[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 156 (Tuesday, August 15, 2017)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 38654-38660]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-17229]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R04-OAR-2016-0634; FRL-9966-32-Region 4]


Air Plan Approval; Georgia; Regional Haze Progress Report

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to 
approve a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the 
State of Georgia, Department of Natural Resources, through the Georgia 
Environmental Protection Division (GA EPD) on January 8, 2014. 
Georgia's January 8, 2014, SIP revision (Progress Report) addresses 
requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act) and EPA's rules that 
require each state to submit periodic reports describing progress 
towards reasonable progress goals (RPGs) established for regional haze 
and a determination of the adequacy of the state's existing SIP 
addressing regional haze (regional haze plan). EPA is proposing to 
approve Georgia's determination that the State's regional haze plan is 
adequate to meet these RPGs for the first implementation period 
covering through 2018 and requires no substantive revision at this 
time.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before September 14, 2017.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R04-
OAR-2016-0634 at http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online 
instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot 
be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. EPA may publish any comment 
received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any 
information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) 
or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 
Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a 
written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment 
and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. EPA will 
generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of 
the primary submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other file sharing 
system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA public comment 
policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general 
guidance on making effective comments, please visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michele Notarianni, Air Regulatory 
Management Section, Air Planning and Implementation Branch, Air, 
Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia 
30303-8960. Ms. Notarianni can be reached by phone at (404) 562-9031 
and via electronic mail at [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    States are required to submit a progress report in the form of a 
SIP revision during the first implementation period that evaluates 
progress towards the RPGs for each mandatory Class I federal area \1\ 
(Class I area) within the state and for each Class I area outside the 
state which may be affected by emissions from within the state. 40 CFR 
51.308(g). In addition, the provisions of 40 CFR 51.308(h) require 
states to submit, at the same time as the 40 CFR 51.308(g) progress 
report, a determination of the adequacy of the state's existing 
regional haze plan. The first progress report is due five years after 
submittal of the initial regional haze plan. Georgia submitted its 
first regional haze plan on February 11, 2010, and supplemented its 
plan on November 19, 2010.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Areas designated as mandatory Class I federal areas consist 
of national parks exceeding 6000 acres, wilderness areas and 
national memorial parks exceeding 5000 acres, and all international 
parks that were in existence on August 7, 1977. 42 U.S.C. 7472(a). 
These areas are listed at 40 CFR part 81, subpart D.
    \2\ Georgia's February 11, 2010, regional haze plan as 
supplemented on November 19, 2010, is hereinafter collectively 
referred to as Georgia's regional haze plan unless otherwise 
specified.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Like many other states subject to the Clean Air Interstate Rule 
(CAIR), Georgia relied on CAIR in its regional haze plan to meet 
certain requirements of EPA's Regional Haze Rule, including best 
available retrofit technology (BART) requirements for emissions of 
sulfur dioxide (SO2) and nitrogen oxides (NOx) from certain 
electric generating units (EGUs) in the State.\3\ This reliance was 
consistent with EPA's regulations at the time that Georgia developed 
its regional haze plan. See 70 FR 39104 (July 6, 2005). However, in 
2008, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia 
Circuit (D.C.

[[Page 38655]]

