11452 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 38 / Monday, February 27, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

brokerage and other sales-related costs, 

the amount of any liens and associated 

costs paid by the Government on the 

property, costs incurred in paying the 

ordinary and necessary expenses of a 

business seized for forfeiture, awards for 

information as authorized by statute, 

expenses of trustees or other assistants 

pursuant to paragraph (i)(3) of this 

section, investigative or prosecutorial 

costs specially incurred incident to the 

particular forfeiture, and costs incurred 

incident to the processing of petitions 

for remission or mitigation. The 

remaining balance shall be available for 

remission or mitigation. The Ruling 

Official shall direct the distribution of 

the remaining balance in the following 

order or priority, except that the Ruling 

Official may exercise discretion in 

determining the priority between 

petitioners belonging to classes 

described in paragraph (i)(1)(iii) and (iv) 

of this section in exceptional 

circumstances: 

(i) Owners; 

(ii) Lienholders; 

(iii) Federal financial institution 

regulatory agencies (pursuant to 

paragraph (i)(5) of this section), not 

constituting owners or lienholders; and 

(iv) Victims not constituting owners 

or lienholders pursuant to paragraph (h) 

of this part. 

(2) Sale or disposition of property 

prior to ruling. If forfeited property has 

been sold or otherwise disposed of prior 

to a ruling, the Ruling Official may grant 

relief in the form of a monetary amount. 

The amount realized by the sale of 

property is presumed to be the value of 

the property. Monetary relief shall not 

be greater than the appraised value of 

the property at the time of seizure and 

shall not exceed the amount realized 

from the sale or other disposition. The 

proceeds of the sale shall be distributed 

as follows: 

(i) Payment of the Government’s 

expenses incurred incident to the 

forfeiture and sale, including court costs 

and storage charges, if any; 

(ii) Payment to the petitioner of an 

amount up to that person’s interest in 

the property; 

(iii) Payment to the Postal Service 

Forfeiture Fund of all other costs and 

expenses incident to the forfeiture; 

(iv) In the case of victims, payment of 

any amount up to the amount of that 

person’s loss; and 

(v) Payment of the balance remaining, 

if any, to the Postal Service Forfeiture 

Fund. 

(3) Trustees and other assistants. As 

a matter of discretion, the Ruling 

Official, with the approval of the Chief 

Postal Inspector, may use the services of 

a trustee, other Government official, or 

appointed contractors to notify potential 

petitioners, process petitions, and make 

recommendations to the Ruling Official 

on the distribution of property to 

petitioners. The expense for such 

assistance shall be paid out of the 

forfeited funds. 

(4) Other agencies of the United 

States. Where another agency of the 

United States is entitled to remission or 

mitigation of forfeited assets because of 

an interest that is recognizable under 

this part or is eligible for such transfer 

pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 981(e)(6), such 

agency shall request the transfer in 

writing, in addition to complying with 

any applicable provisions of paragraphs 

(c) through (e) of this section. The 

decision to make such transfer shall be 

made in writing by the Ruling Official. 

(5) Financial institution regulatory 

agencies. A Ruling Official may direct 

the transfer of property under 18 U.S.C. 

981(e) to certain Federal financial 

institution regulatory agencies or an 

entity acting in their behalf, upon 

receipt of a written request, in lieu of 

ruling on a petition for remission or 

mitigation. 

(6) Transfers to foreign governments. 

A Ruling Official may decline to grant 

remission to any petitioner other than 

an owner or lienholder so that forfeited 

assets may be transferred to a foreign 

government pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 

981(i)(1); 19 U.S.C. 1616a(c)(2); or 21 

U.S.C. 881(e)(1)(E). 

(7) Filing by attorneys. 

(i) A petition for remission or 

mitigation may be filed by a petitioner 

or by that person’s attorney or legal 

guardian. If an attorney files on behalf 

of the petitioner, the petition must 

include a signed and sworn statement 

by the client-petitioner stating that: 

(A) The attorney has the authority to 

represent the petitioner in this 

proceeding; 

(B) The petitioner has fully reviewed 

the petition; and 

(C) The petition is truthful and 

accurate in every respect. 

(ii) Verbal notification of 

representation is not acceptable. 

Responses and notification of rulings 

shall not be sent to an attorney claiming 

to represent a petitioner unless a written 

notice of representation is filed. No 

extensions of time shall be granted due 

to delays in submission of the notice of 

representation. 

(8) Consolidated petitions. At the 

discretion of the Ruling Official in 

individual cases, a petition may be filed 

by one petitioner on behalf of other 

petitioners, provided the petitions are 

based on similar underlying facts, and 

the petitioner who files the petition has 

written authority to do so on behalf of 

other petitioners. This authority must be 

either expressed in documents giving 

the petitioner the authority to file 

petitions for remission, or reasonably 

implied from documents giving the 

petitioner express authority to file 

claims or lawsuits related to the course 

of conduct in question on behalf of 

these petitioners. An insurer or an 

administrator of an employee benefit 

plan, for example, which itself has 

standing to file a petition as a ‘‘victim’’ 

within the meaning of paragraph (b)(22) 

of this section, may also file a petition 

on behalf of its insured or plan 

beneficiaries for any claims they may 

have based on co-payments made to the 

perpetrator of the offense underlying the 

forfeiture, or the perpetrator of a 

‘‘related offense’’ within the meaning of 

paragraph (b)(20), if the authority to file 

claims or lawsuits is contained in the 

document or documents establishing the 

plan. Where such a petition is filed, any 

amounts granted as remission must be 

transferred to the other petitioners, not 

the party filing the petition; although, as 

a matter of discretion, the Ruling 

Official may use the actual petitioner as 

an intermediary for transferring the 

amounts authorized as a remission to 

the other petitioners. 

5. Section 233.10 is reserved. 

§ 233.10 [Reserved]. 

Stanley F. Mires, 

Attorney, Legal Policy & Legislative Advice. 

[FR Doc. 2012–4396 Filed 2–24–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7710–12–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R04–OAR–2010–0936–201150, FRL– 

9637–9] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; State of 

Georgia; Regional Haze State 

Implementation Plan 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing a limited 

approval of a revision to the Georgia 

state implementation plan (SIP) 

submitted by the State of Georgia 

through the Georgia Department of 

Natural Resources, Environmental 

Protection Division (GA EPD), on 

February 11, 2010, as supplemented on 

November 19, 2010, that addresses 

regional haze for the first 

implementation period. This SIP 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 38 / Monday, February 27, 2012 / Proposed Rules 11453 

revision, as supplemented, addresses 

the requirements of the Clean Air Act 

(CAA) and EPA’s rules that require 

states to prevent any future and remedy 

any existing anthropogenic impairment 

of visibility in mandatory Class I areas 

(national parks and wilderness areas) 

caused by emissions of air pollutants 

from numerous sources located over a 

wide geographic area (also referred to as 

the ‘‘regional haze program’’). States are 

required to assure reasonable progress 

toward the national goal of achieving 

natural visibility conditions in Class I 

areas. EPA is proposing a limited 

approval of this SIP revision to 

implement the regional haze 

requirements for Georgia on the basis 

that the revision, as a whole, 

strengthens the Georgia SIP. EPA has 

previously proposed a limited 

disapproval of the Georgia regional haze 

SIP because of deficiencies in the State’s 

regional haze SIP submittal arising from 

the remand by the U.S. Court of Appeals 

for the District of Columbia Circuit (D.C. 

