results estimate that visibility impacts from Plant 
Bowen will exceed 0.5 deciview for at least one Class I area even with 
the PM emissions reductions that occur from scrubbing. 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. The company 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. Wet ESPs are the only control option that 
resulted in a modeled visibility improvement greater than 0.01 
deciviews. Wet ESPs were predicted to improve visibility by 
approximately 0.14 to 0.16 deciviews for each unit at a cost 
effectiveness of $37,107 to $47,909/ton SO2. In addition, 
the wet ESP would consume additional electricity and have non-air 
environmental impacts. The combination 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/ton SO2.
2. Interstate Paper--Power Boiler (F1), Recovery Boiler (F3), and Lime 
Kiln (F4)
    Interstate Paper, located in Riceboro, Georgia, is a paper facility 
owned and operated by Interstate Resources Incorporated. Interstate 
Paper is located within 100 kilometers of the Wolf Island and 
Okefenokee Wilderness Class I areas. Three of Interstate Paper's units

[[Page 11472]]

are BART-eligible: Power Boiler (F1), Recovery Boiler (F3), and Lime 
Kiln (F4).
    There are no known energy and non-air quality environmental impacts 
related to BART determined controls for Interstate paper, LLC. The 
remaining useful life of the source is at least 10 years.
(a). Power Boiler (F1)
    Power Boiler (F1) at Interstate Paper was installed in 1968 and has 
a maximum heat input of 400 MMBtu/hr. It fires natural gas and No. 6 
fuel oil. The power boiler, along with the lime kiln, is used as a 
backup control device for LVHC non-condensable gases (NCGs) generated 
in the pulp mill. Air pollutants emitted from the power boiler include 
all three BART relevant pollutants at the following rates: 300.49 tpy 
SO2, 409.24 tpy NOX, and 19 tpy PM.
    GA EPD evaluated additional controls for NOX, 
SO2, and particulates. For NOX, selective 
catalytic reduction (SCR), low NOX burners, and low 
NOX burner with flue gas recirculation were identified as 
economically feasible controls. However, they were not considered 
further for BART because of a visibility improvement of less than 0.01 
Mm-1 from NOX controls on this unit. An ESP and a fabric 
filter were identified as technically feasible controls for PM 
emissions reduction, but capital and operating costs caused them to be 
economically infeasible for BART. The resulting costs per ton of PM 
reduction ranged from $19,364 to $79,470/ton.
    For SO2, fuel switching to natural gas and a wet 
scrubber were found technically feasible. The cost per ton of 
SO2 emissions reductions of each alternative is well within 
the range that GA EPD considers economically feasible. Hence, both 
control options were further considered for BART analysis. Conversion 
to natural gas has higher control efficiency at lower cost than a wet 
scrubber. A fuel switch to natural gas has a PM and SO2 
removal efficiency of more than 99 percent. The cost that the facility 
will incur for such a fuel switch is also relatively less than the 
addition of control equipment and, along with reduction in PM and 
SO2 emissions, NOX emission reductions will also 
be achieved. Therefore, GA EPD concluded that BART for the power boiler 
at Interstate Paper is a requirement to burn natural gas only, other 
than during curtailment periods (i.e., during reduction or 
discontinuance of supply in natural gas).
(b). Recovery Boiler (F3)
    Recovery Boiler (F3) has a low odor, indirect contact evaporator 
design. The boiler fulfills the essential functions of evaporating the 
residual moisture from the black liquor solids, burning the organic 
constituents, producing steam, and producing sodium carbonate and 
sodium sulfides. Black liquor with more than 68 percent solids is fired 
into the recovery boiler where the organics from the black liquor are 
burned off in a reducing atmosphere, generating steam, molten sodium 
carbonate, and sodium sulfides. Air pollutants emitted from the 
recovery boiler include all three BART relevant pollutants at the 
