[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 107 (Monday, June 3, 2024)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 47481-47504]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-12025]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R04-OAR-2023-0220; FRL-10407-01-R4]


Air Plan Approval; Georgia; Second Period Regional Haze Plan

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to 
approve a regional haze State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision 
submitted by the Georgia Department of Natural Resources, Environmental 
Protection Division (GA EPD), dated August 11, 2022 (``Haze Plan'' or 
``2022 Plan''), as satisfying applicable requirements under the Clean 
Air Act (CAA or Act) and EPA's Regional Haze Rule (RHR) for the 
regional haze program's second planning period. Georgia's SIP 
submission addresses the requirement that States must periodically 
revise their long-term strategies for making reasonable progress toward 
the national goal of preventing any future, and remedying any existing, 
anthropogenic impairment of visibility, including regional haze, in 
mandatory Class I Federal areas. The SIP submission also addresses 
other applicable requirements for the second planning period of the 
regional haze program. EPA is taking this action pursuant to sections 
110 and 169A of the Act.

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before July 3, 2024.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R04-
OAR-2023-0220, 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://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Estelle Bae, Air Permits Section, Air 
Planning and Implementation Branch, Air and Radiation Division, U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW, 
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. Ms. Bae can be reached via telephone at 
(404) 562-9143 or electronic mail at [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. What action is EPA proposing?
II. Background and Requirements for Regional Haze Plans
    A. Regional Haze Background
    B. Roles of Agencies in Addressing Regional Haze
III. Requirements for Regional Haze Plans for the Second Planning 
Period
    A. Identification of Class I Areas
    B. Calculations of Baseline, Current, and Natural Visibility 
Conditions; Progress to Date; and the Uniform Rate of Progress
    C. Long-Term Strategy for Regional Haze
    D. Reasonable Progress Goals
    E. Monitoring Strategy and Other State Implementation Plan 
Requirements
    F. Requirements for Periodic Reports Describing Progress Toward 
the Reasonable Progress Goals
    G. Requirements for State and Federal Land Manager Coordination

[[Page 47482]]

IV. EPA's Evaluation of Georgia's Haze Submission for Second 
Planning Period
    A. Identification of Class I Areas
    B. Calculations of Baseline, Current, and Natural Visibility 
Conditions; Progress to Date; and the Uniform Rate of Progress
    C. Long-Term Strategy for Regional Haze
    D. Reasonable Progress Goals
    E. Monitoring Strategy and Other State Implementation Plan 
Requirements
    F. Requirements for Periodic Reports Describing Progress Toward 
the Reasonable Progress Goals
    G. Requirements for State and Federal Land Manager Coordination
    H. Environmental Justice Considerations
V. Incorporation by Reference
VI. Proposed Action
VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. What action is EPA proposing?

    On August 11, 2022, GA EPD submitted a revision to its SIP to 
address regional haze for the second planning period.1 2 GA 
EPD made this SIP submission to satisfy the requirements of the CAA's 
regional haze program pursuant to CAA sections 169A and 169B and 40 CFR 
51.308. EPA is proposing to find that Haze Plan meets the applicable 
statutory and regulatory requirements. Thus, EPA is proposing to 
approve Georgia's Haze Plan into its SIP.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The August 11, 2022, SIP submission, with exception of the 
supporting modeling files, is included in the docket for this 
action. Due to size and compatibility limitations of the Federal 
Docket Management System, the supporting modeling files for 
Georgia's Regional Haze Plan are instead available at the EPA Region 
4 office. To request these files, please contact the person listed 
in this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) under the section 
titled FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
    \2\ On November 1, 2023, Georgia supplemented its August 11, 
2022, Haze Plan by submitting the final permits for each of the 
three sources selected for an emissions control analysis. This 
supplemental submission, received November 1, 2023, along with GA 
EPD's November 17, 2023, clarification email, is included in the 
docket for this proposed action.
    \3\ In a letter dated August 15, 2022, EPA found that Georgia's 
Haze Plan meets the completeness criteria outlined in 40 CFR part 
51, Appendix V. A completeness determination does not constitute a 
finding on the merits of the submission or whether it meets the 
relevant criteria for SIP approval. The August 15, 2022, letter is 
included in the docket for this rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Background and Requirements for Regional Haze Plans

A. Regional Haze Background

    In the 1977 CAA Amendments, Congress created a program for 
protecting visibility in the nation's mandatory Class I Federal areas, 
which include certain national parks and wilderness areas.\4\ CAA 169A. 
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 Federal areas which impairment results from manmade 
air pollution.'' See CAA 169A(a)(1). The CAA further directs EPA to 
promulgate regulations to assure reasonable progress toward meeting 
this national goal. See CAA 169A(a)(4). On December 2, 1980, EPA 
promulgated regulations to address visibility impairment in mandatory 
Class I Federal areas (hereinafter referred to as ``Class I areas'') 
that is ``reasonably attributable'' to a single source or small group 
of sources. See 45 FR 80084 (December 2, 1980). These regulations, 
codified at 40 CFR 51.300 through 51.307, represented the first phase 
of EPA's efforts to address visibility impairment. In 1990, Congress 
added section 169B to the CAA to further address visibility impairment, 
specifically, impairment from regional haze. See CAA 169B. EPA 
promulgated the RHR, codified at 40 CFR 51.308,\5\ on July 1, 1999. See 
64 FR 35714 (July 1, 1999). These regional haze regulations are a 
central component of EPA's comprehensive visibility protection program 
for Class I areas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Areas statutorily designated as mandatory Class I Federal 
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. CAA 
162(a). There are 156 mandatory Class I areas. The list of areas to 
which the requirements of the visibility protection program apply is 
in 40 CFR part 81, subpart D.
    \5\ In addition to the generally applicable regional haze 
provisions at 40 CFR 51.308, EPA also promulgated regulations 
specific to addressing regional haze visibility impairment in Class 
I areas on the Colorado Plateau at 40 CFR 51.309. The latter 
regulations are applicable only for specific jurisdictions' regional 
haze plans submitted no later than December 17, 2007, and thus, are 
not relevant here.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regional haze is visibility impairment that is produced by a 
multitude of anthropogenic sources and activities which are located 
across a broad geographic area and that emit pollutants that impair 
visibility. Visibility impairing pollutants include fine and coarse 
particulate matter (PM) (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, volatile organic compounds (VOC) and ammonia 
(NH3)). Precursor pollutants react in the atmosphere to form 
fine particulate matter (particles less than or equal to 2.5 
micrometers ([micro]m) in diameter, PM2.5), which impairs 
visibility by scattering and absorbing light. Visibility impairment 
reduces the perception of clarity and color, as well as visible 
distance.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ There are several ways to measure the amount of visibility 
impairment, i.e., haze. One such measurement is the deciview, which 
is the principal metric defined and used by the RHR. Under many 
circumstances, a change in one deciview will be perceived by the 
human eye to be the same on both clear and hazy days. The deciview 
is unitless. It is proportional to the logarithm of the atmospheric 
extinction of light, which is the perceived dimming of light due to 
its being scattered and absorbed as it passes through the 
atmosphere. Atmospheric light extinction (b\ext\) is a metric used 
for expressing visibility and is measured in inverse megameters 
(Mm-\1\). EPA's ``Guidance on Regional Haze State 
Implementation Plans for the Second Implementation Period'' (``2019 
Guidance'') offers the flexibility for the use of light extinction 
in certain cases. Light extinction can be simpler to use in 
calculations than deciviews since it is not a logarithmic function. 
See, e.g., 2019 Guidance at 16, 19, https://www.epa.gov/visibility/guidance-regional-haze-state-implementation-plans-second-implementation-period, EPA Office of Air Quality Planning and 
Standards, Research Triangle Park (August 20, 2019). The formula for 
the deciview is 10 ln (b\ext\)/10 Mm-\1\). See 40 CFR 
51.301.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To address regional haze visibility impairment, the 1999 RHR 
established an iterative planning process that requires both States in 
which Class I areas are located and States ``the emissions from which 
may reasonably be anticipated to cause or contribute to any impairment 
of visibility'' in a Class I area to periodically submit SIP revisions 
to address such impairment. See CAA 169A(b)(2); \7\ see also 40 CFR 
51.308(b), (f) (establishing submission dates for iterative regional 
haze SIP revisions); 64 FR at 35768. Under the CAA, each SIP submission 
must contain ``a long-term (ten to fifteen years) strategy for making 
reasonable progress toward meeting the national goal,'' CAA 
169A(b)(2)(B); the initial round of SIP submissions also had to address 
the statutory requirement that certain older, larger sources of 
visibility impairing pollutants install and operate the best available 
retrofit technology (BART). See CAA 169A(b)(2)(A); 40 CFR 51.308(d), 
(e). States' first regional haze SIPs were due by December 17, 2007, 40 
CFR 51.308(b), with subsequent SIP submissions containing updated long-
term strategies (LTSs) originally due July 31, 2018, and every ten 
years thereafter. See 64 FR at 35768. EPA established in the 1999 RHR 
that all States either have Class I areas within their borders or 
``contain sources whose emissions are reasonably anticipated to 
contribute to regional haze in a Class I area''; therefore, all States 
must submit regional haze SIPs.\8\ Id. at 35721.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ The RHR expresses the statutory requirement for States to 
submit plans addressing out-of-State Class I areas by providing that 
States must address visibility impairment ``in each mandatory Class 
I Federal area located outside the State that may be affected by 
emissions from within the State.'' See 40 CFR 51.308(d), (f).
    \8\ In addition to each of the 50 States, EPA also concluded 
that the Virgin Islands and District of Columbia must also submit 
regional haze SIPs because they either contain a Class I area or 
contain sources whose emissions are reasonably anticipated to 
contribute regional haze in a Class I area. See 40 CFR 51.300(b), 
(d)(3).

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

[[Page 47483]]

    Much of the focus in the first planning period of the regional haze 
program, which ran from 2007 through 2018, was on satisfying States' 
BART obligations. First planning period SIPs were additionally required 
to contain LTSs for making reasonable progress toward the national 
visibility goal, of which BART is one component. The core required 
elements for the first planning period SIPs (other than BART) are laid 
out in 40 CFR 51.308(d). Those provisions require that States 
containing Class I areas establish ``reasonable progress goals'' 
(``RPGs'') that are measured in deciviews and reflect the anticipated 
visibility conditions at the end of the planning period including from 
implementation of States' LTSs. The first planning period RPGs were 
required to provide for an improvement in visibility for the most 
impaired days over the period of the implementation plan and ensure no 
degradation in visibility for the least impaired days over the same 
period. In establishing the RPGs for any Class I area in a State, the 
State was required to consider four statutory factors (also referenced 
herein as ``the four factors''): the costs of compliance, the time 
necessary for compliance, the energy and non-air quality environmental 
impacts of compliance, and the remaining useful life of any potentially 
affected sources. See CAA 169A(g)(1); 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1).
    States were also required to calculate baseline (using the five 
year period of 2000-2004) and natural visibility conditions (i.e., 
visibility conditions without anthropogenic visibility impairment) for 
each Class I area, and to calculate the linear rate of progress needed 
to attain natural visibility conditions, assuming a starting point of 
baseline visibility conditions in 2004 and ending with natural 
conditions in 2064. This linear interpolation is known as the uniform 
rate of progress (URP) and is used as a tracking metric to help States 
assess the amount of progress they are making toward the national 
visibility goal over time in each Class I area.\9\ See 40 CFR 
51.308(d)(1)(i)(B), (d)(2). The 1999 RHR also provided that States' 
LTSs must include the ``enforceable emissions limitations, compliance, 
schedules, and other measures as necessary to achieve the reasonable 
progress goals.'' See 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3). In establishing their LTSs, 
States are required to consult with other States that also contribute 
to visibility impairment in a given Class I area and include all 
measures necessary to obtain their shares of the emission reductions 
needed to meet the RPGs. See 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(i), (ii). Section 
51.308(d) also contains seven additional factors States must consider 
in formulating their LTSs, 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(v), as well as 
provisions governing monitoring and other implementation plan 
requirements. See 40 CFR 51.308(d)(4). Finally, the 1999 RHR required 
States to submit periodic progress reports--SIP revisions due every 
five years that contain information on States' implementation of their 
regional haze plans and an assessment of whether anything additional is 
needed to make reasonable progress, see 40 CFR 51.308(g), (h)--and to 
consult with the Federal Land Manager(s) \10\ (FLMs) responsible for 
each Class I area according to the requirements in CAA 169A(d) and 40 
CFR 51.308(i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ EPA established the URP framework in the 1999 RHR to provide 
``an equitable analytical approach'' to assessing the rate of 
visibility improvement at Class I areas across the country. The 
start point for the URP analysis is 2004 and the endpoint was 
calculated based on the amount of visibility improvement that was 
anticipated to result from implementation of existing CAA programs 
over the period from the mid-1990s to approximately 2005. Assuming 
this rate of progress would continue into the future, EPA determined 
that natural visibility conditions would be reached in 60 years, or 
2064 (60 years from the baseline starting point of 2004). However, 
EPA did not establish 2064 as the year by which the national goal 
must be reached. 64 FR at 35731-32. That is, the URP and the 2064 
date are not enforceable targets but are rather tools that ``allow 
for analytical comparisons between the rate of progress that would 
be achieved by the State's chosen set of control measures and the 
URP.'' See 82 FR 3078, 3084, January 10, 2017.
    \10\ EPA's regulations define ``Federal Land Manager'' as ``the 
Secretary of the department with authority over the Federal Class I 
area (or the Secretary's designee) or, with respect to Roosevelt-
Campobello International Park, the Chairman of the Roosevelt-
Campobello International Park Commission.'' See 40 CFR 51.301.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On January 10, 2017, EPA promulgated revisions to the RHR (82 FR 
3078) that apply for the second and subsequent planning periods. The 
2017 rulemaking made several changes to the requirements for regional 
haze SIPs to clarify States' obligations and streamline certain 
regional haze requirements. The revisions to the regional haze program 
for the second and subsequent planning periods focused on the 
requirement that States' implementation plans contain LTSs for making 
reasonable progress toward the national visibility goal. The reasonable 
progress requirements as revised in the 2017 rulemaking (referred to 
here as the 2017 RHR Revisions) are codified at 40 CFR 51.308(f). Among 
other changes, the 2017 RHR Revisions adjusted the deadline for States 
to submit their second planning period SIPs from July 31, 2018, to July 
31, 2021, clarified the order of analysis and the relationship between 
RPGs and the LTSs, and focused on making visibility improvements on the 
days with the most anthropogenic visibility impairment, as opposed to 
the days with the most visibility impairment overall. EPA also revised 
requirements of the visibility protection program related to periodic 
progress reports and FLM consultation. The specific requirements 
applicable to second planning period regional haze SIP submissions are 
addressed in detail below.
    EPA provided guidance to the States for their second planning 
period SIP submissions in the preamble to the 2017 RHR Revisions as 
well as in subsequent stand-alone guidance documents. In August 2019, 
EPA issued its 2019 Guidance.\11\ On July 8, 2021, EPA issued a 
memorandum containing ``Clarifications Regarding Regional Haze State 
Implementation Plans for the Second Implementation Period'' (``2021 
Clarifications Memo'').\12\ Additionally, EPA had clarified the 
recommended procedures for processing ambient visibility data and 
optionally adjusting the URP to account for international anthropogenic 
and prescribed fire impacts in two technical guidance documents: the 
December 2018 ``Technical Guidance on Tracking Visibility Progress for 
the Second Implementation Period of the Regional Haze Program'' (``2018 
Visibility Tracking Guidance''),\13\ and the June 2020 ``Recommendation 
for the Use of Patched and Substituted Data and Clarification of Data 
Completeness for Tracking Visibility Progress for the Second 
Implementation Period of the Regional Haze Program'' and associated 
Technical Addendum (``2020 Data Completeness Memo'').\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See footnote 6.
    \12\ ``Clarifications Regarding Regional Haze State 
Implementation Plans for the Second Implementation Period.'' https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2021-07/clarifications-regarding-regional-haze-state-implementation-plans-for-the-second-implementation-period.pdf. EPA Office of Air Quality Planning and 
Standards, Research Triangle Park (July 8, 2021).
    \13\ ``Technical Guidance on Tracking Visibility Progress for 
the Second Implementation Period of the Regional Haze Program.'' 
https://www.epa.gov/visibility/technical-guidance-tracking-visibility-progress-second-implementation-period-regional. EPA 
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle 
Park. (December 20, 2018).
    \14\ ``Recommendation for the Use of Patched and Substituted 
Data and Clarification of Data Completeness for Tracking Visibility 
Progress for the Second Implementation Period of the Regional Haze 
Program.'' https://www.epa.gov/visibility/memo-and-technical-addendum-ambient-data-usage-and-completeness-regional-haze-program. 
EPA Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle 
Park (June 3, 2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As previously explained in the 2021 Clarifications Memo, EPA 
intends the second planning period of the regional

[[Page 47484]]

haze program to secure meaningful reductions in visibility impairing 
pollutants that build on the significant progress States have achieved 
to date. The Agency also recognizes that analyses regarding reasonable 
progress are state-specific and that, based on States' and sources' 
individual circumstances, what constitutes reasonable reductions in 
visibility impairing pollutants will vary from State to State. While 
there exist many opportunities for States to leverage both ongoing and 
upcoming emission reductions under other CAA programs, the Agency 
expects States to undertake rigorous reasonable progress analyses that 
identify further opportunities to advance the national visibility goal 
consistent with the statutory and regulatory requirements. See, 
generally, 2021 Clarifications Memo. This is consistent with Congress's 
determination that a visibility protection program is needed in 
addition to the CAA's National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) 
and Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) programs, as further 
emission reductions may be necessary to adequately protect visibility 
in Class I areas throughout the country.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See, e.g., H.R. Rep No. 95-294 at 205 (``In determining how 
to best remedy the growing visibility problem in these areas of 
great scenic importance, the committee realizes that as a matter of 
equity, the national ambient air quality standards cannot be revised 
to adequately protect visibility in all areas of the country.''), 
(``the mandatory class I increments of [the PSD program] do not 
adequately protect visibility in class I areas'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Roles of Agencies in Addressing Regional Haze

