Air Plan Approval; Georgia; Second Period Regional Haze Plan, 47481-47504 [2024-12025]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 107 / Monday, June 3, 2024 / Proposed Rules
• Does not impose an information
collection burden under the provisions
of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
• Is certified as not having a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5
U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
• Does not contain any unfunded
mandate or significantly or uniquely
affect small governments, as described
in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4);
• Does not have federalism
implications as specified in Executive
Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10,
1999);
• Is not an economically significant
regulatory action based on health or
safety risks subject to Executive Order
13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• Is not a significant regulatory action
subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR
28355, May 22, 2001); 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 Clean Air Act;
This action does not have tribal
implications as specified by Executive
Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9,
2000), because this action is not
approved to apply in Indian country
located in the Commonwealth of
Virginia, State of Maryland, or District
of Columbia, and EPA notes that it will
not impose substantial direct costs on
tribal governments or preempt tribal
law.
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. The 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.’’ The 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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:22 May 31, 2024
Jkt 262001
commercial operations or programs and
policies.’’
The District of Columbia, State of
Maryland, and Commonwealth of
Virginia did not evaluate environmental
justice considerations as part of the SIP
submittal; the CAA and applicable
implementing regulations neither
prohibit nor require such an evaluation.
The EPA did not perform an EJ analysis
and did not consider EJ in this action.
Consideration of EJ is not required as
part of this action, and there is no
information in the record inconsistent
with the stated goal of E.O. 12898 of
achieving environmental justice 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, Intergovernmental relations,
Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Volatile
organic compounds.
Adam Ortiz,
Regional Administrator, Region III.
[FR Doc. 2024–11839 Filed 5–31–24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
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
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
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
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
47481
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 https://
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
https://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 bae.estelle@
epa.gov.
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
E:\FR\FM\03JNP1.SGM
03JNP1
47482
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 107 / Monday, June 3, 2024 / Proposed Rules
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
II. Background and Requirements for
Regional Haze Plans
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
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
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.
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.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:22 May 31, 2024
Jkt 262001
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.
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
(mm) 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
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.
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
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
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 longterm 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.
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 (bext) 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-implementationplans-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 (bext)/10 Mm¥1). See 40 CFR
51.301.
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).
E:\FR\FM\03JNP1.SGM
03JNP1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 107 / Monday, June 3, 2024 / Proposed Rules
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
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),
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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:22 May 31, 2024
Jkt 262001
(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).
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
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 RooseveltCampobello International Park, the Chairman of the
Roosevelt-Campobello International Park
Commission.’’ See 40 CFR 51.301.
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
47483
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
As previously explained in the 2021
Clarifications Memo, EPA intends the
second planning period of the regional
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/clarificationsregarding-regional-haze-state-implementationplans-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-visibilityprogress-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-datausage-and-completeness-regional-haze-program.
EPA Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards,
Research Triangle Park (June 3, 2020).
E:\FR\FM\03JNP1.SGM
03JNP1
47484
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 107 / Monday, June 3, 2024 / Proposed Rules
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
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
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 longterm, 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
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’’).
16 RPOs are sometimes also referred to as ‘‘multijurisdictional organizations,’’ or MJOs. For the
purposes of this notice, the terms RPO and MJO are
synonymous.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:22 May 31, 2024
Jkt 262001
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.
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
17 The VISTAS technical work under SESARM is
described at this website: https://www.metro4sesarm.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.
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.
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.
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.
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
III. Requirements for Regional Haze
Plans for the Second Planning Period
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\03JNP1.SGM
03JNP1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 107 / Monday, June 3, 2024 / Proposed Rules
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
and remedying any existing
anthropogenic visibility impairment in
Class I areas. See 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)–
(3).
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,
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:22 May 31, 2024
Jkt 262001
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.
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
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).
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
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
47485
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.
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
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.’’
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.
E:\FR\FM\03JNP1.SGM
03JNP1
47486
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 107 / Monday, June 3, 2024 / Proposed Rules
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
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.
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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:22 May 31, 2024
Jkt 262001
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 lowimpact 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.
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
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 nonair 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
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
E:\FR\FM\03JNP1.SGM
03JNP1
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 107 / Monday, June 3, 2024 / Proposed Rules
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.
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
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.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:22 May 31, 2024
Jkt 262001
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.
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
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.
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).
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
47487
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.
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.
E:\FR\FM\03JNP1.SGM
03JNP1
47488
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 107 / Monday, June 3, 2024 / Proposed Rules
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
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.
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
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).