following rates: 2.46 tpy SO2, 349.92 tpy NOX, 
and 0.5 tpy PM. Emissions of the recovery boiler currently pass through 
a venturi scrubber.
    GA EPD evaluated additional controls for particulates, 
NOX, and SO2. No control technology was 
identified as being technically and economically feasible; therefore, 
GA EPD concluded that BART for this unit is no additional controls.
(c). Lime Kiln (F4)
    The lime kiln dries and processes lime mud from the causticizing 
system by burning fuel oil with a sulfur content no greater than 2.5 
percent. The lime kiln is permitted to burn natural gas, No. 6 fuel 
oil, or limited quantities of used oil. It is equipped with a venturi 
scrubber to control PM emissions. The lime kiln also serves as a back-
up combustion device for LVHC NGCs generated in the pulp mill. Air 
pollutants emitted from the lime kiln include all three BART relevant 
pollutants at the following rates: 9.50 tpy SO2, 149.16 tpy 
NOX, and 127.56 tpy PM. Emissions of the lime kiln currently 
pass through a venturi scrubber.
    GA EPD evaluated additional controls for particulates, 
NOX, and SO2. No control technologies were 
identified as being technically and economically feasible for 
particulates or SO2. For NOX, the low-
NOX burner control option and two selective non-catalytic 
reduction (SNCR) control options were considered to be economically 
feasible. However, they were not considered further as retrofit 
controls because of the visibility improvement of less than 0.01 Mm-1 
from NOX controls on this unit. GA EPD concluded that BART 
for particulates, NOX, and SO2 for this unit is 
no additional controls.
3. EPA Assessment
    EPA proposes to approve Georgia's analyses and conclusions for BART 
for the Interstate Paper and Georgia Power--Plant Bowen facilities 
because the analyses were conducted in a manner that is consistent with 
EPA's BART Guidelines and EPA's Air Pollution Control Cost Manual. In 
addition, EPA believes that the conclusions reflect a reasonable 
application of EPA's guidance to these sources.
4. Enforceability of BART Limits
    The required operational restrictions limiting the power boiler at 
the Interstate Paper facility to natural gas except during curtailment 
periods to meet BART were added as permit conditions to the facility's 
title V operating permit. Georgia EPD included a copy of the permit in 
the SIP (see Appendix M as revised in GA EPD's technical supplement 
dated November 19, 2010).
    GA EPD also issued an operating permit with BART exemption limits 
for Georgia Pacific--Cedar Springs. Power Boilers 1 and No. 2 have 
limits of 135 lbs SO2/hr each. Recovery Boiler No. 3 has an 
emissions limit of 350 ppm SO2 on a dry basis corrected to 
eight percent oxygen as a 24-hour average when firing black liquor 
solids. These limits were added to the facility's title V operating 
permit. A copy of the revised title V permit was included in Appendix M 
of the Georgia regional haze submittal.
    Recordkeeping, monitoring, and testing requirements were included 
to demonstrate compliance with the BART limits. These requirements are 
consistent with GA EPD's Procedures for Testing and Monitoring Sources 
of Air Pollutants, and must meet the requirements of Compliance 
Assurance Monitoring (40 CFR Part 64) or Periodic Monitoring (40 CFR 
70.6(3)(i)(B)), as appropriate.
7. RPGs
    The RHR at 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1) requires states to establish RPGs 
for each Class I area within the state (expressed in deciviews) that 
provide for reasonable progress towards achieving natural visibility. 
VISTAS modeled visibility improvements under existing Federal and state 
regulations for the period 2004-2018 and additional control measures 
which the VISTAS states planned to implement in the first 
implementation period. At the time of VISTAS modeling, some of the 
other states with sources potentially impacting visibility at the 
Georgia Class I areas had not yet made final control determinations for 
BART and/or reasonable progress, and thus, these controls were not 
included in the modeling submitted by Georgia. Any