Circuit) to EPA of the Clean Air 

Interstate Rule (CAIR). Consequently, 

EPA is not proposing to take action in 

this rulemaking to address the State’s 

reliance on CAIR to meet certain 

regional haze requirements. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before March 28, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R04– 

OAR–2010–0936, by one of the 

following methods: 

1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the 

on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

2. Email: benjamin.lynorae@pea.gov. 

3. Fax: 404–562–9019. 

4. Mail: EPA–R04–OAR–2010–0936, 

Regulatory Development Section, Air 

Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and 

Toxics Management Division, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., 

Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. 

5. Hand Delivery or Courier: Lynorae 

Benjamin, Chief, Regulatory 

Development Section, Air Planning 

Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics 

Management Division, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., 

Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. Such 

deliveries are only accepted during the 

Regional Office’s normal hours of 

operation. The Regional Office’s official 

hours of business are Monday through 

Friday, 8:30 to 4:30, excluding Federal 

holidays. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. ‘‘EPA–R04–OAR–2010– 

0936.’’ EPA’s policy is that all 

comments received will be included in 

the public docket without change and 

may be made available online at 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided, unless 

the comment includes information 

claimed to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Do not submit through 

www.regulations.gov or email, 

information that you consider to be CBI 

or otherwise protected. The 

www.regulations.gov Web site is an 

‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which 

means EPA will not know your identity 

or contact information unless you 

provide it in the body of your comment. 

If you send an email comment directly 

to EPA without going through 

www.regulations.gov, your email 

address will be automatically captured 

and included as part of the comment 

that is placed in the public docket and 

made available on the Internet. If you 

submit an electronic comment, EPA 

recommends that you include your 

name and other contact information in 

the body of your comment and with any 

disk or CD–ROM you submit. If EPA 

cannot read your comment due to 

technical difficulties and cannot contact 

you for clarification, EPA may not be 

able to consider your comment. 

Electronic files should avoid the use of 

special characters, any form of 

encryption, and be free of any defects or 

viruses. For additional information 

about EPA’s public docket visit the EPA 

Docket Center homepage at http:// 

www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm. 

Docket: All documents in the 

electronic docket are listed in the 

www.regulations.gov index. Although 

listed in the index, some information is 

not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other 

information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Certain other 

material, such as copyrighted material, 

is not placed on the Internet and will be 

publicly available only in hard copy 

form. Publicly available docket 

materials are available either 

electronically in www.regulations.gov or 

in hard copy at the Regulatory 

Development Section, Air Planning 

Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics 

Management Division, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., 

Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. EPA 

requests that if at all possible, you 

contact the person listed in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to 

schedule your inspection. The Regional 

Office’s official hours of business are 

Monday through Friday, 8:30 to 4:30, 

excluding Federal holidays. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sara 

Waterson or Michele Notarianni, 

Regulatory Development Section, Air 

Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and 

Toxics Management Division, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., 

Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. Sara 

Waterson can be reached at telephone 

number (404) 562–9061 and by 

electronic mail at 

waterson.sara@epa.gov. Michele 

Notarianni can be reached at telephone 

number (404) 562–9031 and by 

electronic mail at 

notarianni.michele@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents 

I. What action is EPA proposing to take? 

II. What is the background for EPA’s 

proposed action? 

A. The Regional Haze Problem 

B. Requirements of the CAA and EPA’s 

Regional Haze Rule (RHR) 

C. Roles of Agencies in Addressing 

Regional Haze 

III. What are the requirements for the regional 

haze SIPs? 

A. The CAA and the RHR 

B. Determination of Baseline, Natural, and 

Current Visibility Conditions 

C. Determination of Reasonable Progress 

Goals (RPGs) 

D. Best Available Retrofit Technology 

(BART) 

E. Long-Term Strategy (LTS) 

F. Coordinating Regional Haze and 

Reasonably Attributable Visibility 

Impairment (RAVI) LTS 

G. Monitoring Strategy and Other 

Implementation Plan Requirements 

H. Consultation With States and Federal 

Land Managers (FLMs) 

IV. What is EPA’s analysis of Georgia’s 

regional haze submittal? 

A. Affected Class I Areas 

B. Determination of Baseline, Natural and 

Current Visibility Conditions 

1. Estimating Natural Visibility Conditions 

2. Estimating Baseline Conditions 

3. Summary of Baseline and Natural 

Conditions 

4. Uniform Rate of Progress 

C. Long-Term Strategy/Strategies 

1. Emissions Inventory for 2018 With 

Federal and State Control Requirements 

2. Modeling To Support the LTS and 

Determine Visibility Improvement for 

Uniform Rate of Progress 

3. Relative Contributions To Visibility 

Impairment: Pollutants, Source 

Categories, and Geographic Areas 

4. Procedure for Identifying Sources To 

Evaluate for Reasonable Progress 

Controls in Georgia and Surrounding 

Areas 

5. Application of the Four CAA Factors in 

the Reasonable Progress Analysis 

A. Facilities With Emissions Unit(s) 

Subject To Reasonable Progress Analysis 

B. Facilities With Emissions Unit(s) Not 

Subject To Reasonable Progress Analysis 

6. BART 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

11454 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 38 / Monday, February 27, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

1EPA’s TSD to this action, entitled ‘‘Technical 

Support Document for Georgia Regional Haze SIP 

Submittal,’’ is included in the public docket for this 

action. 

2Under CAA sections 301(a) and 110(k)(6) and 

EPA’s long-standing guidance, a limited approval 

results in approval of the entire SIP submittal, even 

of those parts that are deficient and prevent EPA 

from granting a full approval of the SIP revision. 

Processing of State Implementation Plan (SIP) 

Revisions, EPA Memorandum from John Calcagni, 

Director, Air Quality Management Division, 

OAQPS, to Air Division Directors, EPA Regional 

Offices I–X, September 7, 1992, (1992 Calcagni 

Memorandum) located at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/ 

caaa/t1/memoranda/siproc.pdf. 

3 Visual range is the greatest distance, in 

kilometers or miles, at which a dark object can be 

viewed against the sky. 