Circuit) remanded CAIR to EPA without vacatur to preserve the 
environmental benefits provided by CAIR. North Carolina v. EPA, 550 
F.3d 1176, 1178 (D.C. Cir. 2008). On August 8, 2011 (76 FR 48208), 
acting on the D.C. Circuit's remand, EPA promulgated CSAPR to replace 
CAIR and issued Federal Implementation Plans (FIPs) to implement the 
rule in CSAPR-subject states.\4\ Implementation of CSAPR was scheduled 
to begin on January 1, 2012, when CSAPR would have superseded the CAIR 
program. However, numerous parties filed petitions for review of CSAPR, 
and at the end of 2011, the D.C. Circuit issued an order staying CSAPR 
pending resolution of the petitions and directing EPA to continue to 
administer CAIR. Order of December 30, 2011, in EME Homer City 
Generation, L.P. v. EPA, D.C. Cir. No. 11-1302.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ CAIR required certain states, including Georgia, to reduce 
emissions of SO2 and NOX that significantly 
contribute to downwind nonattainment of the 1997 National Ambient 
Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for fine particulate matter 
(PM2.5) and ozone. See 70 FR 25162 (May 12, 2005).
    \4\ CSAPR requires 27 Eastern states to limit their statewide 
emissions of SO2 and/or NOX in order to 
mitigate transported air pollution unlawfully impacting other 
states' ability to attain or maintain four NAAQS: The 1997 ozone 
NAAQS, the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS, the 2006 24-hour 
PM2.5 NAAQS, and the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. The CSAPR 
emissions limitations are defined in terms of maximum statewide 
budgets for emissions of annual SO2, annual 
NOX, and/or ozone-season NOX by each covered 
state's large EGUs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On June 28, 2012 (77 FR 38501), EPA finalized a limited approval of 
Georgia's regional haze plan as meeting some of the applicable regional 
haze requirements of the first implementation period for regional haze. 
In a separate action published on June 7, 2012 (77 FR 33642), EPA 
finalized a limited disapproval of Georgia's regional haze plan because 
of deficiencies arising from the State's reliance on CAIR to satisfy 
certain regional haze requirements. In the June 7, 2012, action, EPA 
also promulgated FIPs to replace reliance on CAIR with reliance on 
CSAPR to address deficiencies in CAIR-dependent regional haze plans of 
several states, including Georgia's regional haze plan.
    On August 21, 2012, the D.C. Circuit issued its ruling on CSAPR, 
vacating and remanding the Rule to EPA and ordering continued 
implementation of CAIR. EME Homer City Generation, L.P. v. EPA, 696 
F.3d 7, 38 (D.C. Cir. 2012). The D.C. Circuit's vacatur of CSAPR was 
reversed by the United States Supreme Court on April 29, 2014, and the 
case was remanded to the D.C. Circuit to resolve remaining issues in 
accordance with the high court's ruling. EPA v. EME Homer City 
Generation, L.P., 134 S. Ct. 1584 (2014). On remand, the D.C. Circuit 
affirmed CSAPR in most respects, but invalidated without vacating some 
of the CSAPR budgets as to a number of states. EME Homer City 
Generation, L.P. v. EPA, 795 F.3d 118 (D.C. Cir. 2015). The remanded 
budgets include the Phase 2 SO2 emissions budget for 
Georgia. This litigation ultimately delayed implementation of CSAPR for 
three years, from January 1, 2012, when CSAPR's cap-and-trade programs 
were originally scheduled to replace the CAIR cap-and-trade programs, 
to January 1, 2015. Thus, the rule's Phase 2 budgets, originally 
promulgated to begin on January 1, 2014, began on January 1, 2017. On 
July 26, 2017, Georgia submitted a SIP revision that adopts provisions 
for participation in the CSAPR annual NOX and annual 
SO2 trading programs, including annual NOX and 
annual SO2 budgets that are equal to the budgets for Georgia 
in EPA's CSAPR FIP.
    On January 8, 2014, Georgia submitted its Progress Report which, 
among other things, details the progress made in the first period 
toward implementation of the long term strategy outlined in the State's 
regional haze plan; the visibility improvement measured at the three 
Class I areas within its borders (Cohutta Wilderness Area, Okefenokee 
Wilderness Area, and Wolf Island Wilderness Area) and at Class I areas 
outside of the State potentially impacted by emissions from Georgia; 
and a determination of the adequacy of the State's existing regional 
haze plan. EPA is proposing to approve Georgia's January 8, 2014, 
Progress Report for the reasons discussed below.

II. EPA's Evaluation of Georgia's Progress Report and Adequacy 
Determination

A. Regional Haze Progress Report

    This section includes EPA's analysis of Georgia's Progress Report 
and an explanation of the basis for the Agency's proposed approval.
1. Control Measures
    In its Progress Report, Georgia summarizes the status of the 
emissions reduction measures that were included in the final iteration 
of the Visibility Improvement State and Tribal Association of the 
Southeast (VISTAS) regional haze emissions inventory and RPG modeling 
used by the State in developing its regional haze plan. The measures 
include, among other things, applicable federal programs (e.g., mobile 
source rules and Maximum Achievable Control Technology standards) and 
federal and state control strategies for EGUs. Georgia also described 
the court decisions addressing CAIR and CSAPR at the time of Progress 
Report development.
    As discussed above, a number of states, including Georgia, 
submitted regional haze plans that relied on CAIR to meet certain 
regional haze requirements. EPA finalized a limited disapproval of 
Georgia's regional haze plan due to this reliance and promulgated a FIP 
to replace reliance on CAIR with reliance on CSAPR. The D.C. Circuit 
ultimately affirmed CSAPR in most respects, and CSAPR is now in effect. 
EME Homer City Generation, L.P. v. EPA, 795 F.3d 118 (D.C. Cir. 2015). 
Georgia notes in its Progress Report that CAIR was in effect due to the 
D.C. Circuit's decisions at the time of submittal. Because CSAPR should 
result in greater emissions reductions of SO2 and 
NOX than CAIR throughout the affected region, EPA expects 
Georgia to maintain and continue its progress towards its RPGs for 2018 
through continued, and additional, SO2 and NOX 
reductions. See generally 76 FR 48208 (August 8, 2011).
    In its Progress Report, Georgia identifies the status of 
implementation of SO2 controls required by Georgia Rule 391-
3-1-.02(2)(sss)--``Multipollutant Rule'' (Rule (sss)) that were 
scheduled to be installed at the time of the original regional haze 
plan submittal. Rule (sss), enacted in response to CAIR, requires the 
installation and operation of flue gas desulfurization (FGD) to control 
SO2 emissions and selective catalytic reduction (SCR) to 
control NOX emissions on the majority of the coal-fired EGUs 
in Georgia. The State notes that these controls will reduce 
NOX emissions from these EGUs by approximately 85 percent 
and reduce SO2 emissions by at least 95 percent. The 
implementation dates vary by EGU, starting on December 31, 2008, and 
ending on December 31, 2015. To date, all planned controls have been 
implemented either early or on time. By installing and operating FGD 
and SCR controls in accordance with Rule (sss), Georgia EGUs also met 
the requirements of CAIR. In its regional haze plan and Progress 
Report, Georgia focuses its assessment on SO2 emissions from 
EGUs because of VISTAS' findings that ammonium sulfate accounted for 
more than 70 percent of the visibility-impairing pollution in the 
VISTAS states \5\ and that SO2 point source emissions are 
projected to represent more than 95 percent of the total SO2 
emissions in the VISTAS states in