    Because the air pollutants affecting visibility in Class I areas 
can be transported over long distances, successful implementation of 
the regional haze program requires long-term, regional coordination 
among multiple jurisdictions and agencies that have responsibility for 
Class I areas and the emissions that impact visibility in those areas. 
In order to address regional haze, States need to develop strategies in 
coordination with one another, considering the effect of emissions from 
one jurisdiction on the air quality in another. Five regional planning 
organizations (RPOs),\16\ which include representation from State and 
Tribal governments, EPA, and FLMs, were developed in the lead-up to the 
first planning period to address regional haze. RPOs evaluate technical 
information to better understand how emissions from State and Tribal 
land impact Class I areas across the country, pursue the development of 
regional strategies to reduce emissions of PM and other pollutants 
leading to regional haze, and help States meet the consultation 
requirements of the RHR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ RPOs are sometimes also referred to as ``multi-
jurisdictional organizations,'' or MJOs. For the purposes of this 
notice, the terms RPO and MJO are synonymous.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Southeastern States Air Resource Managers, Inc. (SESARM), one 
of the five RPOs described above, is a collaborative effort of State 
and local agencies and Tribal governments established to initiate and 
coordinate activities associated with the management of regional haze, 
visibility, and other air quality issues in the Southeast. SESARM's 
coalition to conduct regional haze work is referred to as Visibility 
Improvement State and Tribal Association of the Southeast (VISTAS).\17\ 
The member States, local air agencies, and Tribal governments of VISTAS 
are Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, North Carolina, 
South Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia, and West Virginia; the local air 
agencies, represented by the President of Metro 4 or designee; \18\ and 
the Tribes located within the VISTAS region, represented by the Eastern 
Band of the Cherokee Indians. The Federal partner members of VISTAS are 
EPA, U.S. National Park Service (NPS), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 
(FWS), and U.S. Forest Service (USFS).\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ The VISTAS technical work under SESARM is described at this 
website: https://www.metro4-sesarm.org/content/vistas-regional-haze-program.
    \18\ Metro 4 is a Tennessee corporation which represents the 
local air pollution control agencies in EPA's Region 4 in the 
Southeast. See https://www.metro4-sesarm.org/content/metro-4-about-us.
    \19\ The NPS, FWS, and USFS are collectively referred to as the 
``Federal Land Managers'' or ``FLMs'' throughout this document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Requirements for Regional Haze Plans for the Second Planning 
Period

    Under the CAA and EPA's regulations, all 50 States, the District of 
Columbia, and the U.S. Virgin Islands are required to submit regional 
haze SIPs satisfying the applicable requirements for the second 
planning period of the regional haze program by July 31, 2021. Each 
State's implementation plan must contain a LTS for making reasonable 
progress toward meeting the national goal of remedying any existing and 
preventing any future anthropogenic visibility impairment in Class I 
areas. See CAA 169A(b)(2)(B). To this end, 40 CFR 51.308(f) lays out 
the process by which States determine what constitutes their LTSs, with 
the order of the requirements in 40 CFR 51.308(f)(1) through (3) 
generally mirroring the order of the steps in the reasonable progress 
analysis \20\ and (f)(4) through (6) containing additional related 
requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ EPA explained in the 2017 RHR Revisions that the Agency was 
adopting new regulatory language in 40 CFR 51.308(f) that, unlike 
the structure in 51.308(d), ``tracked the actual planning 
sequence.'' See 82 FR 3091, January 10, 2017.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Broadly speaking, a State first must identify the Class I areas 
within the State and determine the Class I areas outside the State in 
which visibility may be affected by emissions from the State. These are 
the Class I areas that must be addressed in the State's LTS. See 40 CFR 
51.308(f), (f)(2). For each Class I area within its borders, a State 
must then calculate the baseline, current, and natural visibility 
conditions for that area, as well as the visibility improvement made to 
date and the URP. See 40 CFR 51.308(f)(1). Each State having a Class I 
area and/or emissions that may affect visibility in a Class I area must 
then develop a LTS that includes the enforceable emission limitations, 
compliance schedules, and other measures that are necessary to make 
reasonable progress in such areas. A reasonable progress determination 
is based on applying the four factors in CAA section 169A(g)(1) to 
sources of visibility impairing pollutants that the State has selected 
to assess for controls for the second planning period.
    Additionally, as further explained below, the RHR at 40 CFR 
51.3108(f)(2)(iv) separately provides five ``additional factors'' \21\ 
that States must consider in developing their long-term strategies. See 
40 CFR 51.308(f)(2). A State evaluates potential emission reduction 
measures for those selected sources and determines which are necessary 
to make reasonable progress. Those measures are then incorporated into 
the State's LTS. After a State has developed its LTS, it then 
establishes RPGs for each Class I area within its borders by modeling 
the visibility impacts of all reasonable progress controls at the end 
of the second planning period, i.e., in 2028, as well as the impacts of 
other requirements of the CAA. The RPGs include reasonable progress 
controls not only for sources in the State in which the Class I area is 
located, but also for sources in other States that contribute to 
visibility impairment in that area. The RPGs are then compared to the 
baseline visibility conditions and the URP to ensure that progress is 
being made toward the statutory goal of preventing any future

[[Page 47485]]

and remedying any existing anthropogenic visibility impairment in Class 
I areas. See 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)-(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ The five ``additional factors'' for consideration in 
section 51.308(f)(2)(iv) are distinct from the four factors listed 
in CAA section 169A(g)(1) and 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(i) that States 
must consider and apply to sources in determining reasonable 
progress.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition to satisfying the requirements at 40 CFR 51.308(f) 
related to reasonable progress, the regional haze SIP revisions for the 
second planning period must address the requirements in 40 CFR 
51.308(g)(1) through (5) pertaining to periodic reports describing 
progress toward the RPGs, 40 CFR 51.308(f)(5), as well as requirements 
for FLM consultation that apply to all visibility protection SIPs and 
SIP revisions. See 40 CFR 51.308(i).
    A State must submit its regional haze SIP and subsequent SIP 
revisions to EPA according to the requirements applicable to all SIP 
revisions under the CAA and EPA's regulations. See CAA 169A(b)(2); CAA 
110(a). Upon EPA approval, a SIP is enforceable by the Agency and the 
public under the CAA. If EPA finds that a State fails to make a 
required SIP revision, or if EPA finds that a State's SIP is incomplete 
or disapproves the SIP, the Agency must promulgate a Federal 
Implementation Plan (FIP) that satisfies the applicable requirements. 
See CAA 110(c)(1).

A. Identification of Class I Areas

    The first step in developing a regional haze SIP is for a State to 
determine which Class I areas, in addition to those within its borders, 
``may be affected'' by emissions from within the State. In the 1999 
RHR, EPA determined that all States contribute to visibility impairment 
in at least one Class I area, 64 FR at 35720-22, and explained that the 
statute and regulations lay out an ``extremely low triggering 
threshold'' for determining ``whether States should be required to 
engage in air quality planning and analysis as a prerequisite to 
determining the need for control of emissions from sources within their 
State.'' Id. at 35721.
    A State must determine which Class I areas must be addressed by its 
SIP by evaluating the total emissions of visibility impairing 
pollutants from all sources within the State. While the RHR does not 
require this evaluation to be conducted in any particular manner, EPA's 
2019 Guidance provides recommendations for how such an assessment might 
be accomplished, including by, where appropriate, using the 
determinations previously made for the first planning period. 2019 
Guidance at 8-9. In addition, the determination of which Class I areas 
may be affected by a State's emissions is subject to the requirement in 
40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(iii) to ``document the technical basis, including 
modeling, monitoring, cost, engineering, and emissions information, on 
which the State is relying to determine the emission reduction measures 
that are necessary to make reasonable progress in each mandatory Class 
I Federal area it affects.''

B. Calculations of Baseline, Current, and Natural Visibility 
Conditions; Progress to Date; and the Uniform Rate of Progress

    As part of assessing whether a SIP submission for the second 
planning period is providing for reasonable progress toward the 
national visibility goal, the RHR contains requirements in 40 CFR 
51.308(f)(1) related to tracking visibility improvement over time. The 
requirements of this subsection apply only to States having Class I 
areas within their borders; the required calculations must be made for 
each such Class I area. EPA's 2018 Visibility Tracking Guidance \22\ 
provides recommendations to assist States in satisfying their 
obligations under section 51.308(f)(1); specifically, in developing 
information on baseline, current, and natural visibility conditions, 
and in making optional adjustments to the URP to account for the 
impacts of international anthropogenic emissions and prescribed fires. 
See 82 FR at 3103-05.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ The 2018 Visibility Tracking Guidance references and relies 
on parts of the 2003 Tracking Guidance: ``Guidance for Tracking 
Progress Under the Regional Haze Rule'' which can be found at 
https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2021-03/documents/tracking.pdf. EPA Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, 
Research Triangle Park (September 2003).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The RHR requires tracking of visibility conditions on two sets of 
days: the clearest and the most impaired days. Visibility conditions 
for both sets of days are expressed as the average deciview index for 
the relevant five-year period (the period representing baseline or 
current visibility conditions).\23\ The RHR provides that the relevant 
sets of days for visibility tracking purposes are the 20 percent 
clearest days (the 20 percent of monitored days in a calendar year with 
the lowest values of the deciview index) and 20 percent most impaired 
days (the 20 percent of monitored days in a calendar year with the 
highest amounts of anthropogenic visibility impairment).\24\ See 40 CFR 
51.301. A State must calculate visibility conditions for both the 20 
percent clearest days and 20 percent most impaired days for the 
baseline period of 2000-2004 and the most recent five-year period for 
which visibility monitoring data are available (representing current 
visibility conditions). See 40 CFR 51.308(f)(1)(i), (iii). States must 
also calculate natural visibility conditions for the clearest days and 
most impaired days \25\ by estimating the conditions that would exist 
on those two sets of days absent anthropogenic visibility impairment. 
See 40 CFR 51.308(f)(1)(ii). Using all these data, States must then 
calculate, for each Class I area, the amount of progress made since the 
baseline period (2000-2004) and how much improvement is left to achieve 
to reach natural visibility conditions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ The ``deciview index'' means a value for a day that is 
derived from calculated or measured light extinction, such that 
uniform increments of the index correspond to uniform incremental 
changes in perception across the entire range of conditions, from 
pristine to very obscured. The deciview index is calculated using 
Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual Environments (IMPROVE) 
aerosol measurements. See 40 CFR 51.301.
    \24\ This notice also refers to the 20 percent clearest and 20 
percent most anthropogenically impaired days as the ``clearest'' and 
``most impaired'' or ``most anthropogenically impaired'' days, 
respectively.
    \25\ The RHR at 40 CFR 51.308(f)(1)(ii) contains an error 
related to the requirement for calculating two sets of natural 
conditions values. The rule says ``most impaired days or the 
clearest days'' where it should say ``most impaired days and 
clearest days.'' This is an error that was intended to be corrected 
in the 2017 RHR Revisions but did not get corrected in the final 
rule language. This is supported by the preamble text at 82 FR 3098: 
``In the final version of 40 CFR 51.308(f)(1)(ii), an occurrence of 
``or'' has been corrected to ``and'' to indicate that natural 
visibility conditions for both the most impaired days and the 
clearest days must be based on available monitoring information.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Using the data for the set of most impaired days only, States must 
plot a line between visibility conditions in the baseline period and 
natural visibility conditions for each Class I area to determine the 
URP--the amount of visibility improvement, measured in deciviews, that 
would need to be achieved during each planning period to achieve 
natural visibility conditions by the end of 2064. The URP is used in 
later steps of the reasonable progress analysis for informational 
purposes and to provide a non-enforceable benchmark against which to 
assess a Class I area's rate of visibility improvement.\26\ 
Additionally, in the 2017 RHR Revisions, EPA provided States the option 
of proposing to adjust the endpoint of the URP to account for impacts 
of anthropogenic sources outside the United States and/or impacts of 
certain types of wildland prescribed fires. These adjustments, which 
must be approved by EPA, are intended to avoid any perception that 
States should compensate for impacts

[[Page 47486]]

from international anthropogenic sources and to give States the 
flexibility to determine that limiting the use of wildland prescribed 
fire is not necessary for reasonable progress. See 82 FR 3107, footnote 
116.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ Being on or below the URP is not a ``safe harbor''; i.e., 
achieving the URP does not mean that a Class I area is making 
``reasonable progress'' and does not relieve a State from using the 
four statutory factors to determine what level of control is needed 
to achieve such progress. See, e.g., 82 FR at 3093.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA's 2018 Visibility Tracking Guidance can be used to help satisfy 
the 40 CFR 51.308(f)(1) requirements, including in developing 
information on baseline, current, and natural visibility conditions, 
and in making optional adjustments to the URP. In addition, the 2020 
Data Completeness Memo provides recommendations on the data 
completeness language referenced in 40 CFR 51.308(f)(1)(i) and provides 
updated natural conditions estimates for each Class I area.

C. Long-Term Strategy for Regional Haze

    The core component of a regional haze SIP submission is a LTS that 
addresses regional haze in each Class I area within a State's borders 
and each Class I area that may be affected by emissions from the State. 
The LTS ``must include the enforceable emissions limitations, 
compliance schedules, and other measures that are necessary to make 
reasonable progress, as determined pursuant to (f)(2)(i) through 
(iv).'' See 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2). The amount of progress that is 
``reasonable progress'' is based on applying the four statutory factors 
in CAA section 169A(g)(1) in an evaluation of potential control options 
for sources of visibility impairing pollutants, which is referred to as 
a ``four-factor'' analysis (FFA). The outcome of that analysis is the 
emission reduction measures that a particular source or group of 
sources needs to implement in order to make reasonable progress toward 
the national visibility goal. See 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(i). Emission 
reduction measures that are necessary to make reasonable progress may 
be either new, additional control measures for a source or the existing 
emission reduction measures that a source is already implementing. See 
2019 Guidance at 43; 2021 Clarifications Memo at 8-10. Such measures 
must be represented by ``enforceable emissions limitations, compliance 
schedules, and other measures'' (i.e., any additional compliance tools) 
in a State's LTS in its SIP. See 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2).
    Section 51.308(f)(2)(i) provides the requirements for the FFA. The 
first step of this analysis entails selecting the sources to be 
evaluated for emission reduction measures; to this end, States should 
consider ``major and minor stationary sources or groups of sources, 
mobile sources, and area sources'' of visibility impairing pollutants 
for potential control analysis (i.e., FFA). 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(i). A 
threshold question at this step is which visibility impairing 
pollutants will be analyzed. As EPA previously explained, consistent 
with the first planning period, EPA generally expects that each State 
will analyze at least SO2 and NOx in selecting sources and 
determining control measures. See 2019 Guidance at 12 and 2021 
Clarifications Memo at 4. A State that chooses not to consider at least 
these two pollutants should demonstrate why such consideration would be 
unreasonable. See 2021 Clarifications Memo at 4.
    While States have the option to analyze all sources, the 2019 
Guidance explains that ``an analysis of control measures is not 
required for every source in each implementation period,'' and that 
``[s]electing a set of sources for analysis of control measures in each 
implementation period is consistent with the Regional Haze Rule, which 
sets up an iterative planning process and anticipates that a State may 
not need to analyze control measures for all its sources in a given SIP 
revision.'' 2019 Guidance at 9. However, given that source selection is 
the basis of all subsequent control determinations, a reasonable source 
selection process ``should be designed and conducted to ensure that 
source selection results in a set of pollutants and sources the 
evaluation of which has the potential to meaningfully reduce their 
contributions to visibility impairment.'' See 2021 Clarifications Memo 
at 3.
    EPA explained in the 2021 Clarifications Memo that each State has 
an obligation to submit a LTS that addresses the regional haze 
visibility impairment that results from emissions from within that 
State. Thus, source selection should focus on the in-State contribution 
to visibility impairment and be designed to capture a meaningful 
portion of the State's total contribution to visibility impairment in 
Class I areas. A State should not decline to select its largest in-
state sources on the basis that there are even larger out-of-state 
contributors. See 2021 Clarifications Memo at 4.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ Similarly, in responding to comments on the 2017 RHR 
Revisions EPA explained that ``[a] state should not fail to address 
its many relatively low-impact sources merely because it only has 
such sources and another state has even more low-impact sources and/
or some high impact sources.'' Responses to Comments on Protection 
of Visibility: Amendments to Requirements for State Plans; Proposed 
Rule (81 FR 26942, May 4, 2016) (December 2016), Docket Number EPA-
HQ-OAR-2015-0531, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency at 87-88, 
available at www.regulations.gov.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Thus, while States have discretion to choose any source selection 
methodology that is reasonable, whatever choices they make should be 
reasonably explained. To this end, 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(i) requires that 
a State's implementation plan submission include ``a description of the 
criteria it used to determine which sources or groups of sources it 
evaluated.'' The technical basis for source selection, which may 
include methods for quantifying potential visibility impacts such as 
emissions divided by distance metrics, trajectory analyses, residence 
time analyses, and/or photochemical modeling, must also be 
appropriately documented, as required by 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(iii).
    Once a State has selected the set of sources, the next step is to 
determine the emissions reduction measures for those sources that are 
necessary to make reasonable progress for the second planning 
period.\28\ This is accomplished by considering the four factors--``the 
costs of compliance, the time necessary for compliance, and the energy 
and non-air quality environmental impacts of compliance, and the 
remaining useful life of any existing source subject to such 
requirements.'' See CAA 169A(g)(1). EPA has explained that the FFA is 
an assessment of potential emission reduction measures (i.e., control 
options) for sources; ``use of the terms `compliance' and `subject to 
such requirements' in section 169A(g)(1) strongly indicates that 
Congress intended the relevant determination to be the requirements 
with which sources would have to comply in order to satisfy the CAA's 
reasonable progress mandate.'' See 82 FR at 3091. Thus, for each source 
a State has selected for a FFA,\29\ it must consider a ``meaningful