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.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:22 May 31, 2024
Jkt 262001
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.
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).
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
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.
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 long34 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 longterm 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).
E:\FR\FM\03JNP1.SGM
03JNP1
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 107 / Monday, June 3, 2024 / Proposed Rules
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-thebooks 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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:22 May 31, 2024
Jkt 262001
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.
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
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).
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
47489
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
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.
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
37 See ‘‘Step 8: Additional requirements for
regional haze SIPs’’ in 2019 Guidance at 55.
38 Id.
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.
E:\FR\FM\03JNP1.SGM
03JNP1
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
47490
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 107 / Monday, June 3, 2024 / Proposed Rules
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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:22 May 31, 2024
Jkt 262001
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
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
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.
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 out40 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).
E:\FR\FM\03JNP1.SGM
03JNP1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 107 / Monday, June 3, 2024 / Proposed Rules
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
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-ofstate 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
Based on these results for the out-ofstate Class I areas, GA EPD consulted
with the VISTAS States, including
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.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:22 May 31, 2024
Jkt 262001
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
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.
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
47491
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
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.
46 See Section IV.C.2.e of this notice and Section
I.E. of EPA’s TSD for additional detail regarding
consultation.
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.
E:\FR\FM\03JNP1.SGM
03JNP1
47492
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 107 / Monday, June 3, 2024 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 1—BASELINE, CURRENT AND NATURAL VISIBILITY CONDITIONS IN GEORGIA’S CLASS I AREAS IN DECIVIEWS
[dv]
Baseline
clearest 20%
(dv)
Class I area
Cohutta ..........................................................................
Okefenokee ...................................................................
Wolf Island ....................................................................
I
13.73
15.23
15.23
Baseline most
impaired 20%
(dv)
29.12
25.34
25.34
I
Current
clearest 20%
(dv)
I
Current most
impaired 20%
(dv)
8.10
11.57
11.57
I
17.37
17.39
17.39
Natural
clearest
20% (dv)
I
4.42
5.43
5.43
Natural most
impaired 20%
(dv)
I
9.88
9.45
9.45
TABLE 2—ACTUAL PROGRESS FOR VISIBILITY CONDITIONS IN GEORGIA’S CLASS I AREAS IN DECIVIEWS
[dv]
Class I area
Current minus
baseline for
20% clearest
(dv)
Current minus
baseline for
20% most
impaired
(dv)
Natural minus
current for
20% clearest
(dv)
Natural minus
current for
20% most
impaired
(dv)
5.63
3.66
3.66
11.75
7.95
7.95
3.68
6.14
6.14
7.49
7.94
7.94
Cohutta ............................................................................................................
Okefenokee ......................................................................................................
Wolf Island .......................................................................................................
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.
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.
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
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
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/201812/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.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:22 May 31, 2024
Jkt 262001
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
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
(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
E:\FR\FM\03JNP1.SGM
03JNP1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 107 / Monday, June 3, 2024 / Proposed Rules
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
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 twostep 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
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.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:22 May 31, 2024
Jkt 262001
Georgia-Pacific Consumer Products LP
(Savannah River Mill).
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 instate sources of Brunswick Cellulose, IPSavannah, 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
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
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.
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.
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
47493
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.
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
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.
E:\FR\FM\03JNP1.SGM
03JNP1
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
47494
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 107 / Monday, June 3, 2024 / Proposed Rules
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
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 ImperialSavannah 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.
b. Consideration of the Four CAA
Factors: Georgia considered each of the
four CAA factors for Brunswick
Cellulose, IP-Savannah, and Plant
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.
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.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:22 May 31, 2024
Jkt 262001
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 tirederived 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.
For the No. 5 and No. 6 Recovery
Furnaces, the FFA reviewed the
following potential controls: use of lowsulfur 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
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).
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 SO reductions would be
2
spread across the No. 4 Power Boiler and the No.
5 Recovery Furnace.
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
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.
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
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
62 See Section 7.7, Appendix G–4, and Appendix
H–4b (Section 5.2.1) of the Haze Plan.
E:\FR\FM\03JNP1.SGM
03JNP1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 107 / Monday, June 3, 2024 / Proposed Rules
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
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
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.
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
ii. IP-Savannah: The FFA for IPSavanah focused on the facility’s No. 13
Power Boiler.66 The FFA notes that as
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.
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.
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.
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.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:22 May 31, 2024
Jkt 262001
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 noncondensable 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, highconcentration pulp mill gasses sent to a
White Liquor Scrubber.
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
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.