[[Page 38656]]

2018.\6\ As discussed below in Section II.A.5, Georgia determined that 
sulfates continue to be the largest contributor to regional haze for 
Class I areas in the State.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Sulfate levels on the 20 percent worst days account for 60-
70 percent of the visibility impairment at Georgia's Class I areas. 
For additional information, see Georgia's February 11, 2010, 
regional haze plan submittal at page 13.
    \6\ For additional information, see Georgia's February 11, 2010, 
regional haze plan submittal at page 76.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Georgia also reviewed the status of SO2 controls for 11 
non-EGU emissions units at seven facilities in the State which were 
included in the universe of emissions units initially determined 
eligible for a reasonable progress control analysis.\7\ Of these 11 
emissions units, six units at three facilities accepted permit limits 
to exempt out of being subject to a reasonable progress control 
analysis; \8\ the State determined that the BART-related controls for 
three units at two facilities satisfied reasonable progress; \9\ and 
for the remaining two units at two facilities, Georgia required 
additional controls.\10\ At the time of Progress Report submission, all 
units have required permit limits in place and have met or are expected 
to meet the required control due dates.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See Table 2-3 of Georgia's Progress Report, pp.20-22. This 
table excludes EGU and non-EGU units where existing controls or CAIR 
controls were determined to satisfy reasonable progress for the 
first implementation period.
    \8\ The following six units in Georgia have permit limits which 
exempt them from being eligible for a reasonable progress analysis: 
Packaging Corporation of America C E Boiler; Rayonier Performance 
Fibers--Jessup Mill Power Boilers 2 and 3 and Recovery Furnaces 1 
and 4; and Southern States Phosphate and Fertilizer Sulfuric Acid 
Plant 2.
    \9\ The following three units in Georgia have implemented BART-
related controls by the required due dates: Georgia Pacific Cedar 
Springs--Power Boilers U500 and U501 (BART exemption limits) and 
Interstate Paper Power Boiler F1 (BART control limits).
    \10\ The following two units in Georgia are applying additional 
control measures to meet their permit limits which satisfy 
reasonable progress: Georgia Pacific Brunswick Cellulose Power 
Boiler No. 4 and International Paper--Savannah Mill Power Boiler 13.
    \11\ See Table 2-3 of Georgia's Progress Report, pp.20-22.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, the State discusses the status of several measures 
that were not included in the final VISTAS emissions inventory and were 
not relied upon in the initial regional haze plan to meet RPGs, 
including EPA's Mercury and Air Toxics Rule, a 2011 federal consent 
agreement with the Tennessee Valley Authority, and EGU retirements and 
fuel conversions that have occurred or are planned to occur before 
2018. Georgia Power decertified and retired 15 fossil fuel fired EGUs 
(10 coal-fired, three oil-fired, and two gas-fired units) between 2013 
and 2016.\12\ Further, Georgia Power's Yates Steam Electric Generating 
Plant converted Units 6 and 7 from coal to natural gas.\13\ The State 
notes that the emissions reductions from these measures will help 
ensure that Class I areas impacted by Georgia sources achieve their 
RPGs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See page 24 of Georgia's Progress Report and a November 18, 
2016, email from Georgia to EPA documenting these EGU retirements. 
The Progress Report, email from the State, and associated 
documentation of these retirements and fuel conversions are located 
in the docket for this proposed action.
    \13\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regarding the impact of sources outside of the State on Class I 
areas in Georgia, GA EPD sent letters to Florida, South Carolina, and 
Tennessee pertaining to emissions units within these states that it 
believes contribute to visibility impairment at Georgia's Class I areas 
using the State's methodology for determining sources eligible for a 
reasonable progress control determination.\14\ Georgia consulted with 
these states regarding these sources and opted not to rely upon any 
additional emissions reductions from sources located outside the 
State's boundaries beyond those already identified in the State's 
regional haze plan.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See 77 FR 11474-11475.