[[Page 47487]]

set'' of technically feasible control options for reducing emissions of 
visibility impairing pollutants. Id. at 3088. The 2019 Guidance 
provides that ``[a] state must reasonably pick and justify the measures 
that it will consider, recognizing that there is no statutory or 
regulatory requirement to consider all technically feasible measures or 
any particular measures. A range of technically feasible measures 
available to reduce emissions would be one way to justify a reasonable 
set.'' See 2019 Guidance at 29.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ The CAA provides that ``[i]n determining reasonable 
progress there shall be taken into consideration'' the four 
statutory factors. CAA 169A(g)(1). However, in addition to four-
factor analyses for selected sources, groups of sources, or source 
categories, a State may also consider additional emission reduction 
measures for inclusion in its long-term strategy, e.g., from other 
newly adopted, on-the-books, or on-the-way rules and measures for 
sources not selected for four-factor analysis for the second 
planning period.
    \29\ ``Each source'' or ``particular source'' is used here as 
shorthand. While a source-specific analysis is one way of applying 
the four factors, neither the statute nor the RHR requires States to 
evaluate individual sources. Rather, States have ``the flexibility 
to conduct four-factor analyses for specific sources, groups of 
sources or even entire source categories, depending on state policy 
preferences and the specific circumstances of each state.'' See 82 
FR at 3088. However, not all approaches to grouping sources for 
four-factor analysis are necessarily reasonable; the reasonableness 
of grouping sources in any particular instance will depend on the 
circumstances and the manner in which grouping is conducted. If it 
is feasible to establish and enforce different requirements for 
sources or subgroups of sources, and if relevant factors can be 
quantified for those sources or subgroups, then States should make a 
separate reasonable progress determination for each source or 
subgroup. See 2021 Clarifications Memo at 7-8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA's 2021 Clarifications Memo provides further guidance on what 
constitutes a reasonable set of control options for consideration: ``A 
reasonable four-factor analysis will consider the full range of 
potentially reasonable options for reducing emissions.'' See 2021 
Clarifications Memo at 7. In addition to add-on controls and other 
retrofits (i.e., new emission reduction measures for sources), EPA 
explained that States should generally analyze efficiency improvements 
for sources' existing measures as control options in their FFAs, as in 
many cases such improvements are reasonable given that they typically 
involve only additional operation and maintenance costs. Additionally, 
the 2021 Clarifications Memo provides that States that have assumed a 
higher emission rate than a source has achieved or could potentially 
achieve using its existing measures should also consider lower emission 
rates as potential control options. That is, a State should consider a 
source's recent actual and projected emission rates to determine if it 
could reasonably attain lower emission rates with its existing 
measures. If so, the State should analyze the lower emission rate as a 
control option for reducing emissions. See 2021 Clarifications Memo at 
7. EPA's recommendations to analyze potential efficiency improvements 
and achievable lower emission rates apply to both sources that have 
been selected for FFA and those that have forgone a FFA on the basis of 
existing ``effective controls.'' See 2021 Clarifications Memo at 5, 10.
    After identifying a reasonable set of potential control options for 
the sources it has selected, a State then collects information on the 
four factors with regard to each option identified. EPA has also 
explained that, in addition to the four statutory factors, States have 
flexibility under the CAA and RHR to reasonably consider visibility 
benefits as an additional factor alongside the four statutory 
factors.\30\ The 2019 Guidance provides recommendations for the types 
of information that can be used to characterize the four factors (with 
or without visibility), as well as ways in which States might 
reasonably consider and balance that information to determine which of 
the potential control options is necessary to make reasonable progress. 
See 2019 Guidance at 30-36. The 2021 Clarifications Memo contains 
further guidance on how States can reasonably consider modeled 
visibility impacts or benefits in the context of a FFA. See 2021 
Clarifications Memo at 12-13, 14-15. Specifically, EPA explained that 
while visibility can reasonably be used when comparing and choosing 
between multiple reasonable control options, it should not be used to 
summarily reject controls that are reasonable given the four statutory 
factors. See 2021 Clarifications Memo at 13. Ultimately, while States 
have discretion to reasonably weigh the factors and to determine what 
level of control is needed, 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(i) provides that a 
State ``must include in its implementation plan a description'' of how 
the four factors were taken into consideration in selecting the measure 
for inclusion in its long-term strategy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ See, e.g., Responses to Comments on Protection of 
Visibility: Amendments to Requirements for State Plans; Proposed 
Rule (81 FR 26942, May 4, 2016) (December 2016), Docket Number EPA-
HQ-OAR-2015-0531, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency at 186, 
available at www.regulations.gov; 2019 Guidance at 36-37.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As explained above, section 51.308(f)(2)(i) requires States to 
determine the emission reduction measures for sources that are 
necessary to make reasonable progress by considering the four factors. 
Pursuant to section 51.308(f)(2), measures that are necessary to make 
reasonable progress toward the national visibility goal must be 
included in a State's LTS and in its SIP.\31\ If the outcome of a FFA 
is a new, additional emission reduction measure for a source, that new 
measure is necessary to make reasonable progress toward remedying 
existing anthropogenic visibility impairment and must be included in 
the SIP. If the outcome of a FFA is that no new measures are reasonable 
for a source, continued implementation of the source's existing 
measures is generally necessary to prevent future emission increases 
and thus to make reasonable progress toward the second part of the 
national visibility goal: preventing future anthropogenic visibility 
impairment. See CAA 169A(a)(1). That is, when the result of a FFA is 
that no new measures are necessary to make reasonable progress, the 
source's existing measures are generally necessary to make reasonable 
progress and must be included in the SIP. However, there may be 
circumstances in which a State can demonstrate that a source's existing 
measures are not necessary to make reasonable progress. Specifically, 
if a State can demonstrate that a source will continue to implement its 
existing measures and will not increase its emission rate, it may not 
be necessary to have those measures in the LTS in order to prevent 
future emission increases and future visibility impairment. EPA's 2021 
Clarifications Memo provides further explanation and guidance on how 
States may demonstrate that a source's existing measures are not 
necessary to make reasonable progress. See 2021 Clarifications Memo at 
8-10. If the State can make such a demonstration, it need not include a 
source's existing measures in the LTS or its SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ States may choose to, but are not required to, include 
measures in their long-term strategies beyond just the emission 
reduction measures that are necessary for reasonable progress. See 
2021 Clarifications Memo at 16. For example, States with smoke 
management programs may choose to submit their smoke management 
plans to EPA for inclusion in their SIPs but are not required to do 
so. See, e.g., 82 FR at 3108-09 (requirement to consider smoke 
management practices and smoke management programs under 40 CFR 
51.308(f)(2)(iv) does not require States to adopt such practices or 
programs into their SIPs, although they may elect to do so).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As with source selection, the characterization of information on 
each of the factors is also subject to the documentation requirement in 
section 51.308(f)(2)(iii). The reasonable progress analysis, including 
source selection, information gathering, characterization of the four 
statutory factors (and potentially visibility), balancing of the four 
factors, and selection of the emission reduction measures that 
represent reasonable progress, is a technically complex exercise, but 
also a flexible one that provides States with bounded discretion to 
design and implement approaches appropriate to their circumstances. 
Given this flexibility, section 51.308(f)(2)(iii) plays an important 
function in requiring a State to document the technical basis for its 
decision making so that the public and EPA can comprehend and evaluate 
the information and analysis the State relied upon to determine what 
emission reduction measures must be in place to make reasonable 
progress. The technical documentation must include the modeling, 
monitoring, cost, engineering, and emissions information on which the 
State relied to determine the measures necessary to make reasonable 
progress.

[[Page 47488]]

This documentation requirement can be met through the provision of and 
reliance on technical analyses developed through a regional planning 
process, so long as that process and its output has been approved by 
all State participants. In addition to the explicit regulatory 
requirement to document the technical basis of their reasonable 
progress determinations, States are also subject to the general 
principle that those determinations must be reasonably moored to the 
statute.\32\ That is, a State's decisions about the emission reduction 
measures that are necessary to make reasonable progress must be 
consistent with the statutory goal of remedying existing and preventing 
future visibility impairment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ See Arizona ex rel. Darwin v. U.S. EPA, 815 F.3d 519, 531 
(9th Cir. 2016); Nebraska v. U.S. EPA, 812 F.3d 662, 668 (8th Cir. 
2016); North Dakota v. EPA, 730 F.3d 750, 761 (8th Cir. 2013); 
Oklahoma v. EPA, 723 F.3d 1201, 1206, 1208-10 (10th Cir. 2013); cf. 
also Nat'l Parks Conservation Ass'n v. EPA, 803 F.3d 151, 165 (3d 
Cir. 2015); Alaska Dep't of Envtl. Conservation v. EPA, 540 U.S. 
461, 485, 490 (2004).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The four statutory factors (and potentially visibility) are used to 
determine what emission reduction measures for selected sources must be 
included in a State's LTS for making reasonable progress. Additionally, 
the RHR at 40 CFR 51.3108(f)(2)(iv) separately provides five 
``additional factors'' \33\ that States must consider in developing 
their LTSs: (1) Emission reductions due to ongoing air pollution 
control programs, including measures to address reasonably attributable 
visibility impairment; (2) measures to reduce the impacts of 
construction activities; (3) source retirement and replacement 
schedules; (4) basic smoke management practices for prescribed fire 
used for agricultural and wildland vegetation management purposes and 
smoke management programs; and (5) the anticipated net effect on 
visibility due to projected changes in point, area, and mobile source 
emissions over the period addressed by the LTS. The 2019 Guidance 
provides that a State may satisfy this requirement by considering these 
additional factors in the process of selecting sources for a FFA, when 
performing that analysis, or both, and that not every one of the 
additional factors needs to be considered at the same stage of the 
process. See 2019 Guidance at 21. EPA provided further guidance on the 
five additional factors in the 2021 Clarifications Memo, explaining 
that a State should generally not reject cost-effective and otherwise 
reasonable controls merely because there have been emission reductions 
since the first planning period owing to other ongoing air pollution 
control programs or merely because visibility is otherwise projected to 
improve at Class I areas. Additionally, States generally should not 
rely on these additional factors to summarily assert that the State has 
already made sufficient progress and, therefore, no sources need to be 
selected or no new controls are needed regardless of the outcome of 
FFAs. See 2021 Clarifications Memo at 13.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ The five ``additional factors'' for consideration in 
section 51.308(f)(2)(iv) are distinct from the four factors listed 
in CAA section 169A(g)(1) and 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(i) that States 
must consider and apply to sources in determining reasonable 
progress.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Because the air pollution that causes regional haze crosses State 
boundaries, 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(ii) requires a State to consult with 
other States that also have emissions that are reasonably anticipated 
to contribute to visibility impairment in a given Class I area. 
Consultation allows for each State that impacts visibility in an area 
to share whatever technical information, analyses, and control 
determinations may be necessary to develop coordinated emission 
management strategies. This coordination may be managed through inter- 
and intra-RPO consultation and the development of regional emissions 
strategies; additional consultations between States outside of RPO 
processes may also occur. If a State, pursuant to consultation, agrees 
that certain measures (e.g., a certain emission limitation) are 
necessary to make reasonable progress at a Class I area, it must 
include those measures in its SIP. See 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(ii)(A). 
Additionally, the RHR requires that States that contribute to 
visibility impairment at the same Class I area consider the emission 
reduction measures the other contributing States have identified as 
being necessary to make reasonable progress for their own sources. See 
40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(ii)(B). If a State has been asked to consider or 
adopt certain emission reduction measures, but ultimately determines 
those measures are not necessary to make reasonable progress, that 
State must document in its SIP the actions taken to resolve the 
disagreement. See 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(ii)(C). EPA will consider the 
technical information and explanations presented by the submitting 
State and the State with which it disagrees when considering whether to 
approve the State's implementation plan. See id.; 2019 Guidance at 53. 
Under all circumstances, a State must document in its SIP submission 
all substantive consultations with other contributing States. See 40 
CFR 51.308(f)(2)(ii)(C).

D. Reasonable Progress Goals

    RPGs ``measure the progress that is projected to be achieved by the 
control measures States have determined are necessary to make 
reasonable progress based on a four-factor analysis.'' See 82 FR at 
3091. Their primary purpose is to assist the public and EPA in 
assessing the reasonableness of States' LTSs for making reasonable 
progress toward the national visibility goal. See 40 CFR 
51.308(f)(3)(iii)-(iv). States in which Class I areas are located must 
establish two RPGs--one representing visibility conditions on the 
clearest days and one representing visibility on the most 
anthropogenically impaired days--for each area within their borders. 
See 40 CFR 51.308(f)(3)(i). The two RPGs, measured in deciviews, are 
intended to reflect the projected impacts, on each set of days, of the 
emission reduction measures the State with the Class I area and other 
contributing States have included in their LTSs for the second planning 
period.\34\ The RPGs also account for the projected impacts of 
implementing other CAA requirements, including non-SIP based 
requirements. Because RPGs are the modeled result of the measures in 
States' LTSs (as well as other measures required under the CAA), they 
cannot be determined before States have conducted their FFAs and 
determined the control measures that are necessary to make reasonable 
progress.\35\ See 2021 Clarifications Memo at 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ RPGs are intended to reflect the projected impacts of the 
measures all contributing States include in their long-term 
strategies. However, due to the timing of analyses, control 
determinations by other States, and other on-going emissions 
changes, a particular State's RPGs may not reflect all control 
measures and emissions reductions that are expected to occur by the 
end of the implementation period. The 2019 Guidance provides 
recommendations for addressing the timing of RPG calculations when 
States are developing their long-term strategies on disparate 
schedules, as well as for adjusting RPGs using a post-modeling 
approach. 2019 Guidance at 47-48.
    \35\ The 2019 Guidance allows for the possibility of post-
modeling adjustments to the RPGs to account for the fact that final 
LTS decisions for the State or for other States may not be known 
until late in the process, or even after SIPs are submitted. See 
2019 Guidance at 46-48. See also, 82 FR 3078, 3080 (January 10, 
2017).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For the second planning period, the RPGs are set for 2028. RPGs are 
not enforceable targets, 40 CFR 51.308(f)(3)(iii); rather, they 
``provide a way for the States to check the projected outcome of the 
[long-term strategy] against the goals for visibility improvement.'' 
2019 Guidance at 46. While States are not legally obligated to achieve 
the visibility conditions described in their RPGs, section 
51.308(f)(3)(i) requires that ``[t]he long-

[[Page 47489]]

term strategy and the reasonable progress goals must provide for an 
improvement in visibility for the most impaired days since the baseline 
period and ensure no degradation in visibility for the clearest days 
since the baseline period.'' Thus, States are required to have emission 
reduction measures in their LTSs that are projected to achieve 
visibility conditions on the most impaired days that are better than 
the baseline period and shows no degradation on the clearest days 
compared to the clearest days from the baseline period. The baseline 
period for the purpose of this comparison is the baseline visibility 
condition--the annual average visibility condition for the period 2000-
2004. See 40 CFR 51.308(f)(1)(i), 82 FR at 3097-98.
    So that RPGs may also serve as a metric for assessing the amount of 
progress a State is making toward the national visibility goal, the RHR 
requires States with Class I areas to compare the 2028 RPG for the most 
impaired days to the corresponding point on the URP line (representing 
visibility conditions in 2028 if visibility were to improve at a linear 
rate from conditions in the baseline period of 2000-2004 to natural 
visibility conditions in 2064). If the most impaired days RPG in 2028 
is above the URP (i.e., if visibility conditions are improving more 
slowly than the rate described by the URP), each State that contributes 
to visibility impairment in the Class I area must demonstrate, based on 
the FFA required under 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(i), that no additional 
emission reduction measures would be reasonable to include in its LTS. 
See 40 CFR 51.308(f)(3)(ii). To this end, 40 CFR 51.308(f)(3)(ii) 
requires that each State contributing to visibility impairment in a 
Class I area that is projected to improve more slowly than the URP 
provide ``a robust demonstration, including documenting the criteria 
used to determine which sources or groups [of] sources were evaluated 
and how the four factors required by paragraph (f)(2)(i) were taken 
into consideration in selecting the measures for inclusion in its long-
term strategy.'' The 2019 Guidance provides suggestions about how such 
a ``robust demonstration'' might be conducted. See 2019 Guidance at 50-
51.
    The 2017 RHR, 2019 Guidance, and 2021 Clarifications Memo also 
explain that projecting an RPG that is on or below the URP based on 
only on-the-books and/or on-the-way control measures (i.e., control 
measures already required or anticipated before the FFA is conducted) 
is not a ``safe harbor'' from the CAA's and RHR's requirement that all 
States must conduct a FFA to determine what emission reduction measures 
constitute reasonable progress.\36\ The URP is a planning metric used 
to gauge the amount of progress made thus far and the amount left 
before reaching natural visibility conditions. However, the URP is not 
based on consideration of the four statutory factors and therefore 
cannot answer the question of whether the amount of progress being made 
in any particular planning period is ``reasonable progress.'' See 82 FR 
at 3093, 3099-3100; 2019 Guidance at 22; 2021 Clarifications Memo at 
15-16.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ In lieu of conducting an FFA, States may elect to show the 
source has existing effective controls for the particular 
pollutant(s) under evaluation or that the source is shutting down by 
the end of the planning period (or close to it).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

E. Monitoring Strategy and Other State Implementation Plan Requirements

    Section 51.308(f)(6) requires States to have certain strategies and 
elements in place for assessing and reporting on visibility. Individual 
requirements under this subsection apply either to States with Class I 
areas within their borders, States with no Class I areas but that are 
reasonably anticipated to cause or contribute to visibility impairment 
in any Class I area, or both. A State with Class I areas within its 
borders must submit with its SIP revision a monitoring strategy for 
measuring, characterizing, and reporting regional haze visibility 
impairment that is representative of all Class I areas within the 
State. SIP revisions for such States must also provide for the 
establishment of any additional monitoring sites or equipment needed to 
assess visibility conditions in Class I areas, as well as reporting of 
all visibility monitoring data to EPA at least annually. Compliance 
with the monitoring strategy requirement may be met through a State's 
participation in the IMPROVE monitoring network, which is used to 
measure visibility impairment caused by air pollution at the 156 Class 
I areas covered by the visibility program. See 40 CFR 51.308(f)(6), 
(f)(6)(i), (f)(6)(iv). The IMPROVE monitoring data is used to determine 
the 20 percent most anthropogenically impaired and 20 percent clearest 
sets of days every year at each Class I area and tracks visibility 
impairment over time.
    All States' implementation plans must provide for procedures by 
which monitoring data and other information are used to determine the 
contribution of emissions from within the State to regional haze 
visibility impairment in affected Class I areas. See 40 CFR 
51.308(f)(6)(ii), (iii). Section 51.308(f)(6)(v) further requires that 
all States' implementation plans provide for 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 the most recent year for which data are 
available and estimates of future projected emissions. States must also 
include commitments to update their inventories periodically. The 
inventories themselves do not need to be included as elements in the 
SIP and are not subject to EPA review as part of the Agency's 
evaluation of a SIP revision.\37\ All States' implementation plans must 
also provide for any other elements, including reporting, 
recordkeeping, and other measures, that are necessary for States to 
assess and report on visibility. See 40 CFR 51.308(f)(6)(vi). Per the 
2019 Guidance, a State may note in its regional haze SIP that its 
compliance with the Air Emissions Reporting Rule (AERR) in 40 CFR part 
51 subpart A satisfies the requirement to provide for an emissions 
inventory for the most recent year for which data are available. To 
satisfy the requirement to provide estimates of future projected 
emissions, a State may explain in its SIP how projected emissions were 
developed for use in establishing RPGs for its own and nearby Class I 
areas.\38\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ See ``Step 8: Additional requirements for regional haze 
SIPs'' in 2019 Guidance at 55.
    \38\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Separate from the requirements related to monitoring for regional 
haze purposes under 40 CFR 51.308(f)(6), the RHR also contains a 
requirement at 40 CFR 51.308(f)(4) related to any additional monitoring 
that may be needed to address visibility impairment in Class I areas 
from a single source or a small group of sources. This is called 
``reasonably attributable visibility impairment.'' \39\ Under this 
provision, if EPA or the FLM of an affected Class I area has advised a 
State that additional monitoring is needed to assess reasonably 
attributable visibility impairment (RAVI), the State must include in 
its SIP revision for the second planning period an appropriate strategy 
for evaluating such impairment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \39\ EPA's visibility protection regulations define ``reasonably 
attributable visibility impairment'' as ``visibility impairment that 
is caused by the emission of air pollutants from one, or a small 
number of sources.'' See 40 CFR 51.301.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

F. Requirements for Periodic Reports Describing Progress Toward the 
Reasonable Progress Goals

    Section 51.308(f)(5) requires a State's regional haze SIP revision 
to address the

[[Page 47490]]

requirements of paragraphs 40 CFR 51.308(g)(1) through (5) so that the 
plan revision due in 2021 will serve also as a progress report 
addressing the period since submission of the progress report for the 
first planning period. The regional haze progress report requirement is 
designed to inform the public and EPA about a State's implementation of 
its existing LTS and whether such implementation is in fact resulting 
in the expected visibility improvement. See 81 FR 26942, 26950 (May 4, 
2016), 82 FR 3119 (January 10, 2017). To this end, every State's 
implementation plan revision for the second planning period is required 
to describe the status of implementation of all measures included in 
the State's LTS, including BART and reasonable progress emission 
reduction measures from the first planning period, and the resulting 
emissions reductions. See 40 CFR 51.308(g)(1) and (2).
    A core component of the progress report requirements is an 
assessment of changes in visibility conditions on the clearest and most 
impaired days. For second planning period progress reports, 40 CFR 
51.308(g)(3) requires States with Class I areas within their borders to 
first determine current visibility conditions for each area on the most 
impaired and clearest days, 40 CFR 51.308(g)(3)(i), and then to 
calculate the difference between those current conditions and baseline 
(2000-2004) visibility conditions in order to assess progress made to 
date. See 40 CFR 51.308(g)(3)(ii). States must also assess the changes 
in visibility impairment for the most impaired and clearest days since 
they submitted their first planning period progress reports. See 40 CFR 
51.308(g)(3)(iii), (f)(5). Since different States submitted their first 
planning period progress.
    Similarly, States must provide analyses tracking the change in 
emissions of pollutants contributing to visibility impairment from all 
sources and activities within the State over the period since they 
submitted their first planning period progress reports. See 40 CFR 
51.308(g)(4), (f)(5). Changes in emissions should be identified by the 
type of source or activity. Section 51.308(g)(5) also addresses changes 
in emissions since the period addressed by the previous progress report 
and requires States' implementation plan revisions to include an 
assessment of any significant changes in anthropogenic emissions within 
or outside the State. This assessment must include an explanation of 
whether these changes in emissions were anticipated and whether they 
have limited or impeded progress in reducing emissions and improving 
visibility relative to what the State projected based on its LTS for 
the first planning period.