4Areas designated as mandatory Class I areas 

consist of national parks exceeding 6,000 acres, 

wilderness areas and national memorial parks 

exceeding 5,000 acres, and all international parks 

that were in existence on August 7, 1977. See 42 

U.S.C. 7472(a). In accordance with section 169A of 

the CAA, EPA, in consultation with the Department 

of Interior, promulgated a list of 156 areas where 

visibility is identified as an important value. See 44 

FR 69122 (November 30, 1979). The extent of a 

mandatory Class I area includes subsequent changes 

in boundaries, such as park expansions. See 42 

U.S.C. 7472(a). Although states and tribes may 

designate as Class I additional areas which they 

consider to have visibility as an important value, 

the requirements of the visibility program set forth 

in section 169A of the CAA apply only to 

‘‘mandatory Class I Federal areas.’’ Each mandatory 

Class I area is the responsibility of a ‘‘Federal Land 

Manager.’’ See 42 U.S.C. 7602(i). When the term 

‘‘Class I area’’ is used in this action, it means a 

‘‘mandatory Class I Federal area.’’ 

A. BART-Eligible Sources 

B. BART-Subject Sources 

C. BART Determinations 

7. RPGs 

D. Coordination of RAVI and Regional 

Haze Requirements 

E. Monitoring Strategy and Other 

Implementation Plan Requirements 

F. Consultation With States and FLMs 

1. Consultation With Other States 

2. Consultation With the FLMs 

G. Periodic SIP Revisions and Five-Year 

Progress Reports 

V. What action is EPA taking? 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory 

Planning and Review 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

(UMRA) 

E. Executive Order 13132, Federalism 

F. Executive Order 13175, Coordination 

With Indian Tribal Governments 

G. Executive Order 13045, Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks 

H. Executive Order 13211, Actions That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act 

I. What action is EPA proposing To 

take? 

EPA is proposing a limited approval 

of Georgia’s February 11, 2010, SIP 

revision and November 19, 2010, SIP 

supplement, addressing regional haze 

under CAA sections 301(a) and 

110(k)(3) because these revisions, as a 

whole, strengthen the Georgia SIP. 

Throughout this document, references 

To Georgia’s ‘‘regional haze SIP’’ or ‘‘SIP 

submittal’’ or ‘‘SIP revision’’ collectively 

refer To Georgia’s original February 11, 

2010, SIP revision and the supplement 

to this February 2010 SIP revision 

submitted on November 19, 2010. This 

proposed rulemaking and the 

accompanying Technical Support 

Document 1 (TSD) explain the basis for 

EPA’s proposed limited approval 

action.2

In a separate action, EPA has 

proposed a limited disapproval of the 

Georgia regional haze SIP because of 

deficiencies in the State’s regional haze 

SIP submittal arising from the State’s 

reliance on CAIR to meet certain 

regional haze requirements. See 76 FR 

82219 (December 30, 2011). EPA is not 

proposing to take action in today’s 

rulemaking on issues associated with 

Georgia’s reliance on CAIR in its 

regional haze SIP. Comments on EPA’s 

proposed limited disapproval of 

Georgia’s regional haze SIP are accepted 

at the docket for EPA’s December 30, 

2011, proposed rulemaking (see Docket 

ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2011–0729). The 

comment period for EPA’s December 30, 

2011, proposed rulemaking is scheduled 

to end on February 28, 2012. 

II. What is the background for EPA’s 

proposed action? 

A. The Regional Haze Problem 

Regional haze is visibility impairment 

that is produced by a multitude of 

sources and activities which are located 

across a broad geographic area and emit 

fine particles (PM2.5) (e.g., sulfates, 

nitrates, organic carbon, elemental 

carbon, and soil dust), and their 

precursors (e.g., sulfur dioxide (SO2), 

nitrogen oxides (NOX), and in some 

cases, ammonia (NH3) and volatile 

organic compounds (VOC)). Fine 

particle precursors react in the 

atmosphere to form fine particulate 

matter which impairs visibility by 

scattering and absorbing light. Visibility 

impairment reduces the clarity, color, 

and visible distance that one can see. 

PM2.5 can also cause serious health 

effects and mortality in humans and 

contributes to environmental effects 

such as acid deposition and 

eutrophication. 

Data from the existing visibility 

monitoring network, the ‘‘Interagency 

Monitoring of Protected Visual 

Environments’’ (IMPROVE) monitoring 

network, show that visibility 

impairment caused by air pollution 

occurs virtually all the time at most 

national park and wilderness areas. The 

average visual range 3 in many Class I 

areas 4 (i.e., national parks and 

memorial parks, wilderness areas, and 

international parks meeting certain size 

criteria) in the western United States is 

100–150 kilometers, or about one-half to 

two-thirds of the visual range that 

would exist without anthropogenic air 

pollution. In most of the eastern Class 

I areas of the United States, the average 

visual range is less than 30 kilometers, 

or about one-fifth of the visual range 

that would exist under estimated 

natural conditions. See 64 FR 35715 

(July 1, 1999). 

B. Requirements of the CAA and EPA’s 

Regional Haze Rule (RHR) 

In section 169A of the 1977 

Amendments to the CAA, Congress 

created a program for protecting 

visibility in the nation’s national parks 

and wilderness areas. This section of the 

CAA establishes as a national goal the 

‘‘prevention of any future, and the 

remedying of any existing, impairment 

of visibility in mandatory Class I areas 

which impairment results from 

manmade air pollution.’’ On December 

2, 1980, EPA promulgated regulations to 

address visibility impairment in Class I 

areas that is ‘‘reasonably attributable’’ to 

a single source or small group of 

sources, i.e., ‘‘reasonably attributable 

visibility impairment.’’ See 45 FR 

80084. These regulations represented 

the first phase in addressing visibility 

impairment. EPA deferred action on 

regional haze that emanates from a 

variety of sources until monitoring, 

modeling and scientific knowledge 

about the relationships between 

pollutants and visibility impairment 

were improved. 

Congress added section 169B to the 

CAA in 1990 to address regional haze 

issues. EPA promulgated a rule to 

address regional haze on July 1, 1999 

(64 FR 35713), the RHR. The RHR 

revised the existing visibility 

regulations to integrate into the 

regulation provisions addressing 

regional haze impairment and 

established a comprehensive visibility 

protection program for Class I areas. The 

requirements for regional haze, found at 

40 CFR 51.308 and 51.309, are included 

in EPA’s visibility protection 

regulations at 40 CFR 51.300–309. Some 

of the main elements of the regional 

haze requirements are summarized in 

section III of this preamble. The 

requirement to submit a regional haze 

SIP applies to all 50 states, the District 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 38 / Monday, February 27, 2012 / Proposed Rules 11455 

5Albuquerque/Bernalillo County in New Mexico 

must also submit a regional haze SIP to completely 

satisfy the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D) of 

the CAA for the entire State of New Mexico under 

the New Mexico Air Quality Control Act (section 

74–2–4). 

6The preamble to the RHR provides additional 

details about the deciview. See 64 FR 35714, 35725 

(July 1, 1999). 

of Columbia, and the Virgin Islands.5 40 

CFR 51.308(b) requires states to submit 

the first implementation plan 

addressing regional haze visibility 

impairment no later than December 17, 

2007. 