    \15\ See 77 FR 11475.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regarding the impact of Georgia's sources on Class I areas outside 
of the State, Georgia applied its area of influence methodology to 
identify sources in the State that have emissions units with impacts 
large enough to potentially warrant further evaluation and analysis 
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. The State identified eight emissions units in 
Georgia within the area of influence of seven Class I areas in five 
neighboring states. 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 the five neighboring states.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ In its regional haze plan, the State identified, through an 
area of influence modeling analysis based on back trajectories, 
seven Class I areas in five neighboring states potentially impacted 
by Georgia sources using the State's reasonable progress eligibility 
criteria as a screening tool: 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). See 77 FR 11474 (February 27, 
2012). Georgia evaluated the 20 percent worst day visibility 
conditions for these areas. See pages 42-43 and Appendix D of 
Georgia's Progress Report.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA proposes to find that Georgia adequately addressed the 
applicable provisions under 40 CFR 51.308(g) regarding the 
implementation of control measures for the reasons discussed below. The 
State documents the implementation status of measures from its regional 
haze plan in addition to describing additional measures not originally 
accounted for in the final VISTAS emissions inventory that came into 
effect since the VISTAS analyses for the regional haze plan were 
completed. Georgia reviewed the status of BART requirements for the two 
BART-subject non-EGU sources in the State and reviewed the status of 
additional reasonable progress controls for these two sources. The 
State's Progress Report also discusses the status of existing and 
future expected SO2 controls for Georgia's EGUs because, in 
its regional haze plan, Georgia identified SO2 emissions 
from coal-fired EGUs as the key contributor to regional haze in the 
VISTAS region.
2. Emissions Reductions
    As discussed above, Georgia focused its assessment on 
SO2 emissions from EGUs because of VISTAS' findings that 
ammonium sulfate is the primary component of visibility-impairing 
pollution in the VISTAS states. In its Progress Report, Georgia 
presents SO2 emissions data for 23 coal-fired EGUs at seven 
facilities in the State that, at the time the State submitted its 
February 11, 2010, regional haze plan, were scheduled to install 
SO2 controls as a result of Rule (sss).\17\ Eleven of these 
coal-fired EGUs were identified by Georgia as having visibility impacts 
at one or more neighboring Class I areas. As of the time that Georgia 
developed its Progress Report, all planned controls had been 
implemented either early or on time and the requirements for controls 
in 2013 or later are still in place. Georgia Power--Plant McDonough 
retired Units 1 and 2 prior to their control dates in 2012 and 2011, 
respectively, for FGD controls.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ See Table 2-2 on pages 15-18 of Georgia's Progress Report.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on EGU emissions projections from its regional haze plan, 
Georgia notes that the estimated total SO2 emission 
reductions for these coal-fired EGUs from 2002 to 2018 would be 441,989 
tons per year (tpy) and from 2002 to 2009 would be 161,949 tpy. Actual 
SO2 emissions reductions implemented by the end of 2009 
totaled 184,215 tpy of SO2, over 20,000 tpy greater than 
originally projected through 2009 in Georgia's regional haze plan. 
Georgia also estimates in its Progress Report that an additional 93,000 
tons of SO2 emissions reductions were achieved from 2010 
through 2012.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ See page 14 of Georgia's Progress Report.

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

[[Page 38657]]

    Georgia's Progress Report also includes SO2 and 
NOX emissions data from 2002-2011 for EGUs in the State and 
for EGUs in the VISTAS region that are subject to reporting under the 
Acid Rain Program. This data shows a decline in these emissions over 
this time period. From 2002-2011, SO2 emissions from these 
EGUs in Georgia decreased by 325,795 tons annually. Table 1 shows 
actual SO2 emissions from Georgia EGUs obtained from EPA's 
Clean Air Markets Division (CAMD) database. EGU SO2 
emissions dropped from 2007 to 2011 by 448,625 tons.