G. Requirements for State and Federal Land Manager Coordination

    CAA section 169A(d) requires that before a State holds a public 
hearing on a proposed regional haze SIP revision, it must consult with 
the appropriate FLM or FLMs; pursuant to that consultation, the State 
must include a summary of the FLMs' conclusions and recommendations in 
the notice to the public. Consistent with this statutory requirement, 
the RHR also requires that States ``provide the [FLM] with an 
opportunity for consultation, in person and at a point early enough in 
the State's policy analyses of its long-term strategy emission 
reduction obligation so that information and recommendations provided 
by the [FLM] can meaningfully inform the State's decisions on the long-
term strategy.'' See 40 CFR 51.308(i)(2). Consultation that occurs 120 
days prior to any public hearing or public comment opportunity will be 
deemed ``early enough,'' but the RHR provides that in any event the 
opportunity for consultation must be provided at least 60 days before a 
public hearing or comment opportunity. This consultation must include 
the opportunity for the FLMs to discuss their assessment of visibility 
impairment in any Class I area and their recommendations on the 
development and implementation of strategies to address such 
impairment. See 40 CFR 51.308(i)(2). In order for EPA to evaluate 
whether FLM consultation meeting the requirements of the RHR has 
occurred, the SIP submission should include documentation of the timing 
and content of such consultation. The SIP revision submitted to EPA 
must also describe how the State addressed any comments provided by the 
FLMs. See 40 CFR 51.308(i)(3). Finally, a SIP revision 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. See 40 CFR 
51.308(i)(4).

IV. EPA's Evaluation of Georgia's Haze Submission for the Second 
Planning Period

    On August 11, 2022, GA EPD submitted a revision to the Georgia SIP 
to address the State's regional haze obligations for the second 
planning period, which runs through 2028, in accordance with CAA 
sections 169A and the RHR at 40 CFR 51.308(f).\40\ The following 
sections contain EPA's evaluation of Georgia's Haze Plan with respect 
to the requirements of the CAA and RHR for the second planning period 
of the regional haze program. Georgia has three Class I areas: Cohutta 
National Wilderness Area (Cohutta), Okefenokee National Wilderness Area 
(Okefenokee), and Wolf Island National Wilderness Area (Wolf Island). 
The following sections describe Georgia's Haze Plan, including analyses 
conducted by VISTAS and Georgia's determinations based on those 
analyses, Georgia's assessment of progress made since the first 
planning period in reducing emissions of visibility impairing 
pollutants, and the visibility improvement progress at its Class I 
areas and nearby Class I areas. This notice also contains EPA's 
evaluation of Georgia's Haze Plan against the requirements of the CAA 
and RHR for the second planning period of the regional haze program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \40\ On June 28, 2012 (77 FR 38501), EPA issued a limited 
approval of Georgia's first period regional haze plan submitted to 
EPA on February 11, 2010, as supplemented November 19, 2010. On June 
7, 2012, EPA finalized a limited disapproval of Georgia's first 
period haze plan and promulgated a FIP to replace reliance on the 
Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) with reliance on the Cross-State 
Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) (77 FR 33642). On May 4, 2018, EPA 
converted the previous limited approval/limited disapproval of 
Georgia's first period haze plan to a full approval and removed the 
FIP for Georgia which replaced reliance on CAIR with reliance on 
CSAPR (83 FR 19637). On October 4, 2017, EPA also approved Georgia's 
January 8, 2014, progress report for the first planning period (82 
FR 46136).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. Identification of Class I Areas

    1. RHR Requirement: Section 169A(b)(2) of the CAA requires each 
State in which any Class I area is located or ``the emissions from 
which may reasonably be anticipated to cause or contribute to any 
impairment of visibility'' in a Class I area to have a plan for making 
reasonable progress toward the national visibility goal. The RHR 
implements this statutory requirement at 40 CFR 51.308(f), which 
provides that each State's plan ``must address regional haze in each 
mandatory Class I Federal area located within the State and in each 
mandatory Class I Federal area located outside the State that may be 
affected by emissions from within the State,'' and 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2), 
which requires each State's plan to include a LTS that addresses 
regional haze in such Class I areas. To develop a State's LTS, a State 
must first determine which Class I areas may be affected by its own 
emissions. For out-

[[Page 47491]]

of-state Class I areas, States must assess their visibility impacts on 
a statewide basis which is discussed in Section IV.A.2 below and on a 
source-specific basis which is discussed in Section IV.C.2 below.
    2. State Assessment: To address 40 CFR 51.308(f), Georgia 
identified Class I areas affected by Georgia's statewide emissions of 
visibility impairing pollutants and then consulted with States with 
Class I areas affected by Georgia's statewide emissions. GA EPD 
presented the results of Particulate Matter Source Apportionment 
Technology (PSAT) \41\ modeling which VISTAS conducted to estimate the 
projected impact of statewide SO2 and NOX 
emissions across all emissions sectors in 2028 on total light 
extinction for the 20 percent most impaired days in all Class I areas 
in the VISTAS modeling domain.\42\ In Table 7-4 on pages 143-144 of the 
Haze Plan, GA EPD lists the total sulfate plus nitrate contribution 
from all source sectors in Georgia to total visibility impairment for 
the 20 percent most impaired days at Class I areas in the VISTAS 
modeling domain in inverse megameters (Mm-\1\). Georgia's 
top three highest sulfate plus nitrate impairment impacts to out-of-
state Class I areas are: Cape Romain National Wilderness Area (Cape 
Romain) (SC) (2.19 Mm-\1\), Chassahowitzka National 
Wilderness Area (Chassahowitzka) (FL) (1.31 Mm-\1\), and St. 
Marks National Wilderness Area (FL) (1.31 Mm-\1\).\43\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \41\ PSAT is Particulate Matter Source Apportionment Technology, 
which is an option in the photochemical visibility impact modeling 
performed by VISTAS that is a methodology to track the fate of both 
primary and secondary PM. PSAT allows emissions to be tracked 
(``tagged'') for individual facilities as well as various 
combinations of sectors and geographic areas (e.g., by State). The 
PSAT results provide the modeled contribution of each of the tagged 
sources or groups of sources to the total visibility impacts.
    \42\ Georgia did not include primary PM (directly emitted) data 
in this analysis because the PSAT analyses performed by VISTAS 
tagged statewide emissions of SO2 and NOX and 
did not tag primary total PM emissions in the analysis after 
concluding that emissions of the PM precursors SO2 and 
NOX, particularly from point sources, are projected to 
have the largest impact on visibility impairment in 2028 and that 
SO2 and NOX are the most significant 
visibility impairing pollutants from controllable anthropogenic 
sources.
    \43\ In contrast, Georgia's highest sulfate plus nitrate 
impairment impacts to the State's Class I areas are: 2.57 
Mm-\1\, 2.17 Mm-\1\, and 1.04 
Mm-\1\ for Wolf Island, Okefenokee, and Cohutta, 
respectively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on these results for the out-of-state Class I areas, GA EPD 
consulted with the VISTAS States, including Florida, North Carolina, 
and South Carolina. The purpose of this consultation was to identify 
whether Georgia's statewide impacts to the VISTAS and non-VISTAS States 
are significant enough to develop coordinated emission management 
strategies containing the emission reductions necessary to make 
reasonable progress. Consultation is further discussed in Section 
IV.C.2.e of this notice and in Section I.E of EPA's Technical Support 
Document (TSD) for this proposed rulemaking.
    3. EPA Evaluation: EPA proposes to conclude that GA EPD adequately 
addressed the elements of 40 CFR 51.308(f) regarding identification of 
its statewide visibility impacts to Class I areas outside of the State 
and consulting with States with Class I areas which may reasonably be 
anticipated to cause or contribute to any impairment of visibility due 
to Georgia's emissions. EPA proposes to approve the State's approach of 
focusing on SO2 and NOX impacts from Georgia on 
the basis that for current visibility conditions evaluated for the 
2014-2018 period, ammonium sulfate is the dominant visibility impairing 
pollutant at most of the VISTAS Class I areas followed by organic 
carbon and ammonium nitrate (depending on the area).\44\ VISTAS focused 
on controllable emissions from point sources and thus, initially 
considered impacts from sulfates and nitrates on regional haze at Class 
I areas affected by VISTAS States. EPA proposes to find that Georgia 
satisfied 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2) related to the identification of Class I 
areas outside of Georgia that may be affected by emissions from within 
the State and consultation with affected States because the State 
analyzed its statewide sulfate and nitrate contributions to total 
visibility impairment at out-of-state Class I areas (see Table 7-4 of 
the Haze Plan); none of the Class I areas listed in Table 7-4 of the 
Haze Plan have 2028 RPGs on the 20 percent most impaired days above the 
URP; \45\ Georgia analyzed its in-state and out-of-state impacts 
through modeling (see, e.g., Haze Plan Table 7-4) ; and the State 
completed consultation with VISTAS States via the RPO processes and, in 
some cases, on a state-to-state basis and documented those 
consultations.\46\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \44\ See Figures 2-8 and 2-9 of the Haze Plan for the VISTAS 
Class I areas. See also Section IV.C.2.a of this document.
    \45\ See Memorandum from Richard A, Wayland, OAQPS, to Regional 
Air Division Directors re: Availability of Modeling Data and 
Associated Technical Support Document for the EPA's Updated 2028 
Visibility Air Quality Modeling (September 19, 2019), available at: 
https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2019-10/documents/updated_2028_regional_haze_modeling-tsd-2019_0.pdf.
    \46\ See Section IV.C.2.e of this notice and Section I.E. of 
EPA's TSD for additional detail regarding consultation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Calculations of Baseline, Current, and Natural Visibility 
Conditions; Progress to Date; and the Uniform Rate of Progress

    1. RHR Requirement: Section 51.308(f)(1) requires States to 
determine the following for ``each mandatory Class I Federal area 
located within the State'': baseline visibility conditions for the 
clearest days and most impaired days, natural visibility conditions for 
the clearest days and most impaired days, progress to date for the 
clearest days and most impaired days, the differences between current 
visibility conditions and natural visibility conditions, and the URP. 
This section also provides the option for States to propose adjustments 
to the URP line for a Class I area to account for visibility impacts 
from anthropogenic sources outside the United States and/or the impacts 
from wildland prescribed fires that were conducted for certain, 
specified objectives. See 40 CFR 51.308(f)(1)(vi)(B).
    2. State Assessment: In the Haze Plan, Georgia calculated the 
baseline visibility conditions (2000-2004) in Table 2-3, current 
visibility conditions (2014-2018) in Table 2-5,\47\ and natural 
visibility conditions in Table 2-2 for the 20 percent clearest and 20 
percent most impaired days in each Class I area in the State in 
deciviews. Georgia also calculated the actual progress made toward 
natural visibility conditions to date since the baseline period 
(current minus baseline), and the additional progress needed to reach 
natural visibility conditions from current conditions (natural minus 
current), in deciviews, in Table 2-6 (for the 20 percent most impaired 
days) and Table 2-7 (for the 20 percent clearest days) for Georgia's 
Class I areas, as shown in Table 2 below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \47\ The period 2014-2018 represents current visibility 
conditions for Georgia because it is the most recent five-year 
period for which visibility monitoring data was available at the 
time of SIP development.

[[Page 47492]]



                          Table 1--Baseline, Current and Natural Visibility Conditions in Georgia's Class I Areas in Deciviews
                                                                          [dv]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                        Baseline      Baseline most       Current        Current most       Natural        Natural most
                   Class I area                       clearest 20%     impaired 20%     clearest 20%     impaired 20%     clearest 20%     impaired 20%
                                                          (dv)             (dv)             (dv)             (dv)             (dv)             (dv)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cohutta...........................................            13.73            29.12             8.10            17.37             4.42             9.88
Okefenokee........................................            15.23            25.34            11.57            17.39             5.43             9.45
Wolf Island.......................................            15.23            25.34            11.57            17.39             5.43             9.45
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


           Table 2--Actual Progress for Visibility Conditions in Georgia's Class I Areas in Deciviews
                                                      [dv]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   Current minus   Current minus   Natural minus   Natural minus
                                                   baseline for    baseline for     current for     current for
                  Class I area                     20% clearest      20% most      20% clearest      20% most
                                                       (dv)        impaired (dv)       (dv)        impaired (dv)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cohutta.........................................            5.63           11.75            3.68            7.49
Okefenokee......................................            3.66            7.95            6.14            7.94
Wolf Island.....................................            3.66            7.95            6.14            7.94
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additionally, Figures 3-1 and 3-2 of Georgia's Haze Plan provides 
the URP figures on the 20 percent most impaired days for Cohutta and 
Okefenokee, respectively. The URP shown in Figure 3-2 for Okefenokee is 
considered representative of Wolf Island.\48\ The URPs were developed 
using EPA guidance \49\ and used data collected from the IMPROVE 
monitoring sites.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \48\ Wolf Island has no IMPROVE monitor. Visibility at Wolf 
Island is assumed to be the same as the nearest Class I area monitor 
located at Okefenokee.
    \49\ https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2018-12/documents/technical_guidance_tracking_visibility_progress.pdf and https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2020-06/documents/memo_data_for_regional_haze_technical_addendum.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    3. EPA Evaluation: EPA is proposing to find that Georgia's Haze 
Plan meets the requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(f)(1) because the State 
provided for its three Class I areas: baseline, current, and natural 
visibility conditions for the 20 percent clearest days and most 
impaired days; progress to date for the 20 percent clearest days and 
most impaired days; differences between current visibility conditions 
and natural visibility conditions; and the URP for each Class I area in 
Georgia.

C. Long-Term Strategy for Regional Haze

    1. RHR Requirement: Each State having a Class I area within its 
borders or emissions that may affect visibility in a Class I area must 
develop a LTS for making reasonable progress toward the national 
visibility goal. See CAA 169A(b)(2)(B). As explained in Section II of 
this notice, reasonable progress is achieved when all States 
contributing to visibility impairment in a Class I area are 
implementing the measures determined--through application of the four 
statutory factors to sources of visibility impairing pollutants--to be 
necessary to make reasonable progress. See 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(i). Each 
State's LTS must include the enforceable emission limitations, 
compliance schedules, and other measures that are necessary to make 
reasonable progress. See 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2). All new (i.e., 
additional) measures that are the outcome of FFAs are necessary to make 
reasonable progress and must be in the LTS. If the conclusion of a FFA 
and other measures necessary to make reasonable progress for a 
particular source is that no new measures are reasonable, that source's 
existing measures are necessary to make reasonable progress, unless the 
State can demonstrate that the source will continue to implement those 
measures and will not increase its emission rate. Existing measures 
that are necessary to make reasonable progress must also be in the LTS. 
In developing its LTS, a State must also consider the five additional 
factors in section 51.308(f)(2)(iv). As part of its reasonable progress 
determinations, the State must describe the criteria used to determine 
which sources or group of sources were evaluated (i.e., subjected to 
FFA) for the second planning period and how the four factors were taken 
into consideration in selecting the emission reduction measures for 
inclusion in the LTS. See 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(iii).
    States may rely on technical information developed by the RPOs of 
which they are members to select sources for FFA and to satisfy the 
documentation requirements under section 51.308(f). Where an RPO has 
performed source selection and/or FFAs (or considered the five 
additional factors in section 51.308(f)(2)(iv)) for its member States, 
those States may rely on the RPO's analyses for the purpose of 
satisfying the requirements of section 51.308(f)(2)(i) so long as the 
States have a reasonable basis to do so and all State participants in 
the RPO process have approved the technical analyses. See 40 CFR 
51.308(f)(2)(iii). States may also satisfy the requirement of section 
51.308(f)(2)(ii) to engage in interstate consultation with other States 
that have emissions that are reasonably anticipated to contribute to 
visibility impairment in a given Class I area under the auspices of 
intra- and inter-RPO engagement.
    The consultation requirements of section 51.308(f)(2)(ii) provide 
that States must consult with other States that are reasonably 
anticipated to contribute to visibility impairment in a Class I area to 
develop coordinated emission management strategies containing the 
emission reductions measures that are necessary to make reasonable 
progress. Section 51.308(f)(2)(ii)(A) and (B) require States to 
consider the emission reduction measures identified by other States as 
necessary for reasonable progress and to include agreed upon measures 
in their SIPs, respectively. Section 51.308(f)(2)(ii)(C) speaks to what 
happens if States cannot agree on what measures are necessary to make 
reasonable progress. The documentation requirement of section 
51.308(f)(2)(iii) provides that States may meet their obligations to 
document the technical bases on which they are relying to determine the 
emission reductions measures that are necessary to make reasonable 
progress through an RPO, as