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
47495
period, listed in the Arkansas
spreadsheet.68
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
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
68 See Section 7.7, Appendix G–4, and Appendix
H–4b (section 5.2.1) of the Haze Plan.
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.
E:\FR\FM\03JNP1.SGM
03JNP1
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
47496
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 107 / Monday, June 3, 2024 / Proposed Rules
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.
GA EPD used the Arkansas
Department of Environmental Quality
spreadsheet for evaluating the costeffectiveness 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
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 nonair related impacts, the FFA explains
70 See Table A2.1 to Appendix G–1b of the Haze
Plan.
71 See Section 7.7, Appendix G–4, and Appendix
H–4b (section 5.2.1) of the Haze Plan.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:22 May 31, 2024
Jkt 262001
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
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
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
72 The FFA also accounted for this 27 percent
facility derate in the cost of compliance factor.
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.
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
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
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).
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
2014–2019; and Table 13–14 (SO2, NOX for all
RPOs).
E:\FR\FM\03JNP1.SGM
03JNP1
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 107 / Monday, June 3, 2024 / Proposed Rules
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).
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
75 Georgia’s current Smoke Management Plan is
available at: https://epd.georgia.gov/document/
document/view-georgias-smoke-management-plan/
download.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:22 May 31, 2024
Jkt 262001
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 nonVISTAS 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 nonVISTAS 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.
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
76 Georgia requested FFAs of non-VISTAS sources
through VISTAS.
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
47497
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 wellestablished 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-ofstate sources.
Apart from AoI and PSAT being wellestablished 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
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.
E:\FR\FM\03JNP1.SGM
03JNP1
47498
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 107 / Monday, June 3, 2024 / Proposed Rules
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
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.
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
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)) × 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)) × 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/rhrsummary-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.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:22 May 31, 2024
Jkt 262001
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 tirederived 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
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.
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
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.
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 IPSavannah, 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
82 The April 15, 2024, supplemental information
is included in the docket for this proposed action.
E:\FR\FM\03JNP1.SGM
03JNP1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 107 / Monday, June 3, 2024 / Proposed Rules
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
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.
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
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.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:22 May 31, 2024
Jkt 262001
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
PO 00000
Frm 00029
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
47499
Resources Wildlife Resources
Division.84
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.
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 IPSavannah and Plant Bowen, Georgia did
so. Georgia also satisfactorily
documented its disagreement with
Indiana regarding Georgia’s request for
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.
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:\FR\FM\03JNP1.SGM
03JNP1
47500
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 107 / Monday, June 3, 2024 / Proposed Rules
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 RPG 20%
clearest
(dv)
Class I area
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Cohutta ......................................................................................................................
Okefenokee ................................................................................................................
Wolf Island .................................................................................................................
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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:22 May 31, 2024
Jkt 262001
9.15
11.58
11.58
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
PO 00000
Frm 00030
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
2028 RPG 20%
most impaired
(dv)
14.90
16.90
16.90
2028 Uniform rate
of progress (URP)
(dv)
21.42
18.98
18.98
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),
E:\FR\FM\03JNP1.SGM
03JNP1
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 107 / Monday, June 3, 2024 / Proposed Rules
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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:22 May 31, 2024
Jkt 262001
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)
PO 00000
Frm 00031
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
47501
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
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
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.
E:\FR\FM\03JNP1.SGM
03JNP1
47502
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 107 / Monday, June 3, 2024 / Proposed Rules
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
visibility on the 20 percent worst days
and on the 20 percent clearest days.87
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, nonroad, 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.
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
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.’’
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.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:22 May 31, 2024
Jkt 262001
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.
PO 00000
Frm 00032
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
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.
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.
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
89 GA EPD provided a draft plan to the FLMs on
April 22, 2022.
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).
E:\FR\FM\03JNP1.SGM
03JNP1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 107 / Monday, June 3, 2024 / Proposed Rules
the proposed plan issued for public
review.91
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
V. Incorporation by Reference
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
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
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.