                                  Table 1--Georgia EGU SO2 Emissions From CAMD
                                                   [2007-2011]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      SO2 Emissions (tons)             2007            2008            2009            2010            2011
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CAMD EGU Emissions..............         635,484         514,539         262,337         218,904         186,859
Change from 2007................               0         120,945         373,147         416,580         448,625
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA proposes to conclude that Georgia has adequately addressed 40 
CFR 51.308(g). As discussed above, the State provides estimates, and 
where available, actual emissions reductions of SO2 and 
NOX at EGUs in the State.
3. Visibility Progress
    In its Progress Report, Georgia provides figures with visibility 
monitoring data for the State's three Class I areas. Georgia reported 
current conditions as the 2006-2010 five-year time period and used the 
2000-2004 baseline period for its Class I areas.\19\ Table 2 shows the 
current visibility conditions and the difference between current 
visibility conditions and baseline visibility conditions. Table 3 shows 
the changes in visibility from 2005-2010 in terms of five-year 
averages.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ For the first regional haze plans, ``baseline'' conditions 
were represented by the 2000-2004 time period. See 64 FR 35730 (July 
1, 1999). Wolf Island Wilderness Area does not have a visibility 
monitor; therefore, visibility data from Okefenokee Wilderness Area 
is used for both areas given their proximity. For more information, 
see 77 FR 11459.

      Table 2--Baseline Visibility, Current Visibility, and Visibility Changes in Class I Areas in Georgia
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  Baseline (2000- Current (2006-
                  Class I area                         2004)           2010)        Difference      RPG (2018)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
20% Worst Days
Cohutta.........................................           30.25           26.18           -4.07           22.80
Okefenokee......................................           27.13           25.01           -2.13           23.82
Wolf Island.....................................           27.13           25.01           -2.13           23.82
20% Best Days
Cohutta.........................................           13.77           12.18           -1.59           11.75
Okefenokee......................................           15.23           14.19           -1.04           13.92
Wolf Island.....................................           15.23           14.19           -1.04           13.92
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                            Table 3--Changes in Five-Year Visibility Averages From 2005-2010
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                                           Change (2010-
              Class I area                     2005            2006            2007            2008            2009            2010            2005)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
20% Worst Days
Cohutta \20\............................           30.43           30.52           30.43           29.63           28.01           26.18           -4.24
Okefenokee..............................           27.14           27.24           27.21           26.88           26.00           25.01           -2.13
Wolf Island.............................           27.14           27.24           27.21           26.88           26.00           25.01           -2.13
20% Best Days
Cohutta \21\............................           13.88           13.63           13.62           13.43            12.5           12.18           -1.70
Okefenokee..............................           14.95           15.03           14.90           14.90           14.46           14.19           -0.75
Wolf Island.............................           14.95           15.03           14.90           14.90           14.46           14.19           -0.75
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    All Georgia Class I areas saw an improvement in visibility between 
baseline and 2006-2010 conditions and an overall decline in the five-
year visibility averages from 2006-2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ There is no annual average for Cohutta for the year 2006.
    \21\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA proposes to find that Georgia has adequately addressed the 
applicable provisions under 40 CFR 51.308(g) regarding visibility 
conditions because the State provided baseline visibility conditions 
(2000-2004), current conditions based on the most recently available 
visibility monitoring data available at the time of Progress Report 
development, and the change in visibility impairment from 2006-2010.
4. Emissions Tracking
    In its Progress Report, Georgia includes data from a statewide 
actual emissions inventory for 2007 and compares this data to the 
baseline emissions inventory for 2002 (actual and typical emissions) 
from its regional haze plan.\22\ The pollutants inventoried include 
volatile organic compounds (VOC), ammonia (NH3), 
NOX, coarse particulate matter (PM10), fine

[[Page 38658]]