[[Page 47493]]

long as the process has been ``approved by all State participants.''
    Section 51.308(f)(2)(iii) also requires that the emissions 
information considered to determine the measures that are necessary to 
make reasonable progress include information on emissions for the most 
recent year for which the State has submitted triennial emissions data 
to EPA (or a more recent year), with a 12-month exemption period for 
newly submitted data.
    2. State Assessment: To develop Georgia's LTS, GA EPD set criteria 
to identify sources to evaluate for potential controls using the four 
factors outlined in Section II.B, selected sources based on those 
criteria, considered the four factors, provided emissions limits and 
supporting conditions for adoption into the regulatory portion of the 
SIP, and evaluated the five additional factors at 40 CFR 
51.308(f)(2)(iv).
    a. Source Selection Criteria: With respect to 40 CFR 
51.308(f)(2)(i), Georgia, through VISTAS, used a two-step source 
selection process: (1) Area of Influence (AoI) analysis, and (2) PSAT 
\50\ modeling for sources exceeding an AoI threshold.\51\ Georgia 
considered the four factors for sources that exceeded both the AoI and 
PSAT thresholds. Both sulfates and nitrates were considered in the 
source selection process. To identify sources having the most impact on 
visibility at Class I areas for PSAT modeling, Georgia used an AoI 
threshold of greater than or equal to two percent for sulfate and 
nitrate combined at any Class I area for all sources within the State 
and four percent for sulfate and nitrate combined at any Class I area 
for all sources outside of the State. Sources which exceeded Georgia's 
AoI threshold are listed in Table 7-11 of the Haze Plan. Of these 
sources, five sources located within Georgia exceeded the AoI threshold 
for any Class I area in the State: Brunswick Cellulose LLC (Brunswick 
Cellulose); International Paper--Savannah (IP-Savannah); Georgia Power 
Company--Plant Bowen (Plant Bowen); Temple Inland; and Georgia-Pacific 
Consumer Products LP (Savannah River Mill).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \50\ PSAT modeling is a type of photochemical modeling which 
quantifies individual facility visibility impacts to an area. See 
footnote 41.
    \51\ The AoI represents the geographical area around a Class I 
area in which emissions sources located in the AoI have the 
potential to contribute to visibility impairment visibility at that 
Class I area. Emissions data from sources in the AoI is then 
evaluated to determine which of those sources are most likely 
contributing to visibility impairment visibility at that Class I 
area. VISTAS used AoI analysis for all point source facilities in 
the VISTAS modeling domain to determine the relative visibility 
impairment impacts at each Class I area associated with sulfate and 
nitrate. The results of the facility-level AoI analyses were then 
used to rank and prioritize facilities for further evaluation via 
PSAT.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Georgia, in coordination with the other VISTAS States, set a PSAT 
threshold of greater than or equal to one percent for sulfate and a 
separate PSAT threshold of greater than or equal to one percent for 
nitrate, by facility.\52\ Sources identified based on the State's PSAT 
threshold are listed in Tables 7-29, 7-30, and 7-31 of the Haze Plan. 
Of these 17 sources identified, 14 are located in seven other States 
and three are in Georgia. Georgia selected the three in-state sources 
of Brunswick Cellulose, IP-Savannah, and Plant Bowen for an FFA.\53\ 
The projected 2028 SO2 from these three sources are 294 tons 
per year (tpy), 3,945 tpy, and 10,453 tpy, respectively, as described 
in Table 7-32 of the Haze Plan. No sources modeled for PSAT exceeded 
the selected PSAT threshold for nitrates. Ammonium sulfate continues to 
be the dominant visibility impairing pollutant at the Georgia Class I 
areas during the modeling base period of 2009-2013, on nearly all days, 
and for the 2014-2018 and 2015-2019 periods.\54\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \52\ In the first planning period, VISTAS States had initially 
set a greater than or equal to one percent PSAT threshold by 
emission unit when screening sources for reasonable progress 
evaluation. For the second planning period, VISTAS States changed 
the threshold from greater than or equal to one percent PSAT, by 
emission unit, to greater than or equal to one percent PSAT, by 
facility. Using a facility basis for emission estimates pulled in 
more facilities compared to an emission unit basis, resulting in 
more facilities with smaller visibility impacts being examined 
compared to the first planning period.
    \53\ Brunswick Cellulose and IP-Savannah are pulp and paper 
mills. Plant Bowen is a coal-fired electric generating plant.
    \54\ See Section 2.5.2 (particularly Figures 2-4 through 2-6 for 
the 2009-2013 period and Figures 2-7 through 2-9 for the 2014-2018 
period), and Section 7.10 of the Haze Plan related to ammonium 
nitrate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Although ammonium sulfate remains the dominant visibility impairing 
pollutant, GA EPD noted that NOX contributions to visibility 
impairment can vary from year to year. According to the Haze Plan, the 
NOX contributions to visibility impairment at Cohutta have 
increased from 1.7 percent in 2001 to 5.4 percent in 2019 on the 20 
percent most impaired days, and the NOX contributions to 
visibility impairment at Okefenokee have increased from 4.2 percent in 
2000 to 5.9 percent in 2019 on the 20 percent most impaired days.\55\ 
In spite of these annual variations, in Figure 7-46 of the Haze Plan, 
GA EPD shows that during the 2015 through 2019 period, ammonium sulfate 
continues to be the dominant visibility impairing species at Cohutta, 
Okefenokee, and Wolf Island and surrounding VISTAS Class I areas. 
Moreover, in Figure 7-47 of the Haze Plan, Georgia demonstrates that 
reductions in the State's NOX emissions do not necessarily 
lead to reductions in nitrate at the Class I areas in Georgia. PSAT 
results indicate that across Georgia's Class I areas, sulfate 
visibility impacts per ton are universally higher than nitrate 
visibility impacts per ton. On average, the reduction of one ton of 
SO2 will have the equivalent benefit of reducing 30.7 tons 
of NOX at Cohutta, 19.0 tons of NOX at 
Okefenokee, and 19.2 tons of NOX at Wolf Island. For the 
reasons discussed, GA EPD determined that SO2 emission 
reductions have a significantly higher benefit on improving visibility 
at these Class I areas compared to controlling NOX 
emissions, as sulfates are still the dominant visibility impairing 
species at the Cohutta, Okefenokee, and Wolf Island in spite of some 
increases in nitrates. Because no sources exceeded the State's PSAT 
threshold for nitrates and because ammonium sulfate continues to be the 
dominant visibility impairing pollutant at the Georgia Class I areas 
(as discussed further below), GA EPD focused solely on evaluating 
potential SO2 controls from Brunswick Cellulose, IP-
Savannah, and Plant Bowen to address regional haze in potentially 
affected Class I areas and noted that it may be appropriate in future 
period haze plans to evaluate NOX controls depending on what 
the future data show.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \55\ See Figures 7-44 and 7-45 of the Haze Plan; see also Figure 
7-46 of the Haze Plan regarding ammonium sulfate as compared to 
ammonium nitrative impacts on visibility at all Class I areas in the 
VISTAS region; see also Appendix H-4b of the Haze Plan at p. 33.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Figures 7-20, 7-21, and 7-22 in the Haze Plan show that projected 
light extinction in 2028 from total sulfate on the 20 percent most 
impaired days is significantly larger than light extinction from total 
nitrate for the Georgia Class I areas. At Cohutta, 2028 projected total 
sulfate and 2028 total nitrate extinction are approximately 41.3 
percent (19 Mm-1) for sulfate and less than 6.5 percent 
(less than three Mm-1) for nitrate, in comparison to the 
2028 total visibility impairment on the 20 percent most impaired 
days.\56\ At Okefenokee, 2028 projected total sulfate and 2028 total 
nitrate extinction are greater than 44.6 percent (25 Mm-1) 
for sulfate and less than 7.1 percent (less than four Mm-1) 
for nitrate, in comparison to the 2028 total visibility impairment on 
the

[[Page 47494]]

20 percent most impaired days. At Wolf Island, 2028 projected total 
sulfate and 2028 total nitrate extinction are greater than 44.5 percent 
(24.5 Mm-1) for sulfate and less than 7.3 percent (less than 
four Mm-1) for nitrate, in comparison to the 2028 total 
visibility impairment on the 20 percent most impaired days. In 
addition, the majority of model-predicted 2028 nitrate light extinction 
on the 20 percent most impaired days at Cohutta, Okefenokee, and Wolf 
Island, respectively, is not caused by NOX emissions from 
EGU and non-EGU point sources.\57\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \56\ Percent impairment was calculated using 2028 total 
visibility impairment on the 20 percent most impaired days at 
Cohutta (46 Mm-1), Okefenokee (56 Mm-1), and 
Wolf Island (55 Mm-1), based on Table 7-2 of the Haze 
Plan.
    \57\ See Figures 7-19, 7-47, 7-48, 7-49, and 7-50 of the Haze 
Plan contrasting nitrate visibility impairment to point source 
NOX emissions from EGUs and non-EGUs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In Section 7.6.4 of the Haze Plan, the State reviewed Georgia 
facilities that were not selected for PSAT modeling and which had an 
AoI contribution greater than one percent for one or more Class I 
areas. This review included Georgia Power--Plant Wansley (Plant 
Wansley); Mohawk Industries Inc.; Southern States Phosphate & 
Fertilizer (now Seagate Terminals Savannah); and Savannah Sugar 
Refinery (now Imperial-Savannah LP). Regarding Plant Wansley, Georgia 
states that a recent change from coal to natural gas reduced visibility 
impacts from this facility and adjusting the AoI contribution from this 
facility to account for this change resulted in an AoI contribution 
below the State's screening threshold for further PSAT tagging. 
Additionally, Georgia has notified EPA that Plant Wansley has 
permanently ceased operations, and therefore, as of December 28, 2022, 
Georgia revoked all air quality permits previously issued for this 
facility, including its Part 70 Operating Permit No. 4911-149-0001-V-
04-0.\58\ Regarding the other facilities, Georgia indicated that they 
were all less than 100 kilometers from the nearest mandatory Class I 
area, and a VISTAS analysis of AoI compared to PSAT results shows that 
AoI results are always at least 2.75 times higher than PSAT results for 
facilities in close proximity (< 100 kilometers) to Class I areas. 
Therefore, based on that information, Georgia screened out these 
facilities from further analysis. Section I.A. of the TSD provides 
additional detail regarding the State's source selection process.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \58\ GA EPD's December 28, 2022, letter to Georgia Power 
revoking Plant Wansley's Part 70 Operating Permit is included in the 
docket for this proposed rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    b. Consideration of the Four CAA Factors: Georgia considered each 
of the four CAA factors for Brunswick Cellulose, IP-Savannah, and Plant 
Bowen and described how the four factors were taken into consideration 
in selecting measures for inclusion in the State's LTS. The following 
subsections summarize the State's evaluation of these facilities. 
Additional detail is provided in Section I.B. of the TSD.
    i. Brunswick Cellulose: The FFA for Brunswick Cellulose focused on 
the No. 4 Power Boiler, No. 5 Recovery Furnace, and No. 6 Recovery 
Furnace.\59\ For the No. 4 Power Boiler, the FFA reviewed the following 
potential controls: substitution of No. 6 Fuel Oil with natural gas, 
wet scrubber with caustic addition, and trona dry sorbent injection 
(DSI). Tables 7-38 and 7-40 of the Haze Plan show that of the potential 
new control measures considered for the No. 4 Power Boiler, Brunswick 
Cellulose would obtain a cost savings from replacing No. 6 fuel oil 
with natural gas which would remove 49 tons of SO2 annually 
and from replacing tire-derived fuel with natural gas which would 
remove 67 tons of SO2 annually; the wet scrubber would 
remove 141 tons of SO2 annually at a cost of $10,330/ton 
removed; and the DSI system would remove 129.1 tons of SO2 
annually at a cost of $26,301/ton removed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \59\ GA EPD notes that the following emissions units were 
exempted from FFA review because the three-year average (2017-2019) 
actual SO2 emissions from each unit are two tpy or less 
and thus any emissions reductions from new control measures is 
expected to be minimal: No. 5 Lime Kiln (L537), No. 6 Power Boiler 
(U706), No. 7 Power Boiler (U707), No. 5 Smelt Dissolving Tank 
(R403), No. 6 Smelt Dissolving Tank (R408), and Backup NCG 
Incinerator (R480).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For the No. 5 and No. 6 Recovery Furnaces, the FFA reviewed the 
following potential controls: use of low-sulfur fuels and a wet 
scrubber system. Tables 7-39 and 7-40 of the Haze Plan show that the 
most cost-effective control options for the No. 5 and No. 6 Recovery 
Furnaces are: replacement of No. 6. fuel oil with one percent sulfur 
fuel oil at the No. 4 Power Boiler, No. 5 Recovery Furnace, and No. 5 
Lime Kiln \60\ which would remove 41 tons of SO2 annually at 
a cost of $5,028/ton of SO2 removed \61\ and replacement of 
No. 6. fuel oil with one percent sulfur fuel oil at the No. 4 Power 
Boiler and No. 5 Recovery Furnace which would also remove 41 tons of 
SO2 annually at a cost of $5,098/ton of SO2 
removed. Additional control options assessed include installation of a 
wet scrubber system on the No. 5 Recovery Furnace which would remove 
119 tons of SO2 annually at a cost of $24,242/ton removed, 
while installation of a wet scrubber system on the No. 6 Recovery 
Furnace would remove 13 tons of SO2 annually at a cost of 
$275,621/ton removed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \60\ Although the No. 5 Lime Kiln was exempted from FFA review, 
as this unit shares the single No. 6 fuel oil tank supply with both 
the No. 4 Power Boiler and the No. 5 Recovery Furnace, any 
substitution to a lower sulfur fuel oil blend at these units would 
also include a fuel substitution for the No. 5 Lime Kiln (or would 
include the construction of a new fuel oil tank to supply the No. 4 
Power Boiler and No. 5 Recovery Furnace separately from the No. 5 
Lime Kiln). GA EPD has included the cost-effectiveness of both 
scenarios in Table 7-40 of the Haze Plan.
    \61\ These 41 tpy of SO2 reductions would be spread 
across the No. 4 Power Boiler and the No. 5 Recovery Furnace.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As explained in Section 7.7 of the Haze Plan, GA EPD reviewed a 
spreadsheet assembled by the Arkansas Department of Environmental 
Quality that compares the cost of compliance for SO2 and 
NOX for controls adopted in various States during the first 
regional haze planning period in dollars per ton for various types of 
industrial emission units and presented the maximum and minimum cost 
per ton and various percentile values and updated it with VISTAS data. 
While GA EPD did not identify a specific cost per ton threshold, GA EPD 
determined that a cost-effectiveness of $5,028/ton of SO2 
removed was not reasonable, as the State concluded that this cost was 
greater than the highest 98th percent cost per ton value from the 
updated Arkansas spreadsheet (within the top two percentile) from each 
of the VISTAS States from the first planning period, listed in the 
Arkansas spreadsheet. \62\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \62\ See Section 7.7, Appendix G-4, and Appendix H-4b (Section 
5.2.1) of the Haze Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    GA EPD also included an analysis of the other three factors in 
Section 7.8.3 of the Haze Plan. Regarding the time necessary for 
compliance, if controls, such as the installation of a new fuel oil 
tank or new burner were required, the facility would need at least four 
to five years to implement these changes. GA EPD notes that the 
emission units included are assumed to have a remaining useful life of 
30 years or more. Regarding the energy and non-air related impacts, GA 
EPD included the impacts associated with each add-on control option 
evaluated in the FFA. Use of an SO2 scrubber requires the 
use of additional water and generates a wastewater stream that must be 
treated. Additional electricity is required to power scrubber fans. In 
addition, GA EPD notes that a DSI generates additional waste.
    The results of GA EPD's FFA for Brunswick Cellulose were to 
eliminate firing of tire-derived fuel in the No. 4 Power Boiler and to 
limit the firing of No. 6 fuel oil in the No. 4 Power Boiler to times 
of natural gas curtailment with additional fuel oil firing allowed 
during adverse bark/wood fuel conditions. GA

[[Page 47495]]