C. Roles of Agencies in Addressing 

Regional Haze 

Successful implementation of the 

regional haze program will require longterm regional coordination among 

states, tribal governments and various 

Federal agencies. As noted above, 

pollution affecting the air quality in 

Class I areas can be transported over 

long distances, even hundreds of 

kilometers. Therefore, to effectively 

address the problem of visibility 

impairment in Class I areas, states need 

to develop strategies in coordination 

with one another, taking into account 

the effect of emissions from one 

jurisdiction on the air quality in 

another. 

Because the pollutants that lead to 

regional haze can originate from sources 

located across broad geographic areas, 

EPA has encouraged the states and 

tribes across the United States to 

address visibility impairment from a 

regional perspective. Five regional 

planning organizations (RPOs) were 

developed to address regional haze and 

related issues. The RPOs first evaluated 

technical information to better 

understand how their states and tribes 

impact Class I areas across the country, 

and then pursued the development of 

regional strategies to reduce emissions 

of particulate matter (PM) and other 

pollutants leading to regional haze. 

The Visibility Improvement State and 

Tribal Association of the Southeast 

(VISTAS) RPO is a collaborative effort of 

state governments, tribal governments, 

and various Federal agencies 

established to initiate and coordinate 

activities associated with the 

management of regional haze, visibility 

and other air quality issues in the 

southeastern United States. Member 

state and tribal governments include: 

Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, 

Mississippi, North Carolina, South 

Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia, West 

Virginia, and the Eastern Band of the 

Cherokee Indians. 

III. What are the requirements for the 

regional haze SIPs? 

A. The CAA and the RHR 

Regional haze SIPs must assure 

reasonable progress toward the national 

goal of achieving natural visibility 

conditions in Class I areas. Section 

169A of the CAA and EPA’s 

implementing regulations require states 

to establish long-term strategies for 

making reasonable progress toward 

meeting this goal. Implementation plans 

must also give specific attention to 

certain stationary sources that were in 

existence on August 7, 1977, but were 

not in operation before August 7, 1962, 

and require these sources, where 

appropriate, to install BART controls for 

the purpose of eliminating or reducing 

visibility impairment. The specific 

regional haze SIP requirements are 

discussed in further detail below. 

B. Determination of Baseline, Natural, 

and Current Visibility Conditions 

The RHR establishes the deciview as 

the principal metric or unit for 

expressing visibility. This visibility 

metric expresses uniform changes in 

haziness in terms of common 

increments across the entire range of 

visibility conditions, from pristine to 

extremely hazy conditions. Visibility 

expressed in deciviews is determined by 

using air quality measurements to 

estimate light extinction and then 

transforming the value of light 

extinction using a logarithm function. 

The deciview is a more useful measure 

for tracking progress in improving 

visibility than light extinction itself 

because each deciview change is an 

equal incremental change in visibility 

perceived by the human eye. Most 

people can detect a change in visibility 

at one deciview.6

The deciview is used in expressing 

RPGs (which are interim visibility goals 

towards meeting the national visibility 

goal), defining baseline, current, and 

natural conditions, and tracking changes 

in visibility. The regional haze SIPs 

must contain measures that ensure 

‘‘reasonable progress’’ toward the 

national goal of preventing and 

remedying visibility impairment in 

Class I areas caused by anthropogenic 

air pollution by reducing anthropogenic 

emissions that cause regional haze. The 

national goal is a return to natural 

conditions, i.e., anthropogenic sources 

of air pollution would no longer impair 

visibility in Class I areas. 

To track changes in visibility over 

time at each of the 156 Class I areas 

covered by the visibility program (40 

CFR 81.401–437), and as part of the 

process for determining reasonable 

progress, states must calculate the 

degree of existing visibility impairment 

at each Class I area at the time of each 

regional haze SIP submittal and 

periodically review progress every five 

years, i.e., midway through each 10-year 

implementation period. To do this, the 

RHR requires states to determine the 

degree of impairment (in deciviews) for 

the average of the 20 percent least 

impaired (‘‘best’’) and 20 percent most 

impaired (‘‘worst’’) visibility days over 

a specified time period at each of their 

Class I areas. In addition, states must 

also develop an estimate of natural 

visibility conditions for the purpose of 

comparing progress toward the national 

goal. Natural visibility is determined by 

estimating the natural concentrations of 

pollutants that cause visibility 

impairment and then calculating total 

light extinction based on those 

estimates. EPA has provided guidance 

to states regarding how to calculate 

baseline, natural, and current visibility 

conditions in documents titled, EPA’s 

Guidance for Estimating Natural 

Visibility Conditions Under the Regional 

Haze Rule, September 2003, (EPA–454/ 

B–03–005 located at http://www.epa.

gov/ttncaaa1/t1/memoranda/rh_

envcurhr_gd.pdf), (hereinafter referred 

to as ‘‘EPA’s 2003 Natural Visibility 

Guidance’’), and Guidance for Tracking 

Progress Under the Regional Haze Rule, 

September 2003, (EPA–454/B–03–004 

located at http://www.epa.gov/ttncaaa1/ 

t1/memoranda/rh_tpurhr_gd.pdf), 

(hereinafter referred to as ‘‘EPA’s 2003 

Tracking Progress Guidance’’). 

For the first regional haze SIPs that 

were due by December 17, 2007, 

‘‘baseline visibility conditions’’ were the 

starting points for assessing ‘‘current’’ 

visibility impairment. Baseline visibility 

conditions represent the degree of 

visibility impairment for the 20 percent 

least impaired days and 20 percent most 

impaired days for each calendar year 

from 2000 to 2004. Using monitoring 

data for 2000 through 2004, states are 

required to calculate the average degree 

of visibility impairment for each Class I 

area, based on the average of annual 

values over the five-year period. The 

comparison of initial baseline visibility 

conditions to natural visibility 

conditions indicates the amount of 

improvement necessary to attain natural 

visibility, while the future comparison 

of baseline conditions to the then 

current conditions will indicate the 

amount of progress made. In general, the 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

11456 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 38 / Monday, February 27, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

7The set of ‘‘major stationary sources’’ potentially 

subject to BART is listed in CAA section 169A(g)(7). 

2000–2004 baseline period is 

considered the time from which 

improvement in visibility is measured. 

C. Determination of Reasonable Progress 

Goals (RPGs) 

The vehicle for ensuring continuing 

progress toward achieving the natural 

visibility goal is the submission of a 

series of regional haze SIPs from the 

states that establish two RPGs (i.e., two 

distinct goals, one for the ‘‘best’’ and 

one for the ‘‘worst’’ days) for every Class 

I area for each (approximately) 10-year 

implementation period. The RHR does 

not mandate specific milestones or rates 

of progress, but instead calls for states 

to establish goals that provide for 

‘‘reasonable progress’’ toward achieving 

natural (i.e., ‘‘background’’) visibility 

conditions. In setting RPGs, states must 

provide for an improvement in visibility 

for the most impaired days over the 

(approximately) 10-year period of the 

SIP, and ensure no degradation in 

visibility for the least impaired days 

over the same period. 