[[Page 11473]]

controls resulting from those determinations will provide additional 
emissions reductions and resulting visibility improvement, which give 
further assurances that Georgia will achieve its RPGs. This modeling 
demonstrates that the 2018 base control scenario provides for an 
improvement in visibility better than the uniform rate of progress for 
the Cohutta Class I area for the most impaired days over the period of 
the implementation plan and, for all three of Georgia's areas, ensures 
no degradation in visibility for the least impaired days over the same 
period. For the Okefenokee and Wolf Island Wilderness Areas, the 
modeling predicts an improvement in visibility that is slightly slower 
than the uniform rate of progress by approximately 0.40 deciview for 
the most impaired days over the period of the implementation plan.
    As shown in Table 6 below, Georgia's RPG for the 20 percent worst 
days (22.80 deciviews in 2018) at the Cohutta Wilderness Area provides 
greater visibility improvement from the baseline of 30.25 deciviews by 
2018 than the uniform rate of progress (25.71 deciviews in 2018). For 
Okefenokee and Wolf Island, the RPGs for the 20 percent worst days 
(23.82 deciviews in 2018) provide slightly less visibility improvement 
from the baseline of 27.13 deciviews by 2018 than the uniform rate of 
progress (23.42 deciviews in 2018). Also, the RPGs for the 20 percent 
best days for all three Class I areas in the State provide greater 
visibility improvement by 2018 than current best day conditions. The 
regional haze provisions specify that a state may not adopt a RPG that 
represents less visibility improvement than is expected to result from 
other CAA requirements during the implementation period. 40 CFR 
51.308(d)(1)(vi). Therefore, the CAIR states with Class I areas, like 
Georgia, took into account emissions reductions anticipated from CAIR 
in determining their 2018 RPGs.\21\ The modeling supporting the 
analysis of these RPGs is consistent with EPA guidance at the time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ Many of the CAIR states without Class I areas similarly 
relied on CAIR emission reductions within the state to address some 
or all of their contribution to visibility impairment in other 
states' Class I areas, which the impacted Class I area state(s) used 
to set the RPGs for their Class I area(s). Certain surrounding non-
CAIR states also relied on emissions reductions due to CAIR in 
nearby states to develop their regional haze SIP submittals.

                                                               Table 6--Georgia 2018 RPGs
                                                                     [In deciviews]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                    2018 RPG--20%    Uniform rate of                      2018 RPG--20%
                                                                    Baseline         worst days        progress at        Baseline          best days
                         Class I area                            visibility--20%    (improvement     2018--20% worst   visibility--20%    (improvement
                                                                   worst days      from baseline)         days            best days      from baseline)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cohutta Wilderness Area.......................................             30.25             22.80             25.71             13.77             11.75
                                                                                            (7.45)                                                (2.02)
Okefenokee Wilderness Area....................................             27.13             23.82             23.42             15.23             13.92
                                                                                            (3.31)                                                (1.31)
Wolf Island Wilderness Area...................................             27.13             23.82             23.42             15.23             13.92
                                                                                            (3.31)                                                (1.31)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The RPGs for the Class I areas in Georgia are based on modeled 
projections of future conditions that were developed using the best 
available information at the time the analysis was done. 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. It would be both impractical and resource-
intensive to require a state to continually revise its RPGs every time 
an event affecting these future projections changed.
    EPA recognized the problems of a rigid requirement to meet a long-
term goal based on modeled projections of future visibility conditions 
and addressed the uncertainties associated with RPGs in several ways. 
EPA made clear in the RHR that the RPG is not a mandatory standard 
which must be achieved by a particular date. See 64 FR at 35733. At the 
same time, EPA established a requirement for a midcourse review and, if 
necessary, correction of the states' regional haze plans. See 40 CFR 
52.308(g). In particular, 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.

D. Coordination of RAVI and Regional Haze Requirements

    EPA's visibility regulations direct states to coordinate their RAVI 
LTS and monitoring provisions with those for regional haze, as 
explained in sections III.F and III.G of this action. Under EPA's RAVI 
regulations, the RAVI portion of a state SIP must address any integral 
vistas identified by the FLMs pursuant to 40 CFR 51.304. An integral 
vista is defined in 40 CFR 51.301 as a ``view perceived from within the 
mandatory Class I Federal area of a specific landmark or panorama 
located outside the boundary of the mandatory Class I Federal area.'' 
Visibility in any mandatory Class I area includes any integral vista 
associated with that area. The FLMs did not identify any integral 
vistas in Georgia. In addition, the Class I areas in Georgia are 
neither experiencing RAVI nor are any of its sources affected by the 
RAVI provisions. Thus, the Georgia regional haze SIP submittal does not 
explicitly address the two requirements regarding coordination of the 
regional haze with the RAVI LTS and monitoring provisions. However, 
Georgia previously made a commitment to address RAVI should the FLMs 
certify visibility impairment from an