EPD also limited SO2 emissions from the No. 4 Power Boiler 
to 15 tpy when firing No. 6 fuel oil during adverse bark/wood fuel 
conditions.\63\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \63\ Permit No. 2631-127-0003-V-07-3, Condition 6.2.52, requires 
the source to use the emission factors and the records required by 
Condition 6.2.51 to ensure compliance with the 15 tpy SO2 
emission limit specified in Condition 3.2.25 for the No. 4 Power 
Boiler. On April 15, 2024, GA EPD supplemented its August 11, 2022, 
Haze Plan by providing clarification on the specific emission factor 
that the source will use for calculating compliance with Condition 
3.2.25. This April 15, 2024, email containing the supplemental 
clarification is included in the docket for this proposed action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regarding the No. 5 and No. 6 Recovery Furnaces, for the reasons 
stated above, Georgia concluded that the costs associated with each of 
the measures considered were not reasonable and therefore did not 
select further controls for the No. 5 and No. 6 Recovery Furnaces. GA 
EPD also indicated that the facility has consistently utilized good 
operating practices as existing measures for the No. 5 and No. 6 
Recovery Furnaces, and that GA EPD expects emissions from these units 
to remain in the range of 90.4-213.5 tons/year for the No. 5 Recovery 
Furnace and in the range of 7.8-22.0 tpy of SO2 for the No. 
6 Recovery Furnace. In addition, GA EPD notes that the SO2 
emissions rates have been consistent during the 2016 to 2020 period and 
have ranged from 0.1249 to 0.1523 tons SO2 per 1,000 gallon 
of No. 6 Fuel Oil burned in the No. 5 Recovery Furnace.\64\ Therefore, 
GA EPD did not include any existing measures for the No. 5 and No. 6 
Recovery Furnaces in its Haze Plan submittal for inclusion in the SIP. 
See 2021 Clarifications Memo at 9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \64\ This information was provided in an April 15, 2024, 
supplemental email, in which GA EPD provided historical emission 
rates (2016 through 2020) for the No. 6 Recovery Furnace. This 
information is contained in the docket for this proposed action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Georgia provided EPA with Permit No. 2631-127-0003-V-07-3, issued 
on October 25, 2023, to implement the control measures that were 
selected from the FFA for Brunswick Cellulose for the No. 4 Power 
Boiler.\65\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \65\ GA EPD provided this permit to EPA on November 1, 2023. A 
copy of the permit is included in the docket. The November 1, 2023, 
permit conditions are identical to those included in Section 7.8.3 
of the June 24, 2022, Haze Plan narrative that was subject to public 
comment at the State level.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    ii. IP-Savannah: The FFA for IP-Savanah focused on the facility's 
No. 13 Power Boiler.\66\ The FFA notes that as a result of a boiler 
project that was completed for compliance with 40 CFR part 63, subpart 
DDDDD (commonly referred to as the Boiler MACT) that became effective 
in 2013 with a 2016 compliance date, IP-Savannah ceased firing No. 6 
fuel oil in the No. 13 Power Boiler, added load-bearing natural gas 
burners, and optimized combustion controls and the combustion air 
system. Prior to completion of this project, the No. 13 Power Boiler 
was permitted to burn coal, biomass, fuel oil, and non-condensable 
gases (NCGs). After completion of this project, the boiler was able to 
burn coal, biomass, natural gas, and NCGs. Although the plant remained 
permitted to continue burning coal, it has not burned coal since 2017. 
The FFA also notes that the No. 13 Power Boiler is controlled by an 
electrostatic precipitator,\67\ with a portion of low-volume, high-
concentration pulp mill gasses sent to a White Liquor Scrubber.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \66\ GA EPD did not evaluate IP-Savannah's No. 15 Recovery 
Furnace, No. 15 Recovery Furnace Smelt Dissolving Tank, and No. 7 
Lime Kiln in the FFA because combined, these emission units emitted 
less than 30 tpy of SO2 annually from 2018-2020. Nearly 
all SO2 emissions from IP-Savannah are from the No. 13 
Power Boiler.
    \67\ The electrostatic precipitator that is being used to 
control emissions from the No. 13 Power Boiler at IP-Savannah is 
primarily a device to control particulate pollution and is not an 
SO2 control device.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FFA reviewed the following potential controls for the No. 13 
Power Boiler: addition of a circulating dry scrubber with pulse jet 
fabric filter; addition of a DSI system; and permanent removal of coal 
as a permissible fuel. The FFA determined that installation of the dry 
scrubber would remove 3,674 tons of SO2 per year at a cost 
of $5,564/ton; installation of the DSI system would remove 2,653 tons 
of SO2 per year at a cost of $6,245/ton; and removal of coal 
as a fuel source would result prevent the emission of 2,662 tons of 
SO2 annually and would result in a cost savings to the 
plant. GA EPD used the Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality 
spreadsheet for evaluating the cost-effectiveness for each of the 
controls evaluated, as explained in Section IV.C.2.b.1 of the proposed 
rule and Section 7.7 of the Haze Plan. While GA EPD did not identify a 
specific cost per ton threshold, GA EPD used the spreadsheet as 
rationale for the determination that cost-effectiveness of $5,564/ton 
and $6,245/ton of SO2 removed was not reasonable, as the 
State concluded that these costs were greater than the highest 98th 
percent cost per ton value from the updated Arkansas spreadsheet 
(within the top two percentile) from each of the VISTAS States from the 
first planning period, listed in the Arkansas spreadsheet.\68\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \68\ See Section 7.7, Appendix G-4, and Appendix H-4b (section 
5.2.1) of the Haze Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    GA EPD also included an analysis of the other three factors in 
Section 7.8.1 of the Haze Plan of the Haze Plan. Regarding the time 
necessary for compliance, GA EPD estimates it would take at least three 
years to implement the installation of any add-on controls. Regarding 
the remaining useful life of existing sources, GA EPD notes that the 
No. 13 Power Boiler has a useful life of 20 years or more. Regarding 
the energy and non-air related impacts, GA EPD included the impacts 
associated with each add-on control option evaluated in the FFA. The 
FFA notes that both the dry scrubber and DSI system options would 
utilize additional energy and water usage and generate additional solid 
waste and wastewater and could potentially cause a smaller compliance 
margin against non-air permit limits. In addition, GA EPD notes that 
both the dry scrubber and DSI option would require an expansion of the 
existing mill-owned landfill.
    As such, GA EPD selected the removal of coal as an allowable fuel 
for the No. 13 Power Boiler as a necessary measure for reasonable 
progress. The FFA also concluded that installation of a dry scrubber or 
DSI carried unreasonable cost and that the other, non-cost factors 
weighed against installation of add-on controls. The FFA therefore 
determined that the installation of a dry scrubber or DSI were not 
necessary to make reasonable progress.
    Georgia provided EPA with Permit No. 2631-051-0007-V-04-1, issued 
on October 20, 2023, to implement control measures that were selected 
from the FFA for IP-Savannah for incorporation into the SIP.\69\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \69\ GA EPD provided this permit to EPA on November 1, 2023. A 
copy of the permit is included in the docket. The November 1, 2023, 
permit conditions are identical to those included in Section 7.8.1 
of the June 24, 2022, Haze Plan narrative that was subject to public 
comment at the State level.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    iii. Plant Bowen: The Plant Bowen FFA evaluated technically 
feasible SO2 controls for all four units (Units 1-4) at this 
plant. SO2 emissions from Plant Bowen Units 1-4 are 
currently controlled by wet flue gas desulfurization (WFGD) scrubbers 
and the use of fuel that does not exceed three percent sulfur by 
weight. The FFA notes that Plant Bowen Units 1-4 currently combust 
bituminous coal primarily from the Illinois Basin, which has an average 
sulfur content of approximately 2.6 percent and an average heat content 
of 12,002 British

[[Page 47496]]

thermal units (Btu) per pound. GA EPD states that the SO2 
removal efficiency for Units 1-4 ranges from 96 to 97.3 percent based 
on data from three years prior to submission of the final Haze Plan.
    The FFA reviewed the following potential controls for Plant Bowen: 
the installation of dry flue gas desulfurization (DFGD) scrubbers to 
replace the existing wet scrubbers; switching coal to Powder River 
Basin coal, which has an average sulfur content of 0.42 percent and 
average heat content of 8,800 Btu per pound; and switching to Central 
Appalachian coal, which has an average sulfur content of 1.1 percent 
and average heat content of 12,000 Btu per pound.\70\ The FFA concluded 
that DFGD is an inferior control option that would result in higher 
emissions compared to the existing WFGD. Therefore, this option was not 
explored further. Regarding the switch to Powder River Basin coal, the 
FFA determined that this option would reduce SO2 emissions 
by 81 percent (7,482 tpy) at a cost of $6,424/ton of SO2 
removed. The FFA also determined that switching to Central Appalachian 
coal would reduce SO2 emissions by 56 percent (5,199 tpy) at 
a cost of $13,447/ton of SO2 removed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \70\ See Table A2.1 to Appendix G-1b of the Haze Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    GA EPD used the Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality 
spreadsheet for evaluating the cost-effectiveness for each of the 
controls evaluated, as explained in Section IV.C.2.b.1 of the proposed 
rule and Section 7.7 of the Haze Plan. While GA EPD did not identify a 
specific cost per ton threshold, GA EPD used the spreadsheet as 
rationale for the determination that cost-effectiveness of $6,424/ton 
and $13,447/ton of SO2 removed was not reasonable, as the 
State concluded that this cost was greater than the highest 98th 
percent cost per ton value from the updated Arkansas spreadsheet 
(within the top two percentile) from each of the VISTAS States from the 
first planning period, listed in the Arkansas spreadsheet.\71\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \71\ See Section 7.7, Appendix G-4, and Appendix H-4b (section 
5.2.1) of the Haze Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    GA EPD also included an analysis of the other three factors in 
Appendix G-1b of the Haze Plan. For a switch to either Powder River 
Basin coal or Central Appalachian coal, Georgia notes that extensive 
engineering evaluations would be needed. Therefore, GA EPD estimates 
that the time necessary for compliance could take until December 31, 
2028. Regarding the energy and non-air related impacts, the FFA 
explains that due to limitations in the plant's coal handling 
facilities, a switch to Powder River Basin coal would result in an 
electric generation derate of 27 percent or more based on the lower 
heat content of this type of coal that could not easily be remedied by 
simply increasing the tonnage of coal burned at the plant.\72\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \72\ The FFA also accounted for this 27 percent facility derate 
in the cost of compliance factor.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FFA concluded that no new measures were reasonable for Plant 
Bowen, and therefore concluded that existing measures are necessary to 
make reasonable progress. Specifically, GA EPD concluded that adopting 
an SO2 emission limit of 0.20 pound per million British 
thermal units (lb/MMBtu) on a 30-day rolling average into the SIP is 
necessary to make reasonable progress. This emission limit is the 
alternative emission limit currently applicable to Plant Bowen under 
the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (MATS) rule. Including this 
emission limit in the SIP would also have the effect of removing the 
hydrogen chloride (HCl) MATS compliance option for Plant Bowen. Georgia 
provided EPA with Permit No. 4911-015-0011-V-04-3 dated September 6, 
2023, to implement this control measure for Plant Bowen into the 
SIP.\73\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \73\ GA EPD provided this permit to EPA on November 1, 2023. 
This permit replaces the permit contained in Appendix G-1d. A copy 
of the permit is included in the docket. The November 1, 2023, 
permit conditions are identical to those included in Section 7.8.2 
of the June 24, 2022, Haze Plan that was subject to public comment 
at the State level.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    c. Documentation of Technical Basis: With respect to emissions 
information documentation pursuant to 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(iii), Section 
4 of the Haze Plan explains the State's use of emissions inventories to 
develop the plan with additional documentation provided in Appendix B. 
Georgia, through VISTAS, developed a 2011 statewide base year emissions 
inventory which was used to project emissions out to 2028--the end of 
the second planning period. GA EPD also evaluated emissions data from 
2017, the year of the most recent triennial emissions data available at 
the time of the development of the Haze Plan, and compared it to 2018, 
2019, and 2028 projected emissions, that were used in the modeling.\74\ 
GA EPD also provided annual, statewide anthropogenic SO2, 
NOX, and PM2.5 emissions data from 2011 through 
2019 for Georgia in Tables 13-10, 13-11, and 13-12, respectively, of 
the Haze Plan. The 2011-2019 statewide emissions inventories and 2028 
emissions projections were relied upon to satisfy 40 CFR 
51.308(f)(6)(v).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \74\ A comparison of emissions between 2017, 2018, 2019, and 
2028 emissions data is included in the following tables and figures 
in the Haze Plan: Table 7-32 (SO2) and 7-33 
(NOX) for facilities in Georgia; Tables 13-10 
(PM2.5), 13-11 (NOX), 13-12 (SO2), 
13-13 (SO2 emissions from Georgia EGU for CAMD 2015-
2021); Figures 13-7 (Georgia CAMD Emissions and Heat Input for 2014-
2019) and 13-8 VISTAS CAMD Emissions and Heat Input for 2014-2019; 
and Table 13-14 (SO2, NOX for all RPOs).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With respect to modeling information documentation pursuant to 40 
CFR 51.308(f)(2)(iii), Sections 5 and 6 of the Haze Plan describe the 
modeling methods used to develop the plan with additional documentation 
provided in Appendix E and results of the RPG modeling in Section 8 of 
the plan. Appendix D contains AoI analysis documentation, and Appendix 
E contains PSAT analysis documentation.
    With respect to cost and engineering information documentation 
pursuant to 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(iii), Section 7.8 of the Haze Plan 
details the State's analysis of proposed FFAs for Brunswick Cellulose, 
IP-Savannah, and Plant Bowen located in Appendix G which evaluated the 
four factors, including the cost of compliance factor, and provided 
detailed cost calculations for potential new control measures assessed 
as part of the engineering analyses.
    With respect to monitoring information documentation pursuant to 40 
CFR 51.308(f)(2)(iii), the State assessed baseline (2000-2004), current 
(2014-2018), and natural visibility conditions for Georgia's Class I 
areas in Section 2 of the Georgia's Haze Plan with supporting 
information located in Appendix C.
    Section I of the TSD provides a more detailed summary of the 
State's assessment of the documentation of the technical basis for the 
Georgia's Haze Plan under 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(iii) and 40 CFR 
51.308(f)(6)(v).
    d. Assessment of Five Additional Factors in 40 CFR 
51.308(f)(2)(iv): With respect to 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(iv), Georgia 
considered each of the five additional factors in developing the 
State's LTS and evaluated their relevancy for the second period. See 
Haze Plan, Section 7.9. With respect to 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(iv)(A), 
Georgia referenced the State's emissions inventory development for the 
base year of 2011 as projected out to 2028 for the requirement to 
assess emission reductions due to ongoing air pollution control 
programs, including measures to address RAVI. With respect to 40 CFR 
51.308(f)(2)(iv)(B), Georgia summarized the State's existing 
regulations that mitigate the impacts of construction activities by 
requiring control of

[[Page 47497]]

erosion, siltation, and pollution from construction activities and 
requiring subject facilities to control PM from fugitive dust emission 
sources generated within plant boundaries. With respect to 40 CFR 
51.308(f)(2)(iv)(C), Georgia addressed source retirement and 
replacement schedules by summarizing existing and planned source 
retirements in the Haze Plan in Section 13.3.1 and Section 13.3.2. With 
respect to 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(iv)(D), GA EPD referenced its 2008 
Memorandum of Understanding with the Georgia Forestry Commission and 
the associated Smoke Management Plan to mitigate PM2.5 
emissions and regional haze impacts associated with prescribed 
burning.\75\ With respect to 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(iv)(E), the 2028 RPGs 
for the Georgia Class I areas reflect the net effect on visibility due 
to projected changes in point, area, and mobile source emissions over 
the second period. Section I.C. of the TSD to this rulemaking provides 
a more detailed summary of the State's assessment of the five 
additional factors in 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(iv).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \75\ Georgia's current Smoke Management Plan is available at: 
https://epd.georgia.gov/document/document/view-georgias-smoke-management-plan/download.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    e. Interstate Consultation: Georgia consulted with other States, as 
described below, and RPOs that identified Georgia sources as impacting 
those States' (or States within the RPOs') Class I areas, and GA EPD 
consulted with the seven States with one or more sources exceeding 
Georgia's PSAT threshold at one or more of Georgia's Class I areas.
    i. State/RPOs Requesting Consultation with Georgia: Section 10.1.2 
and Appendix F-1 of the Haze Plan documents other States' consultations 
with Georgia during the development of those States' LTSs regarding 
impacts from Georgia's emissions sources on Class I areas outside of 
the State. Georgia received requests for a FFA from Florida, North 
Carolina, Tennessee, and South Carolina regarding Plant Bowen. Georgia 
also received a request for a reasonable progress analysis from South 
Carolina regarding IP-Savannah. As discussed in Section 7.6.4 of the 
Haze Plan, Georgia selected Plant Bowen and IP-Savannah for a 
reasonable progress analysis.
    ii. Georgia's Requests for Consultation with Other States: 
Consultation with other States with sources contributing to regional 
haze at Georgia's Class I areas is discussed in Section 10 and Appendix 
F of the Haze Plan. Table 10-1 provides a summary of the VISTAS and 
non-VISTAS States to which a letter was sent and identifies the total 
number of facilities impacting each Class I area in Georgia, as 
determined by the State. Table 10-2 identifies each out-of-state 
facility with a percent impairment impact greater than one percent 
sulfate or nitrate to each Class I area in Georgia. Appendix F-1 
provides the consultation letters from GA EPD to each VISTAS State and 
the responses to these letters. Appendix F-2 provides the consultation 
letters from VISTAS to each non-VISTAS State and the responses to these 
letters. Georgia requested an FFA of 13 sources in seven other States 
because these sources exceeded the State's sulfate PSAT threshold at 
one or more of Georgia's Class I areas.\76\ GA EPD documented the 
responses received for each of the sources in Section 10.1.1 of the 
Haze Plan. Georgia consulted with other VISTAS States (Florida, 
Kentucky, South Carolina, Tennessee) and each non-VISTAS State 
(Indiana, Ohio, Pennsylvania) regarding impacts from sources in those 
States to one or more Class I areas in Georgia and included responses 
from each VISTAS and non-VISTAS State in Appendix F-1 and Appendix F-2 
of the Haze Plan, respectively. GA EPD has noted no disagreement with 
the decisions made by other State agencies concerning the emission 
sources in other States, as listed in Section 10.1.1 of the Haze Plan, 
except for the decision made by the Indiana Department of Environmental 
Management to not require FFAs from its electric generating units 
(EGUs), including Gibson Station and AEP Rockport Generating Station.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \76\ Georgia requested FFAs of non-VISTAS sources through 
VISTAS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    See Section I.E. of the TSD associated with this rulemaking for 
additional description of Georgia's interstate consultation for 
regional haze for the second period regarding: (a) visibility impacts 
from Georgia sources on other States' Class I area(s) and (b) 
visibility impacts from other States' sources on one or more of 
Georgia's Class I areas.
    3. EPA Evaluation: EPA has reviewed Georgia's four-factor analyses, 
determinations of controls necessary for reasonable progress, and 
submitted permit conditions. Based on this review, EPA proposes to 
determine that Georgia's long-term strategy meets the requirements of 
40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(i) through (iv). However, EPA is soliciting comment 
on the adequacy of Georgia's analyses, including the four-factor 
analyses, determinations of controls necessary for reasonable progress 
and the adequacy of the submitted permit conditions, including 
associated monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting, and whether the 
State has met the requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(i) through (iv).
    a. Source Selection Criteria: EPA proposes to find that Georgia has 
satisfied the requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(i) with respect to 
including a description of the criteria that the State used to 
determine which sources the State evaluated for emissions controls. 
Georgia provided in the Haze Plan supporting information such as 
Appendix C, which includes monitoring and meteorological data used to 
support selection of sources; Appendix D, which provides documentation 
supporting the AoI analyses (first step of the State's source selection 
process); and Appendix E, which details the visibility and source 
apportionment data and results from the PSAT modeling (second step of 
the State's source selection process).
    EPA also proposes to find that Georgia's source selection 
methodology was reasonable and resulted in a reasonable set of sources 
contributing to visibility impairment at Class I areas affected by 
Georgia's sources. AoI and PSAT are acceptable and well-established 
methods for selecting sources for a control analysis.\77\ Additionally, 
Georgia's application of a two percent AoI threshold for in-state 
sources, a four percent AoI threshold for out-of-state sources, and a 
one percent PSAT threshold based on 2028 projected emissions enabled 
the selection of the three in-state sources that are projected to have 
the highest impact on visibility at the end of the second planning 
period and also identified 14 out-of-state sources that have the 
largest impacts on visibility at Class I areas in Georgia. Georgia 
completed control evaluations for the three in-state sources and 
requested control evaluations for the 14 out-of-state sources.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \77\ The State used the AoI process because it identifies the 
largest sources with potential visibility impacts to Class I areas 
and then used sophisticated photochemical source apportionment 
modeling to identify specific sources for control evaluations. See 
also 2019 Guidance, pp. 12-13.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Apart from AoI and PSAT being well-established methods to select 
sources, Georgia's source selection methodology is also reasonable 
given the specific circumstances present in Georgia. Georgia (through 
VISTAS' analysis) projects that visibility conditions in Georgia's 
Class I areas in 2028 are estimated to improve since the 2000-2004 
baseline period by 14.22 deciviews (Cohutta) and 8.44 deciviews 
(Okefenokee and Wolf Island). Specific to the second planning period, 
visibility conditions in Georgia's Class I areas in 2028 are estimated 
to improve since the

[[Page 47498]]