particulate matter (PM2.5), and SO2.\23\ The 
emissions inventories include the following source classifications: 
Point, area, biogenics, non-road mobile, and on-road mobile sources.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ For the typical 2002 stationary point source emissions 
inventory, Georgia adjusted the EGU emissions for a typical year so 
that if sources were shut down or operating above or below normal, 
the emissions are normalized to a typical emissions inventory year. 
The purpose is to smooth out potential anomalies in EGU emissions 
(related to meteorology, economic, and outage factors) in a given 
year. The typical year data is used to develop projected typical 
future year emissions inventories.
    \23\ See Appendices F through I of Georgia's Progress Report for 
inventories of these pollutants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Georgia's Progress Report narrative includes the actual and typical 
emissions inventories from its regional haze plan for 2002, and 
summarizes actual emissions data for SO2, NOX, 
and PM2.5 from 2007.\24\ Although EPA's 2008 National 
Emissions Inventory was available, Georgia believes that the 2007 
inventory was a more accurate and more detailed inventory because 
additional work was done to improve and verify its accuracy. Georgia 
estimated on-road mobile source emissions in the 2007 inventory using 
EPA's MOVES model. This model tends to estimate higher emissions for 
NOX and PM than its previous counterpart, EPA's MOBILE6.2 
model, used by the State to estimate on-road mobile source emissions 
for the 2002 inventories. Georgia also included projected emissions 
data from its February 11, 2010, regional haze plan submittal for these 
visibility-impairing pollutants for the years 2009 and 2018.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ Georgia focuses on the visibility-impairing pollutants of 
SO2, NOX, and PM2.5 in its Progress 
Report narrative because VISTAS performed modeling sensitivity 
analyses which demonstrated that anthropogenic emissions of VOC and 
NH3 do not significantly impair visibility in the VISTAS 
region, including Georgia. See 77 FR 11456, 11460 (February 27, 
2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Table 4 shows that actual emissions of PM2.5 in 2007 are 
slightly higher than 2002 emissions. Both the 2002 and 2007 actual 
emissions inventories are lower than the projected emissions for 2009 
and 2018 from Georgia's regional haze plan. The State notes that the 
increase in on-road mobile PM2.5 emissions from 2002 to 2007 
is due to the change from MOBILE 6.2 to the MOVES model and that the 
decrease in area source PM2.5 emissions from 2002 to 2007 is 
mainly due to a change in the methodology used for calculating this 
sector's emissions.

                                            Table 4--PM2.5 Emissions
                                                     [tons]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Sector                 2002 Actual    2002 Typical     2007 Actual   2009 Projected  2018 Projected
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point...........................          22,401          22,532          25,058          29,890          36,297
Area............................         103,726         103,726          83,594         111,924         123,610
On-road.........................           5,168           5,168          13,681           3,840           2,380
Non-road........................           8,226           8,226           6,608           7,175           5,730
Fires...........................          57,293          55,712          68,766          57,087          57,087
                                 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total.......................         196,814         195,364         197,707         209,916         225,104
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Table 5 shows that actual emissions of NOX in 2007 are 
slightly higher than 2002 emissions. With the exception of area 
sources, both the 2002 and 2007 actual emissions inventories for all 
other source categories remain higher than or approximately equal to 
the projected emissions for 2009 and 2018 from Georgia's regional haze 
plan. Georgia notes that the increase in on-road mobile NOX 
emissions from 2002 to 2007 is due to the change to the MOVES model; 
the decrease in area source NOX emissions is mainly due to a 
change in the methodology used for calculating this sector's emissions 
and the decrease in point source NOX is due to the 
installation of emissions controls. Georgia notes in its Progress 
Report that if there was no change in the mobile model used, the State 
would expect that 2007 emissions would be less than the 2002 base year 
emissions for NOX.

                                             Table 5--NOX Emissions
                                                     [tons]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Sector                 2002 Actual    2002 Typical     2007 Actual   2009 Projected  2018 Projected
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point...........................         196,767         197,377         154,041         148,850         125,680
Area............................          36,105          36,105          12,351          37,689          41,282
On-road.........................         307,732         307,732         396,837         209,349         102,179
Non-road........................          97,961          97,961          91,081          85,733          64,579
Fires...........................          14,203          13,882          19,429          14,236          14,236
                                 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total.......................         652,768         653,057         673,739         495,857         347,956
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Table 6 shows that actual emissions of SO2 from point 
sources and fires are higher in 2007 than 2002. Georgia notes that the 
decrease in area source SO2 emissions is mainly due to a 
change in the methodology used for calculating this sector's emissions 
and that the increase in point source SO2 emissions from 
2002 to 2007 is due to increased electricity generation. Despite the 
increase from 2002 to 2007 in point source emissions of SO2, 
significant emissions reductions occurred in this sector from 2007 to 
2011 (as summarized in Table 1, above). The State attributes these 
decreased emissions to FGD being installed at several of the coal-fired 
EGUs in Georgia.

[[Page 38659]]