[[Page 11474]]

individual source.\22\ EPA finds that this regional haze submittal 
appropriately supplements and augments Georgia's RAVI visibility 
provisions to address regional haze by updating the monitoring and LTS 
provisions as summarized below in this section.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ Georgia submitted its visibility SIP revisions addressing 
RAVI on August 31, 1987, which EPA approved on July 12, 1988, (53 FR 
26253).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In its January 25, 2010, submittal, GA EPD updated its visibility 
monitoring program and developed a LTS to address regional haze. Also 
in this submittal, GA EPD affirmed its commitment to complete items 
required in the future under EPA's RHR. Specifically, GA EPD made a 
commitment to review and revise its regional haze implementation plan 
and submit a plan revision to EPA by July 31, 2018, and every 10 years 
thereafter. See 40 CFR 51.308(f). In accordance with the requirements 
listed in 40 CFR 51.308(g) of EPA's regional haze regulations and 40 
CFR 51.306(c) of the RAVI LTS regulations, GA EPD committed to submit a 
report to EPA on progress towards the RPGs for each mandatory Class I 
area located within Georgia and for each mandatory Class I area located 
outside Georgia that may be affected by emissions from within Georgia. 
The progress report is required to be in the form of a SIP revision and 
is due every five years following the initial submittal of the regional 
haze SIP. Consistent with EPA's monitoring regulations for RAVI and 
regional haze, Georgia will rely on the IMPROVE network for compliance 
purposes, in addition to any RAVI monitoring that may be needed in the 
future. See 40 CFR 51.305, 40 CFR 51.308(d)(4). Also, the Georgia new 
source review rules, previously approved in the State's SIP, continue 
to provide a framework for review and coordination with the FLMs on new 
sources which may have an adverse impact on visibility in either form 
(i.e., RAVI and/or regional haze) in any Class I area.

E. Monitoring Strategy and Other Implementation Plan Requirements

    The primary monitoring network for regional haze in Georgia is the 
IMPROVE network. As discussed in section IV.B.2 of this action, there 
are currently two IMPROVE monitoring sites in Georgia, one for Cohutta 
and the other monitor for Okefenokee. The Okefenokee monitor is also 
used to represent visibility conditions at Wolf Island.
    IMPROVE monitoring data from 2000-2004 serves as the baseline for 
the regional haze program, and is relied upon in the State's regional 
haze submittal. In the submittal, Georgia states its intention to rely 
on the IMPROVE network for complying with the regional haze monitoring 
requirement in EPA's RHR for the current and future regional haze 
implementation periods.
    Data produced by the IMPROVE monitoring network will be used nearly 
continuously for preparing the five-year progress reports and the 10-
year SIP revisions, each of which relies on analysis of the preceding 
five years of data. The Visibility Information Exchange Web System 
(VIEWS) Web site has been maintained by VISTAS and the other RPOs to 
provide ready access to the IMPROVE data and data analysis tools. 
Georgia is encouraging VISTAS and the other RPOs to maintain VIEWS or a 
similar data management system to facilitate analysis of the IMPROVE 
data.
    In addition to the IMPROVE measurements, Georgia also operates a 
comprehensive PM2.5 network of filter-based Federal 
reference method monitors, continuous mass monitors, filter-based 
speciated monitors, and the continuous speciated monitors listed below. 
GA EPD will use Southeastern Aerosol Research and Characterization 
(SEARCH) data from the monitoring sites listed below to further the 
understanding of both PM2.5 and visibility formation and 
trends in Georgia. The SEARCH monitors provide the following data 
related to the nature of ambient PM2.5:
     24-hr PM2.5 filter samples, analyzed for mass, 
ions (sulfate, nitrate, ammonium), organic carbon, elemental (black) 
carbon, and elements as measured by X-ray fluorescence (XRF);
     24-hr PM coarse mass, ions, and XRF elements;
     24-hr gaseous ammonia as collected with an annular 
denuder;
     Continuous (minute to hourly) PM2.5 mass, 
organic carbon, elemental carbon, ammonium, nitrate, and sulfate; light 
scattering and light absorption;
     Continuous gaseous ozone, nitric oxide, nitrogen dioxide, 
total oxidized nitrogen, nitric acid, carbon monoxide, and 
SO2; and
     Continuous 10-meter meteorological parameters: wind speed, 
wind direction, precipitation, temperature, barometric pressure, 
relative humidity and solar radiation.
    In addition, the Clean Air Status and Trends Network (``CASTNet'') 
provides atmospheric data on the dry deposition component of total acid 
deposition, ground-level ozone, and other forms of atmospheric 
pollution.