2014-2018 period by 2.5 deciviews (Cohutta) and 0.49 deciviews 
(Okefenokee and Wolf Island) on the 20 percent most impaired days. 
These visibility improvements represent approximately 33.0 percent 
(Cohutta) and 6.2 percent (Okefenokee and Wolf Island) of the 
additional progress needed to reach natural conditions at each Class I 
area.\78\ Additionally, using the most recent 2018-2022 IMPROVE data 
\79\ for Georgia's Class I areas on the 20 percent most impaired days 
(15.69 deciviews (Cohutta) and 16.36 deciviews (Okefenokee and Wolf 
Island)), in the first four years of the second planning period (2019-
2022), Georgia has already achieved 22.4 percent (Cohutta) and 13.0 
percent (Okefenokee and Wolf Island)) of the remaining progress needed 
to reach natural conditions. Georgia is also not contributing to 
visibility impairment at any Class I areas above the URP, and the State 
appropriately focused on controlling point source SO2 
emissions based on data showing ammonium sulfate is the dominant 
visibility impairing pollutant at the Georgia Class I areas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \78\ The additional visibility improvement needed to reach 
natural conditions at the start of the second planning period based 
upon 2014-2018 IMPROVE data for the 20 percent most impaired days is 
calculated as follows: ((2014-2018 visibility conditions)-(2028 
RPG))/((2014-2018 visibility conditions)-(natural conditions)) x 100 
= percent progress needed to reach natural conditions from the start 
of the second planning period. For example, using data for Cohutta, 
the calculation is: ((17.37 deciviews-14.90 deciviews)/(17.37 
deciviews-9.88 deciviews)) x 100 = 33.0 percent.
    \79\ The 2018-2022 IMPROVE data for the 20 percent most impaired 
days was obtained from https://vista.cira.colostate.edu/Improve/rhr-summary-data/ under the header ``Means for Impairment Metric:'' The 
IMPROVE data includes visibility monitoring data for each Class I 
area. This data was filtered for each Georgia Class I area, listed 
as ``COHU1'' and ``OKEF1'' for Cohutta and Okefenokee, respectively, 
(in column ``A'', titled ``site''). Then data was filtered for the 
years 2018 through 2022 (using column ``B'' titled ``year''). These 
data points were then filtered for the 20 percent most impaired 
days, indicated by ``90'' (in column ``C'' titled 
``impairment_Group''). The resulting five data points for each 
Georgia Class I area within the ``haze_dv'' column ``AK'', 
corresponding to each of the five years, were averaged to determine 
the 20 percent most impaired days for the 2018-2022 five-year 
period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    b. Consideration of the Four CAA Factors: EPA proposes to find that 
Georgia has satisfied the FFA requirements through its evaluation and 
actions documented in the Georgia Haze Plan for the second planning 
period. Additionally, as laid out in further detail in the following 
paragraphs of this section, EPA proposes to find that GA EPD's 
reasonable progress determinations and conclusions for these sources 
are reasonable and the Georgia submission satisfies the requirement of 
40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(i).
    i. Brunswick Cellulose: Regarding Brunswick Cellulose, GA EPD's 
conclusions and analytical methods stated in its FFA are reasonable.
    Regarding the No. 4 Power Boiler, EPA proposes to find that GA 
EPD's determination of measures that are necessary for reasonable 
progress for the second planning period are reasonable. These measures 
include: a) Brunswick Cellulose's No. 4 Power Boiler must eliminate the 
firing of tire-derived fuel and limit the firing of No. 6 fuel oil to 
times of natural gas curtailment with additional fuel oil firing 
allowances during adverse bark/wood fuel conditions and b) the No. 4 
Power Boiler will be limited to 15 tpy of SO2 emissions when 
firing No. 6 fuel oil during periods of adverse fuel conditions. As 
explained in Section 7.8.3 of the Haze Plan, Georgia EPD found that 
eliminating the firing of tire-derived fuel in the No. 4 Power Boiler 
would result in cost-savings for the facility, achieving an annual 
SO2 reduction of 67 tpy without requiring significant 
capital investment to modify equipment at the site. Furthermore, the 
FFA also found that this option resulted in greater annual 
SO2 emission reductions than some other more expensive fuel-
switching options. See Tables 3 through 5 of the accompanying TSD for 
further detail.
    Regarding the No. 5 and No. 6 Recovery Furnaces, EPA finds that 
Georgia has adequately demonstrated that based on high control costs, 
none of the add-on SO2 controls evaluated for the selected 
units were reasonable and that existing SO2 measures at the 
No. 5 and No. 6 Recovery Furnaces are not necessary for reasonable 
progress. Therefore, no permit conditions reflecting existing 
SO2 measures are required for incorporation into the SIP for 
these emission units.\80\ Specifically, emission rates from 2016 to 
2020 at the No. 5 and No. 6 Recovery Furnaces are consistent over this 
five-year period. Of these two recovery furnaces, the No. 5 recovery 
furnace is the higher-emitting unit.\81\ Regarding the No. 5 Recovery 
Furnace, on April 16, 2024, GA EPD provided a supplement to the Haze 
Plan containing additional emission rate information.\82\ In this 
supplement, GA EPD also notes that this unit is already subject to PSD 
limits for sulfur, filterable PM, and the gallons of fuel oil burned. 
As such, GA EPD notes that while total SO2 emissions for 
this unit have fluctuated during the 2016 to 2020 period, the emission 
rate for the unit is within a consistent range limited by the Permit. 
Specifically, GA EPD notes that the SO2 emissions rates have 
been consistent during the 2016 to 2020 period and have ranged from 
0.1249 to 0.1523 tons SO2 per 1,000 gallon of No. 6 Fuel Oil 
burned in the No. 5 Recovery Furnace.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \80\ For additional discussion, see Section 4.1 of the 2021 
Memo.
    \81\ Emissions from the No. 6 Recovery Furnace have not exceeded 
22 tpy from 2016 through 2020 according to Section 7.8.3 of the Haze 
Plan. The SO2 emissions from the No. 6 Recovery Furnace 
have also consistently trended downward, and GA EPD notes that 
future SO2 emissions will remain between 7.8 to 22 tpy.
    \82\ The April 15, 2024, supplemental information is included in 
the docket for this proposed action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The measures resulting from the FFA for Brunswick Cellulose are 
being implemented by GA EPD through the issuance of Permit No. 2631-
127-0003-V-07-3 dated October 25, 2023, which is included in the docket 
for this proposed rule. EPA is proposing to incorporate by reference 
this permit and its associated conditions into Georgia's SIP because 
these measures are necessary to make reasonable progress toward 
visibility improvement at Class I areas impacted by this facility. 
These permit conditions are also described under ``Summary and Proposed 
Permit Conditions'' in Section 7.8.3 of the Haze Plan.
    ii. IP-Savannah: Regarding IP-Savannah, EPA finds that GA EPD 
adequately demonstrated that the removal of coal as a permitted fuel 
for combustion in the No. 13 Power Boiler is a measure necessary for 
reasonable progress. The costs necessary for implementation result in 
an overall cost saving for the facility and achieve an annual 
SO2 emissions reductions of 2,662 tpy. As is detailed in 
Section 7.8.1. of the Haze Plan, the evaluated add-on SO2 
controls, DSI and a dry scrubber, resulted in a higher cost of control 
and presented challenges in solid waste disposal. Furthermore, the FFA 
found that the removal of coal as a permitted fuel resulted in greater 
annual SO2 emission reductions than the more expensive add-
on option of DSI. Overall, GA EPD's conclusions and analytical methods 
stated in its FFA are reasonable. This includes GA EPD's cost 
calculations, which followed the EPA Air Pollution Control Cost Manual 
recommendations where relevant to address the cost of compliance factor 
and consideration of the other non-cost factors. The above-described 
measures resulting from the FFA for IP-Savannah are being implemented 
by GA EPD through the issuance of conditions in Permit No. 2631-051-
0007-V-04-1

[[Page 47499]]

issued October 20, 2023.\83\ EPA is proposing to incorporate by 
reference this permit and its associated conditions into Georgia's SIP 
because these measures are necessary to make reasonable progress toward 
visibility improvement at Class I areas impacted by this facility. 
These permit conditions are also described under ``Summary and Proposed 
Permit Conditions'' in Section 7.8.1 of the Haze Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \83\ Permit No. 2631-051-0007-V-04-1, issued on October 20, 
2023, contains the permit conditions to be included in the Regional 
Haze SIP for the second planning period that are related to the 
removal of coal as a fuel in No. 13 Power Boiler, except for 
Conditions 3.3.7 and 6.2.6(b). Note that Conditions 3.3.7 and 
6.2.6(b) are already federally enforceable conditions developed for 
Georgia's Regional Haze SIP approved on July 30, 2012, as part of 
the first planning period and are included in the permit only for 
completeness. See 77 FR 38501. EPA is not proposing in this notice 
to adopt Conditions 3.3.7 and 6.2.6(b) into the SIP for this second 
planning period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    iii. Plant Bowen: Regarding Plant Bowen, GA EPD's conclusions and 
analytical methods stated in its FFA are reasonable. The lowest 
evaluated cost control measure is $6,424/ton of SO2 removed 
for switching to Powder River Basin (PRB) coal. See Table 7-36 of the 
Haze Plan. GA EPD notes that a capacity derate of around 27 percent or 
greater would be expected using existing equipment to process Powder 
River Basin (PRB) coal at the same rate as current Illinois Basin coal 
operations, based on the heat contents of PRB coal at 8,800 Btu/lb and 
2019 Illinois Basin coal at 12,002 Btu/lb. This derate is the main cost 
that is captured within the $6,424/ton of SO2 removed figure 
for switching to PRB coal at Plant Bowen. EPA thus proposes to agree 
with GA EPD's conclusions and assessments as stated in the FFA for this 
facility. GA EPD's cost calculations, which followed the EPA Air 
Pollution Control Cost Manual recommendations where relevant to address 
the cost of compliance factor, are also reasonable.
    Thus, EPA finds that GA EPD's conclusions as summarized below are 
reasonable: a) there are no new SO2 control measures at 
Plant Bowen for Units 1-4 that are necessary for reasonable progress 
for the second period; and b) removal of the MATS HCl alternative limit 
from the title V permit, while retaining the 0.20 lb/MMBtu 
SO2 MATS limit for Plant Bowen Units 1-4, is an existing 
measure that is necessary to make reasonable progress.
    This existing measure is being implemented by GA EPD through the 
conditions in Permit No. 4911-015-0011-V-04-3 dated September 6, 2023, 
which is included in the docket for this proposed rule. EPA is 
proposing to incorporate by reference this permit and its associated 
conditions into Georgia's SIP because these measures are necessary to 
make reasonable progress toward visibility improvement at Class I areas 
impacted by this facility. These permit conditions are also described 
under ``Summary and Proposed Permit Conditions'' in Section 7.8.2 of 
the Haze Plan.
    c. Assessment of Five Additional Factors in 40 CFR 
51.308(f)(2)(iv): EPA proposes to find that Georgia has satisfied the 
requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(iv) because GA EPD considered each 
of the five additional factors, discussed the measures the State has in 
place to address each factor (or discussed why such measures are not 
needed), and, where relevant, explained how each factor informed GA 
EPD's and VISTAS' technical analyses for the second planning period.
    With respect to 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(iv)(A), EPA proposes to find 
that EPD adequately addressed the requirement to assess emission 
reductions due to ongoing air pollution control programs, including 
measures to address RAVI, through the State's emissions inventory work 
for the base year of 2011 as projected out to 2028.
    With respect to 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(iv)(B), EPA proposes to find 
that Georgia adequately addressed this requirement to evaluate measures 
to mitigate the impacts of construction activities by describing 
various State regulations that address control of erosion, siltation, 
and pollution from construction activities and that require subject 
facilities to control PM from fugitive dust emission sources generated 
within plant boundaries.
    With respect to 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(iv)(C), EPA proposes to find 
that Georgia adequately addressed source retirement and replacement 
schedules by summarizing existing and planned source retirements 
throughout the Haze Plan, including in Section 7.2.2 (retirements 
accounted for in the 2028 inventory/RPGs).
    With respect to 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(iv)(D), EPA proposes to find 
that Georgia adequately addressed the requirement to consider the 
State's basic smoke management practices for prescribed fire used for 
agricultural and wildland vegetation management purposes and smoke 
management programs for the following reasons. The State describes its 
smoke management plan, which is implemented through a memorandum of 
understanding between EPD, the Georgia Forestry Commission, and the 
Georgia Department of Natural Resources Wildlife Resources 
Division.\84\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \84\ GA EPD notes that elemental carbon is the primary 
visibility impairing pollutant related to wildfires, prescribed 
wildland fires, and agricultural burning. Elemental carbon is a 
relatively minor contributor to visibility impairment on the 20 
percent most impaired days from the base period (2000-2004) through 
2018 at the Class I areas in VISTAS and Class I areas neighboring 
VISTAS based on IMPROVE monitoring data as discussed in Section 2.4 
of the Haze Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With respect to 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(iv)(E), EPA proposes to find 
that Georgia assessed the anticipated net effect on visibility due to 
projected changes in point, area, and mobile source emissions over the 
second period in development of the 2028 RPGs for the Georgia Class I 
areas. EPD used the 2011 base year emissions inventory to project 
emissions from various source sectors to 2028, the end of the second 
planning period. EPD, through VISTAS, completed CAMx modeling to 
estimate visibility impairment in 2028 based on projected 2028 
emissions from the 2011 base year inventory and using IMPROVE 
monitoring data for 2009-2013.\85\ For Georgia, estimated visibility 
improvements by 2028 in each Class I area are based on: estimated 
emissions reductions associated with existing Federal and State 
measures implemented or expected to be implemented during the second 
planning period; emissions reductions associated with facility closures 
that occurred after the 2016 point source emissions base year (i.e., 
January 1, 2017 through November 18, 2018); and estimates of emissions 
changes associated with economic growth and other factors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \85\ In preparing the 2028 emissions for point sources, Georgia 
started with a 2016 base year inventory which includes emission 
reductions associated with Federal and State control programs and 
consent decrees included in the LTS for the first planning period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    e. Interstate Consultation: With respect to interstate consultation 
pursuant to 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(ii), EPA proposes to find that Georgia 
has met the requirements under 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(ii) to consult with 
those States with Class I areas where Georgia emissions may reasonably 
be anticipated to cause or contribute to visibility impairment and to 
consult with those States whose sources may reasonably be anticipated 
to cause or contribute to visibility impairment at Georgia's Class I 
areas. With respect to other States' requests for Georgia to complete 
four factor analyses for IP-Savannah and Plant Bowen, Georgia did so. 
Georgia also satisfactorily documented its disagreement with Indiana 
regarding Georgia's request for

[[Page 47500]]

Indiana to complete FFAs for Gibson Station and AEP Rockport Generating 
Station. With respect to consultation with other States with visibility 
impacts to Georgia's, GA EPD adequately documented the responses from 
consulted States in Appendix F, provided a summary of its consultation 
in Section 10.1.1, and identified whether the State agrees with the 
conclusions.

D. Reasonable Progress Goals

    1. RHR Requirement: Section 51.308(f)(3) contains the requirements 
pertaining to RPGs for each Class I area. Section 51.308(f)(3)(i) 
requires a State in which a Class I area is located to establish RPGs--
one each for the clearest days and the most impaired days--reflecting 
the visibility conditions that will be achieved at the end of the 
planning period as a result of the emission limitations, compliance 
schedules, and other measures required under paragraph (f)(2) to be in 
States' LTSs, as well as the implementation of other CAA requirements. 
The LTSs, as reflected by the RPGs, must provide for an improvement in 
visibility on the most impaired days relative to the baseline period 
and ensure no degradation on the clearest days relative to the baseline 
period. Section 51.308(f)(3)(ii) applies in circumstances in which a 
Class I area's RPG for the most impaired days represents a slower rate 
of visibility improvement than the uniform rate of progress calculated 
under 40 CFR 51.308(f)(1)(vi). Under 40 CFR 51.308(f)(3)(ii)(A), if the 
State in which a mandatory Class I area is located establishes an RPG 
for the most impaired days that provides for a slower rate of 
visibility improvement than the URP, the State must demonstrate that 
there are no additional emission reduction measures for anthropogenic 
sources or groups of sources in the State that would be reasonable to 
include in its LTS. Section 51.308(f)(3)(ii)(B) requires that if a 
State contains sources that are reasonably anticipated to contribute to 
visibility impairment in a Class I area in another State, and the RPG 
for the most impaired days in that Class I area is above the URP, the 
upwind State must provide the same demonstration.
    2. State Assessment: Georgia established 2028 RPGs for each of its 
Class I areas in deciviews for the 20 percent clearest days and the 20 
percent most impaired in Tables 8-1 and 8-2, respectively, of the Haze 
Plan, which are all projected to remain below the URP for each Class I 
area based on VISTAS' modeling. Table 3 summarizes the 2028 RPGs and 
2028 URPs for Georgia's Class I areas.

                       Table 3--Georgia's Class I Area RPGs and URPs for 2028 in Deciviews
                                                      [dv]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                               2028 Uniform rate
                      Class I area                          2028 RPG 20%    2028 RPG 20% most  of progress (URP)
                                                           clearest (dv)      impaired (dv)           (dv)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cohutta................................................               9.15              14.90              21.42
Okefenokee.............................................              11.58              16.90              18.98
Wolf Island............................................              11.58              16.90              18.98
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Figures 3-1 and 3-2 of the Haze Plan show the URP for the 20 
percent most impaired days for Cohutta and Okefenokee (also Wolf 
Island), respectively.
    3. EPA Evaluation: EPA proposes to determine that Georgia has 
satisfied the applicable requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(f)(3) relating 
to RPGs. Specifically, the State established 2028 RPGs expressed in 
deciviews that reflect the visibility conditions that are projected to 
be achieved by the end of the second planning period as a result of 
implementation of the LTS and other CAA requirements. Georgia's RPGs 
illustrate improvement in visibility for the 20 percent most impaired 
days since the baseline period (2000-2004) and demonstrate that there 
is no degradation in visibility for the 20 percent clearest days since 
the baseline period. Any additional unanticipated emissions reductions 
provide further assurances that the State's Class I areas will achieve 
their 2028 RPGs.