States have significant discretion in 

establishing RPGs, but are required to 

consider the following factors 

established in section 169A of the CAA 

and in EPA’s RHR at 40 CFR 

51.308(d)(1)(i)(A): (1) The costs of 

compliance; (2) the time necessary for 

compliance; (3) the energy and non-air 

quality environmental impacts of 

compliance; and (4) the remaining 

useful life of any potentially affected 

sources. States must demonstrate in 

their SIPs how these factors are 

considered when selecting the RPGs for 

the best and worst days for each 

applicable Class I area. States have 

considerable flexibility in how they take 

these factors into consideration, as 

noted in EPA’s Guidance for Setting 

Reasonable Progress Goals Under the 

Regional Haze Program (‘‘EPA’s 

Reasonable Progress Guidance’’), July 1, 

2007, memorandum from William L. 

Wehrum, Acting Assistant 

Administrator for Air and Radiation, to 

EPA Regional Administrators, EPA 

Regions 1–10 (pp. 4–2, 5–1). In setting 

the RPGs, states must also consider the 

rate of progress needed to reach natural 

visibility conditions by 2064 (referred to 

as the ‘‘uniform rate of progress’’ or the 

‘‘glidepath’’) and the emissions 

reduction measures needed to achieve 

that rate of progress over the 10-year 

period of the SIP. Uniform progress 

towards achievement of natural 

conditions by the year 2064 represents 

a rate of progress which states are to use 

for analytical comparison to the amount 

of progress they expect to achieve. In 

setting RPGs, each state with one or 

more Class I areas (‘‘Class I state’’) must 

also consult with potentially 

‘‘contributing states,’’ i.e., other nearby 

states with emissions sources that may 

be affecting visibility impairment at the 

Class I state’s areas. See 40 CFR 

51.308(d)(1)(iv). 

D. Best Available Retrofit Technology 

(BART) 

Section 169A of the CAA directs 

states to evaluate the use of retrofit 

controls at certain larger, often 

uncontrolled, older stationary sources in 

order to address visibility impacts from 

these sources. Specifically, section 

169A(b)(2)(A) of the CAA requires states 

to revise their SIPs to contain such 

measures as may be necessary to make 

reasonable progress towards the natural 

visibility goal, including a requirement 

that certain categories of existing major 

stationary sources 7 built between 1962 

and 1977 procure, install, and operate 

the ‘‘Best Available Retrofit 

Technology’’ as determined by the state. 

Under the RHR, states are directed to 

conduct BART determinations for such 

‘‘BART-eligible’’ sources that may be 

anticipated to cause or contribute to any 

visibility impairment in a Class I area. 

Rather than requiring source-specific 

BART controls, states also have the 

flexibility to adopt an emissions trading 

program or other alternative program as 

long as the alternative provides greater 

reasonable progress towards improving 

visibility than BART. 

On July 6, 2005, EPA published the 

Guidelines for BART Determinations 

Under the Regional Haze Rule at 

Appendix Y to 40 CFR part 51 

(hereinafter referred to as the ‘‘BART 

Guidelines’’) to assist states in 

determining which of their sources 

should be subject to the BART 

requirements and in determining 

appropriate emissions limits for each 

applicable source. In making a BART 

determination for a fossil fuel-fired 

electric generating plant with a total 

generating capacity in excess of 750 

megawatts (MW), a state must use the 

approach set forth in the BART 

Guidelines. A state is encouraged, but 

not required, to follow the BART 

Guidelines in making BART 

determinations for other types of 

sources. 

States must address all visibilityimpairing pollutants emitted by a source 

in the BART determination process. The 

most significant visibility impairing 

pollutants are SO2, NOX, and PM. EPA 

has stated that states should use their 

best judgment in determining whether 

VOC or NH3 compounds impair 

visibility in Class I areas. 

Under the BART Guidelines, states 

may select an exemption threshold 

value for their BART modeling, below 

which a BART-eligible source would 

not be expected to cause or contribute 

to visibility impairment in any Class I 

area. The state must document this 

exemption threshold value in the SIP 

and must state the basis for its selection 

of that value. Any source with 

emissions that model above the 

threshold value would be subject to a 

BART determination review. The BART 

Guidelines acknowledge varying 

circumstances affecting different Class I 

areas. States should consider the 

number of emissions sources affecting 

the Class I areas at issue and the 

magnitude of the individual sources’ 

impacts. Any exemption threshold set 

by the state should not be higher than 

0.5 deciview. 

In their SIPs, states must identify 

potential BART sources, described as 

‘‘BART-eligible sources’’ in the RHR, 

and document their BART control 

determination analyses. In making 

BART determinations, section 

169A(g)(2) of the CAA requires that 

states consider the following factors: (1) 

The costs of compliance, (2) the energy 

and non-air quality environmental 

impacts of compliance, (3) any existing 

pollution control technology in use at 

the source, (4) the remaining useful life 

of the source, and (5) the degree of 

improvement in visibility which may 

reasonably be anticipated to result from 

the use of such technology. States are 

free to determine the weight and 

significance to be assigned to each 

factor. 

A regional haze SIP must include 

source-specific BART emissions limits 

and compliance schedules for each 

source subject to BART. Once a state has 

made its BART determination, the 

BART controls must be installed and in 

operation as expeditiously as 

practicable, but no later than five years 

after the date of EPA approval of the 

regional haze SIP. See CAA section 

169(g)(4)); see 40 CFR 51.308(e)(1)(iv). 

In addition to what is required by the 

RHR, general SIP requirements mandate 

that the SIP must also include all 

regulatory requirements related to 

monitoring, recordkeeping, and 

reporting for the BART controls on the 

source. 

As noted above, the RHR allows states 

to implement an alternative program in 

lieu of BART so long as the alternative 

program can be demonstrated to achieve 

greater reasonable progress toward the 

national visibility goal than would 

BART. Under regulations issued in 2005 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 38 / Monday, February 27, 2012 / Proposed Rules 11457 

revising the regional haze program, EPA 

made just such a demonstration for 

CAIR. See 70 FR 39104 (July 6, 2005). 

EPA’s regulations provide that states 

participating in the CAIR cap-and trade 

program under 40 CFR part 96 pursuant 

to an EPA-approved CAIR SIP or which 

remain subject to the CAIR Federal 

Implementation Plan in 40 CFR part 97 

need not require affected BART-eligible 

electrical generating (EGUs) to install, 

operate, and maintain BART for 

emissions of SO2 and NOX. See 40 CFR 

51.308(e)(4). Because CAIR did not 

address direct emissions of PM, states 

were still required to conduct a BART 

analysis for PM emissions from EGUs 

subject to BART for that pollutant. 

Challenges to CAIR, however, resulted 

in the remand of the rule to EPA. See 

North Carolina v. EPA, 550 F.3d 1175 

(DC Cir. 2008). 

EPA issued a new rule in 2011 to 

address the interstate transport of NOX

and SO2 in the eastern United States. 