F. Consultation With States and FLMs

1. Consultation With Other States
    In December 2006 and May 2007, the State Air Directors from the 
VISTAS states held formal interstate consultation meetings. The purpose 
of these meetings was to discuss the methodology proposed by VISTAS for 
identifying sources to evaluate for reasonable progress. The states 
invited FLM and EPA representatives to participate and to provide 
additional feedback. The Directors discussed the results of analyses 
showing contributions to visibility impairment from states to each of 
the Class I areas in the VISTAS region.
    GA EPD has evaluated the impact of Georgia sources on Class I areas 
in neighboring states. The state in which a Class I area is located is 
responsible for determining which sources, both inside and outside of 
that state, to evaluate for reasonable progress controls. Because at 
the time of Georgia's SIP development many of these states had not yet 
defined their criteria for identifying sources to evaluate for 
reasonable progress, Georgia applied its AOI methodology to identify 
sources in the State that have emissions units with impacts large 
enough to potentially warrant further evaluation and analysis. The 
State identified eight emissions units in Georgia with a contribution 
of 0.5 percent or more to the visibility impairment at the following 
seven Class I areas in five neighboring states: Sipsey Wilderness Area 
(AL), Saint Marks Wilderness Area (FL), Shining Rock Wilderness Area 
(NC), Swanquarter Wilderness Area (NC), Great Smoky Mountains National 
Park (NC/TN), Joyce Kilmer-Slickrock Wilderness Area (NC/TN), and Cape 
Romain Wilderness Area (SC). Based on an evaluation of the four 
reasonable progress statutory factors, Georgia determined that there 
are no additional control measures for these Georgia emissions units 
that would be reasonable to implement to mitigate visibility impacts in 
Class I areas in these neighboring states. GA EPD consulted with these 
states in the VISTAS region regarding its reasonable progress control 
evaluations showing no cost-effective controls available for those 
emissions units in Georgia contributing at least 0.5 percent to 
visibility impairment at Class I areas in those states. No adverse 
comments were received from the other VISTAS states. The documentation 
for these formal consultations is provided in Appendix J of Georgia's 
SIP.
    Regarding the impact of sources outside of the State on Class I 
areas in Georgia, GA EPD sent letters to Florida,

[[Page 11475]]