                                             Table 6--SO2 Emissions
                                                     [tons]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Sector                 2002 Actual    2002 Typical     2007 Actual   2009 Projected  2018 Projected
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point...........................         568,731         571,411         683,358         462,666         127,864
Area............................          57,555          57,555           4,858          57,692          59,724
On-road.........................          12,184          12,184           6,407           1,585           1,457
Non-road........................           9,005           9,005           5,983           2,725           1,709
Fires...........................           3,372           2,815           4,492           2,912           2,912
                                 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total.......................         650,847         652,970         705,098         527,580         193,666
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA proposes to find that Georgia adequately addressed the 
provisions of 40 CFR 51.308(g) regarding emissions tracking because the 
State compared the most recent updated emission inventory data 
available at the time of Progress Report development with the baseline 
emissions used in the modeling for the regional haze plan.
5. Assessment of Changes Impeding Visibility Progress
    In its Progress Report, Georgia documented that sulfates, which are 
formed from SO2 emissions, continue to be the biggest single 
contributor to regional haze for Class I areas in the VISTAS states, 
including Georgia, and therefore focused its analysis on large 
SO2 emissions from point sources. Specifically, Georgia 
provided data showing the composition of PM2.5 (``speciated 
data'') for Class I areas in the VISTAS region and bordering areas, 
including Cohutta and Okefenokee, for the years 2001 through 2010. This 
speciated data shows that ammonium sulfate continues to be the most 
important contributor to visibility impairment and fine particle mass 
on the 20 percent worst and 20 percent best visibility days at all of 
Georgia's Class I areas.\25\ The State notes that there are no 
significant changes in anthropogenic emissions that have impeded 
progress in reducing emissions and improving visibility in Class I 
areas impacted by Georgia sources, and refers to decreases in point 
source SO2 emissions from 2002 to 2011. Given the heat input 
data reported by CAMD, the State concludes that these reductions are 
not attributable to reduced power demand. Furthermore, the Progress 
Report shows that the State is on track to meeting its 2018 RPGs for 
Class I areas in Georgia.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ See Appendices A and B of Georgia's Progress Report.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA proposes to find that Georgia has adequately addressed the 
provisions of 40 CFR 51.308(g) regarding an assessment of significant 
changes in anthropogenic emissions. EPA preliminarily agrees with 
Georgia's conclusion that there have been no significant changes in 
emissions of visibility-impairing pollutants which have limited or 
impeded progress in reducing emissions and improving visibility in 
Class I areas impacted by the State's sources.
6. Assessment of Current Strategy
    The State believes that it is on track to meet the 2018 RPGs for 
Georgia Class I areas and will not impede Class I areas outside of 
Georgia from meeting their RPGs based on the trends in visibility and 
emissions presented in its Progress Report. As noted above, Georgia 
provided speciated data for the period 2006 to 2010 for the 20 percent 
best and worst days at Class I areas in and surrounding the VISTAS 
region, including Okefenokee and Cohutta, showing that sulfates 
continue to be the largest contributor to visibility impairment at 
these Class I areas.\26\ Georgia's Progress Report shows that 
SO2 emissions from EGUs in Georgia have decreased from 2002 
to 2011 by 325,795 tons; that visibility has improved on the 20 percent 
worst days for the State's Class I areas and the Class I areas 
potentially impacted by the State's sources (Cape Romain National 
Wilderness Area in South Carolina, Shining Rock and Swanquarter 
Wilderness Areas in North Carolina, Joyce Kilmer--Slick Rock Wilderness 
Area and Great Smoky Mountains National Park in North Carolina and 
Tennessee, St. Marks National Wilderness Area in Florida, and Sipsey 
Wilderness Area in Alabama); and that these areas are on track to 
achieve their RPGs by 2018.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ See Figures 1-2, 1-3, 1-4, and 1-5 of Georgia's Progress 
Report on pages 5-7.
    \27\ See pages 42-43 of the narrative and Appendix D of 
Georgia's Progress Report.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As discussed in Section II.A.1, above, CAIR was implemented during 
the time period evaluated by Georgia for its Progress Report, but has 
now been replaced by CSAPR. At the present time, the requirements of 
CSAPR apply to sources in Georgia under the terms of a FIP. Georgia's 
regional haze plan accordingly does not contain sufficient provisions 
to ensure that the RPGs of Class I areas in nearby states will be 
achieved. The term ``implementation plan,'' however, is defined for 
purposes of the Regional Haze Rule to mean ``any [SIP], [FIP], or 
Tribal Implementation Plan.'' 40 CFR 51.301. Measures in any issued 
FIP, as well as those in a state's regional haze plan, may therefore be 
considered in assessing the adequacy of the ``existing implementation 
plan.'' As noted above, Georgia submitted a SIP revision on July 26, 
2017, that adopts provisions for participation in the CSAPR annual 
NOX and annual SO2 trading programs, including 
annual NOX and annual SO2 budgets that are equal 
to the budgets for Georgia in EPA's CSAPR FIP.
    EPA proposes to find that Georgia has adequately addressed the 
provisions of 40 CFR 51.308(g) regarding the strategy assessment. In 
its Progress Report, Georgia described the improving visibility trends 
using data from the IMPROVE network and the downward emissions trends 
in NOX and SO2 emissions from EGUs in the State. 
These trends support the State's determination that its regional haze 
plan is sufficient to meet RPGs for Class I areas within and outside 
the State potentially impacted by Georgia sources. EPA finds that 
Georgia's conclusion regarding the sufficiency of its regional haze 
plan is appropriate because CAIR was in effect in Georgia through 2014, 
providing the emission reductions relied upon in Georgia's regional 
haze plan through that date. CSAPR is now being implemented, and by 
2018, the end of the first regional haze implementation period, CSAPR 
will reduce emissions of SO2 and NOX from EGUs in 
Georgia by the same amount assumed by EPA when it issued the CSAPR FIP 
for Georgia. Because CSAPR will ensure the control of SO2 
and NOX emissions reductions relied upon by Georgia and 
other states in setting their RPGs beginning in January 2015 at least 
through the