See 76 FR 48208 (August 8, 2011) (‘‘the 

Transport Rule,’’ also known as the 

Cross-State Air Pollution Rule). On 

December 30, 2011, EPA proposed to 

find that the trading programs in the 

Transport Rule would achieve greater 

reasonable progress towards the 

national goal than would BART in the 

states in which the Transport Rule 

applies. See 76 FR 82219. Based on this 

proposed finding, EPA also proposed to 

revise the RHR to allow states to 

substitute participation in the trading 

programs under the Transport Rule for 

source-specific BART. EPA has not yet 

taken final action on that rule. Also on 

December 30, 2011, the DC Circuit 

issued an order addressing the status of 

the Transport Rule and CAIR in 

response to motions filed by numerous 

parties seeking a stay of the Transport 

Rule pending judicial review. In that 

order, the D.C. Circuit stayed the 

Transport Rule pending the court’s 

resolutions of the petitions for review of 

that rule in EME Homer Generation, L.P. 

v. EPA (No. 11–1302 and consolidated 

cases). The court also indicated that 

EPA is expected to continue to 

administer CAIR in the interim until the 

court rules on the petitions for review 

of the Transport Rule. 

E. Long-Term Strategy (LTS) 

Consistent with the requirement in 

section 169A(b) of the CAA that states 

include in their regional haze SIP a 10 

to 15 year strategy for making 

reasonable progress, section 51.308(d)(3) 

of the RHR requires that states include 

a LTS in their regional haze SIPs. The 

LTS is the compilation of all control 

measures a state will use during the 

implementation period of the specific 

SIP submittal to meet applicable RPGs. 

The LTS must include ‘‘enforceable 

emissions limitations, compliance 

schedules, and other measures as 

necessary to achieve the reasonable 

progress goals’’ for all Class I areas 

within, or affected by emissions from, 

the state. See 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3). 

When a state’s emissions are 

reasonably anticipated to cause or 

contribute to visibility impairment in a 

Class I area located in another state, the 

RHR requires the impacted state to 

coordinate with the contributing states 

in order to develop coordinated 

emissions management strategies. See 

40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(i). In such cases, 

the contributing state must demonstrate 

that it has included, in its SIP, all 

measures necessary to obtain its share of 

the emissions reductions needed to 

meet the RPGs for the Class I area. The 

RPOs have provided forums for 

significant interstate consultation, but 

additional consultations between states 

may be required to sufficiently address 

interstate visibility issues. This is 

especially true where two states belong 

to different RPOs. 

States should consider all types of 

anthropogenic sources of visibility 

impairment in developing their LTS, 

including stationary, minor, mobile, and 

area sources. At a minimum, states must 

describe how each of the following 

seven factors listed below are taken into 

account in developing their LTS: (1) 

Emissions reductions due to ongoing air 

pollution control programs, including 

measures to address RAVI; (2) measures 

to mitigate the impacts of construction 

activities; (3) emissions limitations and 

schedules for compliance to achieve the 

RPG; (4) source retirement and 

replacement schedules; (5) smoke 

management techniques for agricultural 

and forestry management purposes 

including plans as currently exist 

within the state for these purposes; (6) 

enforceability of emissions limitations 

and control measures; and (7) the 

anticipated net effect on visibility due to 

projected changes in point, area, and 

mobile source emissions over the period 

addressed by the LTS. See 40 CFR 

51.308(d)(3)(v). 

F. Coordinating Regional Haze and 

Reasonably Attributable Visibility 

Impairment (RAVI) LTS 

As part of the RHR, EPA revised 40 

CFR 51.306(c) regarding the LTS for 

RAVI to require that the RAVI plan must 

provide for a periodic review and SIP 

revision not less frequently than every 

three years until the date of submission 

of the state’s first plan addressing 

regional haze visibility impairment, 

which was due December 17, 2007, in 

accordance with 40 CFR 51.308(b) and 

(c). On or before this date, the state must 

revise its plan to provide for review and 

revision of a coordinated LTS for 

addressing RAVI and regional haze, and 

the state must submit the first such 

coordinated LTS with its first regional 

haze SIP. Future coordinated LTSs, and 

periodic progress reports evaluating 

progress towards RPGs, must be 

submitted consistent with the schedule 

for SIP submission and periodic 

progress reports set forth in 40 CFR 

51.308(f) and 51.308(g), respectively. 

The periodic review of a state’s LTS 

must report on both regional haze and 

RAVI impairment and must be 

submitted to EPA as a SIP revision. 

G. Monitoring Strategy and Other 

Implementation Plan Requirements 

Section 51.308(d)(4) of the RHR 

includes the requirement for a 

monitoring strategy for measuring, 

characterizing, and reporting of regional 

haze visibility impairment that is 

representative of all mandatory Class I 

areas within the state. The strategy must 

be coordinated with the monitoring 

strategy required in section 51.305 for 

RAVI. Compliance with this 

requirement may be met through 

‘‘participation’’ in the IMPROVE 

network, i.e., review and use of 

monitoring data from the network. The 

monitoring strategy is due with the first 

regional haze SIP, and it must be 

reviewed every five years. The 

monitoring strategy must also provide 

for additional monitoring sites if the 

IMPROVE network is not sufficient to 

determine whether RPGs will be met. 

The SIP must also provide for the 

following: 

• Procedures for using monitoring 

data and other information in a state 

with mandatory Class I areas to 

determine the contribution of emissions 

from within the state to regional haze 

visibility impairment at Class I areas 

both within and outside the state; 

• Procedures for using monitoring 

data and other information in a state 

with no mandatory Class I areas to 

determine the contribution of emissions 

from within the state to regional haze 

visibility impairment at Class I areas in 

other states; 

• Reporting of all visibility 

monitoring data to the Administrator at 

least annually for each Class I area in 

the state, and where possible, in 

electronic format; 

• Developing a statewide inventory of 

emissions of pollutants that are 

reasonably anticipated to cause or 

contribute to visibility impairment in 

any Class I area. The inventory must 

include emissions for a baseline year, 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

11458 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 38 / Monday, February 27, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

8The IMPROVE program is a cooperative 

measurement effort governed by a steering 

committee composed of representatives from 

Federal agencies (including representatives from 

EPA and the FLMs) and RPOs. The IMPROVE 

monitoring program was established in 1985 to aid 

the creation of Federal and state implementation 

plans for the protection of visibility in Class I areas. 

One of the objectives of IMPROVE is to identify 

chemical species and emissions sources responsible 

for existing anthropogenic visibility impairment. 

The IMPROVE program has also been a key 

participant in visibility-related research, including 

the advancement of monitoring instrumentation, 

analysis techniques, visibility modeling, policy 

formulation and source attribution field studies. 