South Carolina, and Tennessee pertaining to emissions units within 
these states that it believes contribute 0.5 percent or more to 
visibility impairment in the Georgia Class I areas. At that time, these 
neighboring states were still in the process of evaluating BART and 
reasonable progress for their sources. Any controls resulting from 
those determinations will provide additional emissions reductions and 
resulting visibility improvement, which gives further assurances that 
Georgia will achieve its RPGs. Therefore, to be conservative, Georgia 
opted not to rely on any additional emissions reductions from sources 
located outside the State's boundaries beyond those already identified 
in the State's regional haze SIP submittal and as discussed in section 
IV.C.1 (Federal and state controls in place by 2018) of this action.
    In 2007, Georgia received a letter sent by the Mid-Atlantic/
Northeast Visibility Union (MANE-VU) RPO on behalf of the States of 
Maine, New Jersey, New Hampshire, and Vermont, inviting Georgia to 
participate in upcoming state consultation calls and meetings. This 
letter also requested a control strategy to provide a 28-percent 
reduction in SO2 emissions from sources other than EGUs that 
would be equivalent to MANE-VU's proposed low sulfur fuel oil strategy. 
Georgia also received individual letters in 2007 from the MANE-VU 
States of Maine and Vermont stating that based on MANE-VU's analysis of 
2002 emissions data, Georgia contributed to visibility impairment to 
Class I areas in those states. The letters invited Georgia to 
participate in future consultation discussions. Georgia sent letters to 
Maine and Vermont stating that GA EPD was currently in the process of 
requiring 95-percent SO2 control on the seven largest coal-
fired power plants in Georgia, and that these controls were not fully 
accounted for in the VISTAS modeling for 2009 and SO2 AOI 
analyses for 2018. Georgia affirms it will continue to work through 
VISTAS to continue discussions with MANE-VU regarding this issue.
    GA EPD evaluated both EGU and non-EGU sources to determine what 
controls are reasonable in this first implementation period. EPA 
proposes to find that Georgia has adequately addressed the consultation 
requirements in the RHR and appropriately documented its consultation 
with other states in its SIP submittal.
2. Consultation With the FLMs
    Through the VISTAS RPO, Georgia and the nine other member states 
worked extensively with the FLMs from the U.S. Departments of the 
Interior and Agriculture to develop technical analyses that support the 
regional haze SIPs for the VISTAS states. The proposed regional haze 
plan for Georgia was out for public comment and FLM review from July to 
August 2009 and an earlier draft plan was shared for FLM and EPA 
discussions between December 2008 and February 2009. The FLMs did not 
submit any significant adverse comments regarding either the State's 
December 2008 draft or the July 2009 proposed regional haze SIP. The 
FLMs requested that the State include a discussion regarding the 
Georgia sources' visibility impacts to out-of-state Class I areas in 
the draft SIP as well as a discussion on consideration of measures to 
address construction activity. Additionally, the FLMs offered some 
clarifications to the text and requested inclusion of the BART 
exemption modeling reports for eight BART-eligible sources. Georgia 
addressed the FLMs' comments, including the requested BART modeling 
exemption reports and discussion regarding out-of-state Class I area 
impacts, and also provided written responses explaining its changes.
    To address the requirement for continuing consultation procedures 
with the FLMs under 40 CFR 51.308(i)(4), Georgia stated in its SIP that 
GA EPD will offer the FLMs an opportunity for consultation on a yearly 
basis, including the opportunity to discuss the implementation process 
and the most recent IMPROVE monitoring data and VIEWS data. Records of 
annual consultations and progress report consultations will be 
maintained in Georgia EPD's regional haze files.

G. Periodic SIP Revisions and Five-Year Progress Reports

    As also summarized in section IV.D of this action, consistent with 
40 CFR 51.308(g), GA EPD affirmed its commitment to submitting a 
progress report in the form of a SIP revision to EPA every five years 
following this initial submittal of the Georgia regional haze SIP. The 
report will evaluate the progress made towards the RPGs for each 
mandatory Class I area located within Georgia and for each mandatory 
Class I area located outside Georgia that may be affected by emissions 
from within Georgia. Georgia also offered recommendations for several 
technical improvements that, as funding allows, can support the State's 
next LTS. These recommendations are discussed in detail in the Georgia 
submittal in Appendix K.
    If another state's regional haze SIP identifies that Georgia's SIP 
needs to be supplemented or modified, and if after appropriate 
consultation Georgia agrees, today's action may be revisited or 
additional information and/or changes will be addressed in the five-
year progress report SIP revision.

V. What action is EPA taking?

    EPA is proposing a limited approval of a revision to the Georgia 
SIP submitted by the State of Georgia on February 11, 2010, and 
supplemented on 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, as described previously in this 
action.

VI. 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.
    Moreover, due to the nature of the Federal-state relationship under 
the CAA, preparation of flexibility analysis

[[Page 11476]]

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 proposal 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 proposes to approve 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

    Federalism (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 proposed 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. EPA specifically 
solicits additional comment on this proposed rule from tribal 
officials.

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

    Section 12 of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act 
(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.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Intergovernmental 
relations, Nitrogen oxides, Particulate matter, Reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur dioxide, Volatile organic compounds.

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

    Dated: February 15, 2012.
A. Stanley Meiburg,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4.
[FR Doc. 2012-4516 Filed 2-24-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P