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.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:22 May 31, 2024
Jkt 262001
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 SteamElectric 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
PO 00000
Frm 00033
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
47503
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
E:\FR\FM\03JNP1.SGM
03JNP1
47504
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 107 / Monday, June 3, 2024 / Proposed Rules
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
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
Table of Contents
40 CFR Parts 52 and 70
[EPA–R07–OAR–2024–0025; FRL–11676–
01–R7]
Air Plan Approval; Nebraska;
Revisions to Title 129 of the Nebraska
Administrative Code; Nebraska Air
Quality Regulations
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve
revisions to the Nebraska State
Implementation Plan (SIP), Operating
Permits Program, and 112(l) Plan. The
revisions were submitted by the State of
Nebraska on December 2, 2022. This
proposed action will amend the SIP to
revise Nebraska air quality regulations
and will add specific definitions from a
Nebraska statute. These proposed
changes include new and renumbered
rules, the consolidation of 43 chapters
into 16 chapters, replacement of
duplicative language with references to
state statute and federal regulation,
revisions to reflect changes to state and
federal law, and other changes to state
regulations. The EPA’s proposed
approval of this rule revision is in
accordance with the requirements of the
Clean Air Act (CAA).
DATES: Comments must be received on
or before July 3, 2024.
ADDRESSES: You may send comments,
identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R07–
OAR–2024–0025 to https://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments.
Instructions: All submissions received
must include the Docket ID No. for this
rulemaking. Comments received will be
posted without change to https://
www.regulations.gov, including any
personal information provided. For
detailed instructions on sending
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:22 May 31, 2024
Jkt 262001
comments and additional information
on the rulemaking process, see the
‘‘Written Comments’’ heading of the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of
this document.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
William Stone, Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 7 Office, Air
Permitting and Planning Branch, 11201
Renner Boulevard, Lenexa, Kansas
66219; telephone number: (913) 551–
7714; email address: stone.william@
epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Throughout this document ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’
and ‘‘our’’ refer to the EPA.
I. Written Comments
II. What is being addressed in this document?
III. Have the requirements for approval of a
SIP revision been met?
IV. What action is the EPA taking?
V. Incorporation by Reference
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. Written Comments
Submit your comments, identified by
Docket ID No. EPA–R07–OAR–2024–
0025, at https://www.regulations.gov.
Once submitted, comments cannot be
edited or removed from Regulations.gov.
The 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. The 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
https://www.epa.gov/dockets/
commenting-epa-dockets.
II. What is being addressed in this
document?
The EPA is proposing to amend
Nebraska’s SIP and Operating Permits
Program to include revisions to title 129
of the Nebraska Administrative Code
and to add specific definitions from
Nebraska Revised Statute 81–1502. The
EPA is proposing to approve revisions
to the Nebraska SIP received on
December 2, 2022. The revisions are to
Title 129—Nebraska Air Quality
PO 00000
Frm 00034
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Regulations and include specific
definitions from Nebraska Revised
Statute 81–1502. These proposed
changes include new and renumbered
rules, the consolidation of 43 chapters
into 16 chapters, replacement of
duplicative language with references to
state statute and federal regulation,
approval of specific definitions in state
statute, revisions to reflect changes to
state and federal law, and other changes
to state regulations.
In addition to the changes discussed
above, the state’s revision to title 129
includes state rules that allow small
projects to start construction prior to
receiving a construction permit. To be
eligible for this program, the new source
or modification to an existing source
must not be subject to Nonattainment
New Source Review (NSR), case-by-case
Maximum Achievable Control
Technology (MACT) or Prevention of
Significant Deterioration (PSD) or be a
source seeking federally enforceable
permit restrictions to avoid review
under Nonattainment NSR, case-by-case
MACT or PSD. The source is prohibited
from operating until a construction
permit has been issued. Since the source
is not allowed to hook up the equipment
to the exhaust stack or operate the
equipment in any way that may emit
any pollutant prior to receiving a
construction permit, there is no change
to emissions or air quality as a result of
these revisions. Nebraska Department of
Environment and Energy’s (NDEE’s)
requirements for reviewing the permit
application and protecting air quality
are unchanged by these revisions. In the
Technical Support Document (TSD) for
Chapter 3 included in the docket for this
action, we include more information
about this change.
This revision is in compliance with
federal requirements, including: (1)
CAA section 110(a)(2)(c), which
requires states to include a minor NSR
program in their SIP to regulate
modifications and new construction of
stationary sources within the area as
necessary to assure the National
Ambient Air Quality Standards
(NAAQS) are achieved; (2) The
regulatory requirements under 40 CFR
51.160, including § 51.160(b), which
requires states to have legally
enforceable procedures to prevent
construction or modification of a source
if it would violate any SIP control
strategies or interfere with attainment or
maintenance of the NAAQS; and (3) the
statutory requirements under CAA
section 110(l), which provides that the
EPA cannot approve a SIP revision if the
revision would interfere with any
applicable requirement concerning
attainment and reasonable further
E:\FR\FM\03JNP1.SGM
03JNP1
]]>Agencies
[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 https://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 https://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