9The science behind the revised IMPROVE 

equation is summarized in numerous published 

papers. See, e.g., Hand, J.L., and Malm, W.C., 2006, 

Review of the IMPROVE Equation for Estimating 

Ambient Light Extinction Coefficients—Final 

Report. March 2006. Prepared for Interagency 

Monitoring of Protected Visual Environments 

(IMPROVE), Colorado State University, Cooperative 

Institute for Research in the Atmosphere, Fort 

Collins, Colorado. http://vista.cira.colostate.edu/

improve/publications/GrayLit/016_IMPROVEeq

Review/IMPROVEeqReview.htm; and Pitchford, 

Marc., 2006, Natural Haze Levels II: Application of 

the New IMPROVE Algorithm to Natural Species 

Concentrations Estimates. Final Report of the 

Natural Haze Levels II Committee to the RPO 

Monitoring/Data Analysis Workgroup. September 

2006 http://vista.cira.colostate.edu/improve/

Publications/GrayLit/029_NaturalCondII/natural

hazelevelsIIreport.ppt. 

emissions for the most recent year for 

which data are available, and estimates 

of future projected emissions. A state 

must also make a commitment to update 

the inventory periodically; and 

• Other elements, including 

reporting, recordkeeping, and other 

measures necessary to assess and report 

on visibility. 

The RHR requires control strategies to 

cover an initial implementation period 

extending to the year 2018, with a 

comprehensive reassessment and 

revision of those strategies, as 

appropriate, every 10 years thereafter. 

Periodic SIP revisions must meet the 

core requirements of section 51.308(d) 

with the exception of BART. The 

requirement to evaluate sources for 

BART applies only to the first regional 

haze SIP. Facilities subject to BART 

must continue to comply with the BART 

provisions of section 51.308(e), as noted 

above. Periodic SIP revisions will assure 

that the statutory requirement of 

reasonable progress will continue to be 

met. 

H. Consultation With States and Federal 

Land Managers (FLMs) 

The RHR requires that states consult 

with FLMs before adopting and 

submitting their SIPs. See 40 CFR 

51.308(i). States must provide FLMs an 

opportunity for consultation, in person 

and at least 60 days prior to holding any 

public hearing on the SIP. This 

consultation must include the 

opportunity for the FLMs to discuss 

their assessment of impairment of 

visibility in any Class I area and to offer 

recommendations on the development 

of the RPGs and on the development 

and implementation of strategies to 

address visibility impairment. Further, a 

state must include in its SIP a 

description of how it addressed any 

comments provided by the FLMs. 

Finally, a SIP must provide procedures 

for continuing consultation between the 

state and FLMs regarding the state’s 

visibility protection program, including 

development and review of SIP 

revisions, five-year progress reports, and 

the implementation of other programs 

having the potential to contribute to 

impairment of visibility in Class I areas. 

IV. What is EPA’s analysis of Georgia’s 

regional haze submittal? 

On February 11, 2010, GA EPD 

submitted revisions to the Georgia SIP 

to address regional haze in the State’s 

Class I areas as required by EPA’s RHR. 

The State supplemented this February 

2010 submittal on November 19, 2010, 

with title V permit amendments that 

contain emissions limitations for three 

facilities. 

A. Affected Class I Areas 

Georgia has three Class I areas within 

its borders: Cohutta Wilderness Area, 

Okefenokee Wilderness Area, and Wolf 

Island Wilderness Area. Georgia is 

responsible for developing a regional 

haze SIP that addresses these Class I 

areas and for consulting with other 

states that impact Georgia’s Class I 

areas. 

The Georgia regional haze SIP 

establishes RPGs for visibility 

improvement at each of these Class I 

areas and a LTS to achieve those RPGs 

within the first regional haze 

implementation period ending in 2018. 

In developing the LTS for each area, 

Georgia considered both emissions 

sources inside and outside of Georgia 

that may cause or contribute to visibility 

impairment in Georgia’s Class I areas. 

The State also identified and considered 

emissions sources within Georgia that 

may cause or contribute to visibility 

impairment in Class I areas in 

neighboring states as required by 40 

CFR 51.308(d)(3). The VISTAS RPO 

worked with the State in developing the 

technical analyses used to make these 

determinations, including state-by-state 

contributions to visibility impairment in 

specific Class I areas, which included 

the three areas in Georgia and those 

areas affected by emissions from 

Georgia. 

B. Determination of Baseline, Natural, 

and Current Visibility Conditions 

As required by the RHR and in 

accordance with EPA’s 2003 Natural 

Visibility Guidance, Georgia calculated 

baseline/current and natural visibility 

conditions for each of its Class I areas, 

as summarized below (and as further 

described in sections III.B.1 and III.B.2 

of EPA’s TSD to this Federal Register 

action). 

1. Estimating Natural Visibility 

Conditions 

Natural background visibility, as 

defined in EPA’s 2003 Natural Visibility 

Guidance, is estimated by calculating 

the expected light extinction using 

default estimates of natural 

concentrations of fine particle 

components adjusted by site-specific 

estimates of humidity. This calculation 

uses the IMPROVE equation, which is a 

formula for estimating light extinction 

from the estimated natural 

concentrations of fine particle 

components (or from components 

measured by the IMPROVE monitors). 

As documented in EPA’s 2003 Natural 

Visibility Guidance, EPA allows states 

to use ‘‘refined’’ or alternative 

approaches to 2003 EPA guidance to 

estimate the values that characterize the 

natural visibility conditions of the Class 

I areas. One alternative approach is to 

develop and justify the use of 

alternative estimates of natural 

concentrations of fine particle 

components. Another alternative is to 

use the ‘‘new IMPROVE equation’’ that 

was adopted for use by the IMPROVE 

Steering Committee in December 2005.8

The purpose of this refinement to the 

‘‘old IMPROVE equation’’ is to provide 

more accurate estimates of the various 

factors that affect the calculation of light 

extinction. Georgia opted to use the 

default estimates for the natural 

concentrations combined with the ‘‘new 

IMPROVE equation’’ for all of its areas. 

Using this approach, natural visibility 

conditions using the new IMPROVE 

equation were calculated separately for 

each Class I area by VISTAS. 

The new IMPROVE equation takes 

into account the most recent review of 

the science 9 and it accounts for the 

effect of particle size distribution on 

light extinction efficiency of sulfate, 

nitrate, and organic carbon. It also 

adjusts the mass multiplier for organic 

carbon (particulate organic matter) by 

increasing it from 1.4 to 1.8. New terms 

are added to the equation to account for 

light extinction by sea salt and light 

absorption by gaseous nitrogen dioxide. 

Site-specific values are used for 

Rayleigh scattering (scattering of light 

due to atmospheric gases) to account for 

the site-specific effects of elevation and 

temperature. Separate relative humidity 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 38 / Monday, February 27, 2012 / Proposed Rules 11459 

10EPA’s 2003 Tracking Progress Guidance, page 

2–8. 

11 Ibid. 12The term, ‘‘dv,’’ is the abbreviation for 

‘‘deciview.’’ 

enhancement factors are used for small 

and large size distributions of 

ammonium sulfate and ammonium 

nitrate and for sea salt. The terms for the 

remaining contributors, elemental 

carbon (light-absorbing carbon), fine 

soil, and coarse mass terms, do not 

change between the original and new 

IMPROVE equations. 