E. Monitoring Strategy and Other State Implementation Plan Requirements

    1. RHR Requirement: Section 51.308(f)(6) specifies that each 
comprehensive revision of a State's regional haze SIP must contain or 
provide for certain elements, including monitoring strategies, 
emissions inventories, and any reporting, recordkeeping, and other 
measures needed to assess and report on visibility. A main requirement 
of this subsection is for States with Class I areas to submit 
monitoring strategies for measuring, characterizing, and reporting on 
visibility impairment. Compliance with this requirement may be met 
through participation in the IMPROVE network.
    Section 51.308(f)(6)(i) requires SIPs to provide for the 
establishment of any additional monitoring sites or equipment needed to 
assess whether RPGs to address regional haze for all mandatory Class I 
areas within the State are being achieved. Section 51.308(f)(6)(ii) 
requires SIPs to provide for procedures by which monitoring data and 
other information are used in determining the contribution of emissions 
from within the State to regional haze visibility impairment at 
mandatory Class I areas both within and outside the State. Section 
51.308(f)(6)(iii) applies only to States that do not have a mandatory 
Class I areas. Section 51.308(f)(6)(iv) requires the SIP to provide for 
the reporting of all visibility monitoring data to the Administrator at 
least annually for each Class I area in the State. Section 
51.308(f)(6)(v) requires SIPs to provide for a statewide inventory of 
emissions of pollutants that are reasonably anticipated to cause or 
contribute to visibility impairment, including emissions for the most 
recent year for which data are available and estimates of future 
projected emissions. It also requires a commitment to update the 
inventory periodically. Section 51.308(f)(6)(v) also requires States to 
include estimates of future projected emissions and include a 
commitment to update the inventory periodically. Under 40 CFR 
51.308(f)(4), if EPA or the FLM of an affected Class I area has advised 
a State that additional monitoring is needed to assess RAVI, the State 
must include in its SIP revision for the second planning period an 
appropriate strategy for evaluating such impairment.
    2. State Assessment: With respect to 40 CFR 51.308(f)(6)(i), 
Georgia states the existing IMPROVE monitors for the State's Class I 
areas are sufficient for the purposes of this SIP revision. With 
respect to 40 CFR 51.308(f)(6)(ii),

[[Page 47501]]

Georgia will use data from these IMPROVE monitors for future haze plans 
and progress reports. 40 CFR 51.308(f)(6)(iii) does not apply to 
Georgia. With respect to 40 CFR 51.308(f)(6)(iv), NPS manages and 
oversees the IMPROVE monitoring network and reviews, verifies, and 
validates IMPROVE data before its submission to EPA's Air Quality 
System (AQS). With respect to 40 CFR 51.308(f)(6)(v), GA EPD provided a 
statewide baseline emissions inventory of pollutants for the year 2011 
in Table 4-1; provided 2014 and 2017 emissions data for 
PM2.5, SO2, and NOX, in Tables 13-10, 
13-11, and 13-12, respectively; provided EPA and VISTAS 2028 future 
emissions projections for SO2 and NOX in Table 4-
2; and for specific point sources, 2028 VISTAS emission projections for 
SO2 and NOX in Tables 7-26 through 7-28; and 
committed to update the inventory periodically. With respect to 40 CFR 
51.308(f)(6)(vi), Georgia affirms there are no elements, including 
reporting, recordkeeping, or other measures, necessary to address and 
report on visibility for Georgia's Class I areas or Class I areas 
outside the State that are affected by sources in Georgia. With respect 
to 40 CFR 51.308(f)(4), the State did not include a strategy for 
evaluating RAVI for any Class I areas because no Federal agency 
requested additional monitoring to assess RAVI. Section II of the TSD 
to this rulemaking provides a more detailed summary of the State's 
assessment of Georgia's monitoring strategy for regional haze and other 
plan requirements pursuant to 40 CFR 51.308(f)(6).
    3. EPA Evaluation: EPA proposes to determine that Georgia has 
satisfied the applicable requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(f)(4) and 40 CFR 
51.308(f)(6) related to RAVI, visibility monitoring, and emissions 
inventories. With respect to 40 CFR 51.308(f)(4), EPA proposes to find 
that this requirement does not apply to Georgia at this time because 
neither EPA nor the FLMs requested additional monitoring to assess 
RAVI.
    EPA proposes to determine that Georgia has satisfied 40 CFR 
51.308(f)(6), which is generally met by the State's continued 
participation in the IMPROVE monitoring network and the VISTAS RPO, for 
the following reasons. With respect to 40 CFR 51.308(f)(6)(i), Georgia 
stated that the existing IMPROVE monitors relied upon for the State's 
three Class I areas are adequate, and thus, additional monitoring sites 
or equipment are not needed to assess whether RPGs for all Class I 
areas within the State are being achieved. With respect to 40 CFR 
51.308(f)(6)(ii), Georgia has procedures by which monitoring data and 
other information are used to determine the contribution of emissions 
from within the State to regional haze at Class I areas both within and 
outside the State through Georgia's continued participation in VISTAS' 
regional haze work. With respect to 40 CFR 51.308(f)(6)(iii), this 
provision is applicable for States with no Class I areas and does not 
apply to Georgia. Regarding the reporting of visibility monitoring data 
to EPA at least annually for each Class I area in the State pursuant to 
40 CFR 51.308(f)(6)(iv), EPA proposes to find that Georgia's 
participation in the IMPROVE Steering Committee and the IMPROVE 
monitoring network addresses this requirement. With respect to 40 CFR 
51.308(f)(6)(v), EPA proposes to find that Georgia's continued 
participation in VISTAS' efforts for projecting future emissions and 
continued compliance with the requirements of the AERR to periodically 
update emissions inventories satisfies the requirement to provide for 
an emissions inventory for the most recent year for which data are 
available. EPA proposes to find that Georgia adequately documented that 
no further elements are necessary at this time for the State to assess 
and report on visibility pursuant to 40 CFR 51.308(f)(6)(vi).

F. Requirements for Periodic Reports Describing Progress Toward the 
Reasonable Progress Goals

    1. RHR Requirement: Section 51.308(f)(5) requires that periodic 
comprehensive revisions of States' regional haze plans also address the 
progress report requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(g)(1) through (5). The 
purpose of these requirements is to evaluate progress toward the 
applicable RPGs for each Class I area within the State and each Class I 
area outside the State that may be affected by emissions from within 
that State. Sections 51.308(g)(1) and (2) apply to all States and 
require a description of the status of implementation of all measures 
included in a State's first planning period regional haze plan and a 
summary of the emission reductions achieved through implementation of 
those measures. Section 51.308(g)(3) applies only to States with Class 
I areas within their borders and requires such States to assess current 
visibility conditions, changes in visibility relative to baseline 
(2000-2004) visibility conditions, and changes in visibility conditions 
relative to the period addressed in the first planning period progress 
report. Section 51.308(g)(4) applies to all States and requires an 
analysis tracking changes in emissions of pollutants contributing to 
visibility impairment from all sources and sectors since the period 
addressed by the first planning period progress report. This provision 
further specifies the year or years through which the analysis must 
extend depending on the type of source and the platform through which 
its emission information is reported. Finally, 40 CFR 51.308(g)(5), 
which also applies to all States, requires an assessment of any 
significant changes in anthropogenic emissions within or outside the 
State have occurred since the period addressed by the first planning 
period progress report, including whether such changes were anticipated 
and whether they have limited or impeded expected progress toward 
reducing emissions and improving visibility.
    2. State Assessment: With respect to the progress report elements 
pursuant to 40 CFR 51.308(f)(5), GA EPD addressed these elements in 
Section 13 of the Haze Plan for the period 2013 to 2018, the end of the 
first period.\86\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \86\ Georgia's first period progress report covered the period 
from 2008-2013. In Section 13 of the Haze Plan, Georgia included EGU 
emissions data through 2021.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regarding 40 CFR 51.308(g)(1) and 40 CFR 51.308(g)(2), GA EPD 
describes the status of the implementation of the measures of the LTS 
from the first planning period and provides a summary of the emission 
reductions achieved by implementing those measures from 2014-2019 in 
Section 13.3.1. Emissions reductions data is quantified where such data 
is available. The status of the SO2 control measures and 
associated emissions reductions for Georgia's BART and reasonable 
progress sources from the first planning period is summarized in Table 
13-4 of the Haze Plan which shows that these sources reduced emissions 
by approximately 8,223 tpy of SO2. Section 13.3.2 describes 
the status and SO2 emissions reductions from measures not 
included in Georgia's haze plan for the first period.
    With respect to 40 CFR 51.308(g)(3), in Tables 13-5 through 13-9 of 
the Haze Plan, GA EPD calculated for the three Class I areas: current 
visibility conditions (2014-2018), changes in visibility relative to 
baseline (2000-2004) visibility conditions, and changes in visibility 
conditions compared to the last five years. The data shows that all 
Class I areas saw an improvement in

[[Page 47502]]

visibility on the 20 percent worst days and on the 20 percent clearest 
days.\87\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \87\ For the first period, visibility conditions were determined 
for the average of the 20 percent most impaired visibility days 
(referred to as the ``worst'' days) and the 20 percent least 
impaired visibility days (referred to as the ``best'' days). These 
terms were updated to ``clearest'' and ``most impaired,'' 
respectively, as part of two recent actions by EPA. See 82 FR 3078 
(January 10, 2017) and ``2018 Visibility Tracking Guidance.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regarding 40 CFR 51.308(g)(4), in Section 13.5, GA EPD provided 
emissions trends from 2011 through 2019 for SO2, 
NOX, PM2.5, PM10, and VOCs which 
reflect the emissions reductions from the measures in the first period 
LTS. In summary, reductions in SO2 emissions have been 
significant and greater than VISTAS projected. For example, statewide 
SO2 emissions from all sources (point, area, on-road, non-
road, and fires) decreased from 102,155 tpy in 2014 to 38,188 tpy in 
2017. Similarly, SO2 emissions from EGU sources in Georgia 
decreased from 64,506 tpy in 2014 to 8,385 tpy in 2021. In spite of 
significant reductions in SO2, Section 7.4 of the Haze Plan 
identifies sulfates as continuing to play a significant role in 
visibility impairment, especially for the most anthropogenically 
impaired days.\88\ As SO2 emissions continue to drop, 
nitrates may begin to have a larger relative impact on regional haze in 
future planning periods.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \88\ Figures 13-1 and 13-2 of the Haze Plan provides the 
breakdown of visibility impairing pollutants for the 20 percent 
worst visibility days and clearest visibility days in each of 
Georgia's Class I areas over 2011 through 2018 timeframe.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regarding 40 CFR 51.308(g)(5), GA EPD believes that there does not 
appear to be any significant change in anthropogenic emissions within 
Georgia or outside the State that have occurred since the period 
addressed in the most recent plan that would limit or impede progress 
in reducing pollutant emissions or improving visibility. Section III of 
the TSD to this rulemaking provides a more detailed summary of the 
State's assessment of how Georgia addressed requirements for periodic 
reports describing progress toward the RPGs for the State's Class I 
areas pursuant to 40 CFR 51.308(f)(5).
    3. EPA Evaluation: EPA proposes to find that Georgia has met the 
requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(g)(1)-(5) because the Haze Plan 
adequately describes the status of the measures included in the LTS 
from the first planning period and the emission reductions achieved 
from those measures; the visibility conditions and changes at the 
Georgia Class I areas; an analysis tracking the changes in emissions 
since the first planning period progress report using available NEI 
emissions data for 2014 and 2017 and annual EGU SO2 
emissions data from 2014 to 2021; evaluates 2017 NEI data which is the 
most recent triennial emissions inventory submission from Georgia prior 
to submission of the Haze Plan in accordance with the RHR; and assessed 
whether any significant changes in anthropogenic emissions within or 
outside the State have occurred since 2013 (the end of the period 
addressed by Georgia's first planning period progress report), 
including whether or not these changes in anthropogenic emissions were 
anticipated in that most recent plan and whether they have limited or 
impeded progress in reducing pollutant emissions and improving 
visibility. Thus, EPA is proposing to find that Georgia has met the 
requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(f)(5).

G. Requirements for State and Federal Land Manager Coordination

    1. RHR Requirement: Section 169A(d) of the CAA requires States to 
consult with FLMs before holding the public hearing on a proposed 
regional haze SIP and to include a summary of the FLMs' conclusions and 
recommendations in the notice to the public. In addition, the FLM 
consultation provision of 40 CFR 51.308(i)(2) requires a State to 
provide the FLMs with an opportunity for consultation that is early 
enough in the State's policy analyses of its emission reduction 
obligation so that information and recommendations provided by the FLMs 
can meaningfully inform the State's decisions on its LTS. If the 
consultation has taken place at least 120 days before a public hearing 
or public comment period, the opportunity for consultation will be 
deemed early enough. Regardless, the opportunity for consultation must 
be provided at least 60 days before a public hearing or public comment 
period at the State level. Section 51.308(i)(2) also provides two 
substantive topics on which the FLMs must be provided an opportunity to 
discuss with States: assessment of visibility impairment in any Class I 
area and recommendations on the development and implementation of 
strategies to address visibility impairment. Section 51.308(i)(3) 
requires States, in developing their implementation plans, to include a 
description of how they addressed FLMs' comments. Section 40 CFR 
51.308(i)(4) requires that the regional haze SIP revision provide 
procedures for continuing consultation between the State and FLMs 
regarding the State's visibility protection program.
    2. State Assessment: As required by CAA section 169A(d), Georgia 
consulted with the FLMs prior to opening the State public period \89\ 
on its proposed haze plan and included a summary of the conclusions and 
recommendations of the FLMs in the proposed plan dated June 24, 2022. 
See Haze Plan Section 10.3 and Appendix H. Georgia consulted with the 
FLMs on April 22, 2022, which was 62 days before the opening of the 
public comment period on June 24, 2022.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \89\ GA EPD provided a draft plan to the FLMs on April 22, 2022.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With respect to 40 CFR 51.308(i)(2), GA EPD offered to the three 
FLM agencies the opportunity to consult on the April 22, 2022, draft 
Georgia Haze Plan. Additionally, GA EPD shared with the FLMs the June 
24, 2022, Prehearing Georgia Haze Plan issued for State public notice 
and comment with a public hearing held July 25, 2022, with the close of 
the comment period on July 26, 2022. A summary of this consultation 
process is discussed and documented in Appendix H-4a of the Haze Plan 
(responses to FLM comments) with supporting information in Appendix H-
1a, H-1b, and H-1c (FLM comments received) and Appendix F.\90\ Appendix 
H provides a summary of the NPS and USFS comments received on the draft 
and prehearing haze plans. Appendix H-4a provides GA EPD's responses to 
comments from the FLMs. Appendix H-1a contains comments from the USFS. 
Appendix H-1b and H-1c contains comments from the NPS. No comments were 
received from the FWS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \90\ Appendix F-3o of the Haze Plan provides three sets of 
letters to the FLMs dated April 22, 2022, requesting input on 
Georgia's draft plan. Appendices F-3a-3n include VISTAS consultation 
outreach with stakeholders, including the FLMs. (See, in particular, 
Appendices F-3b, F-3c, F-3d, and F-3j).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To address 40 CFR 51.308(i)(3), GA EPD provided responses to NPS 
and USFS comments in Appendix H-4a of the Haze Plan.
    With respect to 40 CFR 51.308(i)(4), Georgia updated its existing 
procedures for continuing consultation with the FLMs, including annual 
discussions with a review of the most recent IMPROVE monitoring data. 
Records of annual consultations and progress report consultations will 
be maintained in GA EPD's regional haze files.
    3. EPA Evaluation: EPA proposes to find that Georgia adequately 
addressed the FLM requirements in CAA section 169A(d) and 40 CFR 
51.308(i). Georgia consulted with the FLMs prior to the public hearing 
on the Haze Plan and included a summary of the conclusions and 
recommendations of the FLMs in

[[Page 47503]]

the proposed plan issued for public review.\91\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \91\ The consultation did not occur in person as stated in the 
CAA due to the convenience and efficiency of using email, phone 
calls, and video meetings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA proposes to find that Georgia fully addressed the minimum 60-
day requirement for FLM consultation under 40 CFR 51.308(i)(2) for the 
Haze Plan because GA EPD offered the April 22, 2022, draft Georgia Haze 
Plan for FLM comment at least 60 days prior to the start of GA EPD's 
public comment opportunity which opened on June 24, 2022, and closed on 
July 26, 2022.
    EPA proposes to find that Georgia adequately addressed 40 CFR 
51.308(i)(3) for the Haze Plan because the State's provided its 
responses to the FLM comments, as detailed in Appendices H-1a, 1b, and 
1c of the Haze Plan.
    EPA proposes to find that Georgia adequately addressed 40 CFR 
51.308(i)(4) because the SIP revision provides ongoing consultation 
procedures with the FLMs, including annual discussions regarding 
implementation of the State's regional haze program with a review of 
the most recent IMPROVE monitoring data.

H. Environmental Justice Considerations

    This proposed action would adopt source-specific provisions 
addressing SO2 emissions into the Georgia SIP. EPA expects 
that this proposed action and resulting emissions reductions will 
generally contribute to reduced environmental and health impacts on all 
populations in Georgia, including people of color and low-income 
populations. Further, there is no information in the record indicating 
that this action is expected to have disproportionately high or adverse 
human health or environmental effects on a particular group of 
people.\92\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \92\ In Section 7.11 of the Haze Plan. GA EPD notes that the 
State has not identified any EJ communities living in any Class I 
areas whose visibility would be disproportionately impacted by GA 
EPD's selection of reasonable progress controls.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

V. Incorporation by Reference

    In this document, EPA is proposing to include in a final EPA rule 
regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance 
with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, and as discussed above in this 
preamble, EPA is proposing to incorporate by reference into Georgia's 
SIP GA EPD Permit No. 4911-015-0011-V-04-3 for Bowen Steam-Electric 
Generating Plant (State effective September 6, 2023), GA EPD Permit No. 
2631-051-0007-V-04-1 for International Paper--Savannah (State effective 
October 20, 2023), and GA EPD Permit No. 2631-127-0003-V-07-3 for 
Brunswick Cellulose LLC (State effective October 25, 2023). EPA has 
made, and will continue to make, the SIP generally available through 
www.regulations.gov and at the EPA Region 4 Office (please contact the 
person identified in the ``For Further Information Contact'' section of 
this preamble for more information).

VI. Proposed Action

    EPA is proposing to approve Georgia's August 11, 2022, SIP 
submission as satisfying the regional haze requirements for the second 
planning period contained in 40 CFR 51.308(f). Thus, EPA is proposing 
to adopt into Georgia's SIP GA EPD Permit No. 4911-015-0011-V-04-3 for 
Bowen Steam-Electric Generating Plant (State effective September 6, 
2023), GA EPD Permit No. 2631-051-0007-V-04-1 for International Paper--
Savannah (State effective October 20, 2023), and GA EPD Permit No. 
2631-127-0003-V-07-3 for Brunswick Cellulose LLC (State effective 
October 25, 2023).

VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP 
submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA 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 14094 (88 FR 21879, April 11, 2023);
     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 subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, 
April 23, 1997) because it approves a State program;
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to 
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001); and
     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.
    In addition, 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 and will not impose 
substantial direct costs on Tribal governments or preempt Tribal law as 
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
    Executive Order 12898 (Federal Actions To Address Environmental 
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations, 59 FR 7629, 
February 16, 1994) directs Federal agencies to identify and address 
``disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental 
effects'' of their actions on minority populations and low-income 
populations to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law. 
EPA defines environmental justice (EJ) as ``the fair treatment and 
meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, color, 
national origin, or income with respect to the development, 
implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and 
policies.'' EPA further defines the term fair treatment to mean that 
``no group of people should bear a disproportionate burden of 
environmental harms and risks, including those resulting from the 
negative environmental consequences of industrial, governmental, and 
commercial operations or programs and policies.''
    Georgia did not evaluate EJ considerations as part of its SIP 
submittal; the CAA and applicable implementing regulations neither 
prohibit nor require such an evaluation. EPA did not perform an EJ 
analysis and did not consider EJ in this proposed action. Due to the 
nature of the action being proposed here, this proposed action is 
expected to have positive impact on the air quality of the affected 
area. Consideration of EJ is not required as part of this proposed 
action, and there is no information in the record inconsistent with the 
stated goal of Executive Order 12898 of achieving EJ

[[Page 47504]]

for people of color, low-income populations, and Indigenous peoples.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by 
reference, Nitrogen dioxide, Particulate matter, Sulfur oxides.

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

    Dated: May 28, 2024.
Jeaneanne Gettle,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4.
[FR Doc. 2024-12025 Filed 5-31-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P