[[Page 38660]]

remainder of the first implementation period in 2018, EPA is proposing 
to approve Georgia's finding that the plan elements and strategies in 
its implementation plan are sufficient to achieve the RPGs for the 
Class I area in the State and for Class I areas in nearby states 
potentially impacted by sources in the State.
7. Review of Current Monitoring Strategy
    Georgia's Progress Report summarizes the existing monitoring 
network in the State to monitor visibility in Georgia's Class I areas 
and concludes that no modifications to the existing visibility 
monitoring strategy are necessary. The primary monitoring network for 
regional haze, both nationwide and in Georgia, is the IMPROVE network. 
There are currently two IMPROVE sites in Georgia. One is located in the 
Cohutta Wilderness Area. The other monitor is located in the Okefenokee 
Wilderness area and serves as the monitoring site for both the 
Okefenokee and Wolf Island Wilderness Areas.
    The State also explains the importance of the IMPROVE monitoring 
network for tracking visibility trends at Class I areas in Georgia, 
noting that because IMPROVE monitoring data from 2000-2004 serve as the 
baseline for the regional haze program, the future regional haze 
monitoring strategy should be based on IMPROVE data (or data directly 
comparable to IMPROVE data). Georgia also highlights that the IMPROVE 
measurements provide the only long-term record available for tracking 
visibility improvement or degradation. The Visibility Information 
Exchange Web System Web site has been maintained by VISTAS and the 
other Regional Planning Organizations to provide ready access to the 
IMPROVE data and data analysis tools.
    EPA proposes to find that Georgia has adequately addressed the 
applicable provisions of 40 CFR 51.308(g) regarding monitoring strategy 
because the State reviewed its visibility monitoring strategy and 
determined that no further modifications to the strategy are necessary.

B. Determination of Adequacy of Existing Regional Haze Plan

    In its Progress Report, Georgia submitted a declaration to EPA that 
the existing regional haze plan requires no further substantive 
revision at this time to achieve the RPGs for Class I areas affected by 
the State's sources. The basis for the State's declaration is the 
findings from the Progress Report, including the findings that: The 
control measures in Georgia's regional haze plan are on track to meet 
their implementation schedules; reduction of SO2 emissions 
continues to be the appropriate strategy for improvement of visibility 
in Georgia's Class I areas; EGU SO2 emissions dropped from 
2002 to 2011 by 325,795 tons,\28\ and the actual change in visibility 
through 2010 for Georgia's Class I areas is better than the what the 
State predicted for 2010 and is exceeding the uniform rate of progress.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ See page 39 of Georgia's Progress Report.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA proposes to find that Georgia has adequately addressed 40 CFR 
51.308(h) because the visibility trends at the Class I areas in the 
State and at Class I areas outside the State potentially impacted by 
sources within Georgia and the emissions trends of the largest emitters 
of visibility-impairing pollutants in the State indicate that the 
relevant RPGs will be met.

III. Proposed Action

    EPA is proposing to approve Georgia's Regional Haze Progress Report 
SIP revision, submitted by the State on January 8, 2014, as meeting the 
applicable regional haze requirements set forth in 40 CFR 51.308(g) and 
51.308(h).

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP 
submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable 
federal regulations. See 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in 
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, 
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this 
proposed action merely proposes to approve state law as meeting federal 
requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those 
imposed by state law. For that reason, this proposed action:
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review 
by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58 
FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
     does not impose an information collection burden under the 
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     is certified as not having a significant economic impact 
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or 
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded 
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     does not have Federalism implications as specified in 
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     is not an economically significant regulatory action based 
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 
19885, April 23, 1997);
     is not a significant regulatory action subject to 
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the 
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent 
with the CAA; and
     does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to 
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental 
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under 
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    The SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or 
in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a 
tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does 
not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 
FR 67249, November 9, 2000), nor will it impose substantial direct 
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

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

    Dated: August 7, 2017.
V. Anne Heard,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4.
[FR Doc. 2017-17229 Filed 8-14-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P