2. Estimating Baseline Conditions 

GA EPD estimated baseline visibility 

conditions at the Georgia Class I areas 

using available monitoring data from 

two IMPROVE monitoring sites, one in 

the Okefenokee Wilderness Area and 

the other in the Cohutta Wilderness 

Area. The Wolf Island Wilderness Area 

does not contain an IMPROVE monitor. 

In cases where onsite monitoring is not 

available, 40 CFR 51.308(d)(2)(i) 

requires states to use the most 

representative monitoring available for 

the 2000–2004 period to establish 

baseline visibility conditions, in 

consultation with EPA. Georgia used, 

and EPA concurs, with the use of 2000– 

2004 data from the IMPROVE monitor at 

the Okefenokee Wilderness Area for the 

Wolf Island Wilderness Area. The 

IMPROVE Steering Committee considers 

the IMPROVE monitor at the 

Okefenokee Wilderness Area to be 

representative of visibility at Wolf 

Island. Okefenokee is the nearest Class 

I area to Wolf Island, and they possess 

similar characteristics, such as 

meteorology and topography. 

As explained in section III.B, baseline 

visibility conditions are the same as 

current conditions for the first regional 

haze SIP. A five-year average of the 2000 

to 2004 monitoring data was calculated 

for each of the 20 percent worst and 20 

percent best visibility days at each 

Georgia Class I area. IMPROVE data 

records for Okefenokee for the period 

2000 to 2004 meet the EPA 

requirements for data completeness.10

IMPROVE data for Cohutta did not meet 

completeness criteria in the years 2000, 

2001, and 2003. Data records for 2001 

and 2003 were filled using data 

substitution procedures.11 There was 

too little data in 2000 to perform data 

filling. 

Appendix B.1 of the Georgia regional 

haze SIP lists the 20 percent best and 

worst days for the baseline period of 

2000–2004 for the Okefenokee and 

Cohutta areas. This data is also provided 

at the following Web site: http:// 

www.metro4-sesarm.org/vistas/ 

SesarmBext_20BW.htm. 

3. Summary of Baseline and Natural 

Conditions 

For the Georgia Class I areas, baseline 

visibility conditions on the 20 percent 

worst days range between 

approximately 27 and 30.5 deciviews. 

Natural visibility in these areas is 

predicted to be between approximately 

10.5 and 11.5 deciviews on the 20 

percent worst days. The natural and 

baseline conditions for Georgia’s Class I 

areas for both the 20 percent worst and 

best days are presented in Table 1 

below. 

TABLE 1—NATURAL BACKGROUND AND BASELINE CONDITIONS FOR GEORGIA’S CLASS I AREAS

Class I area 

Average for 20 

percent worst 

days 

(dv 12) 

Average for 20 

percent best 

days 

(dv) 

Natural Background Conditions 

Cohutta Wilderness Area ................................................................................................................................. 10.78 4.32 

Okefenokee Wilderness Area .......................................................................................................................... 11.21 5.31 

Wolf Island Wilderness Area ........................................................................................................................... 11.21 5.31 

Baseline Visibility Conditions (2000–2004) 

Cohutta Wilderness Area ................................................................................................................................. 30.25 13.77 

Okefenokee Wilderness Area .......................................................................................................................... 27.13 15.23 

Wolf Island Wilderness Area ........................................................................................................................... 27.13 15.23 

4. Uniform Rate of Progress 

In setting the RPGs, Georgia 

considered the uniform rate of progress 

needed to reach natural visibility 

conditions by 2064 (‘‘glidepath’’) and 

the emissions reduction measures 

needed to achieve that rate of progress 

over the period of the SIP to meet the 

requirements of 40 CFR 

51.308(d)(1)(i)(B). As explained in 

EPA’s Reasonable Progress Guidance 

document, the uniform rate of progress 

is not a presumptive target, and RPGs 

may be greater than, less than, or 

equivalent to the glidepath. 

The State’s implementation plan 

presents two sets of graphs, one for the 

20 percent best days, and one for the 20 

percent worst days, for its three Class I 

areas. Georgia constructed the graph for 

the worst days (i.e., the glidepath) in 

accordance with EPA’s 2003 Tracking 

Progress Guidance by plotting a straight 

graphical line from the baseline level of 

visibility impairment for 2000–2004 to 

the level of visibility conditions 

representing no anthropogenic 

impairment in 2064 for its three areas. 

For the best days, the graph includes a 

horizontal, straight line spanning from 

baseline conditions in 2004 out to 2018 

to depict no degradation in visibility 

over the implementation period of the 

SIP. Georgia’s SIP shows that the State’s 

RPGs for its areas provide for 

improvement in visibility for the 20 

percent worst days over the period of 

the implementation plan and ensure no 

degradation in visibility for the 20 

percent best days over the same period, 

in accordance with 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1). 

For the Cohutta Class I area, the 

overall visibility improvement 

necessary to reach natural conditions is 

the difference between baseline 

visibility of 30.25 deciviews for the 20 

percent worst days and natural 

conditions of 10.78 deciviews, i.e., 

19.47 deciviews. Over the 60-year 

period from 2004 to 2064, this would 

require an average improvement of 

0.325 deciviews per year to reach 

natural conditions. Hence, for the 14- 

year period from 2004 to 2018, in order 

to achieve visibility improvements at 

least equivalent to the uniform rate of 

progress for the 20 percent worst days 

at the Cohutta Wilderness Area, Georgia 

would need to project at least 4.55 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

11460 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 38 / Monday, February 27, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

deciviews (approximately) over the first 

implementation period (i.e., 0.325 

deciviews × 14 years = 4.55 deciviews) 

of visibility improvement from the 30.25 

deciviews baseline in 2004, resulting in 

visibility levels at or below 

approximately 25.7 deciviews in 2018. 

As discussed below in section IV.C.7, 

‘‘Reasonable Progress Goals,’’ Georgia 

projects a 7.45 deciview improvement to 

visibility in the Cohutta Wilderness 

Area from the 30.25 deciview baseline 

to 22.8 deciviews in 2018 for the 20 

percent most impaired days, and a 2.02 

deciview improvement to 11.75 

deciviews from the baseline visibility of 

13.77 deciviews for the 20 percent least 

impaired days. 

For the Okefenokee and Wolf Island 

Class I areas, the overall visibility 

improvement necessary to reach natural 

conditions is the difference between 

baseline visibility of 27.13 deciviews for 

the 20 percent worst days and natural 

conditions of 11.21 deciviews, i.e., 

15.92 deciviews. Over the 60-year 

period from 2004 to 2064, this would 

require an average improvement of 

0.265 deciviews per year to reach 

natural conditions. Hence, for the 14- 

year period from 2004 to 2018, in order 

to achieve visibility improvements at 

least equivalent to the uniform rate of 

progress for the 20 percent worst days 

at the Okefenokee and Wolf Island 

Wilderness Areas, Georgia would need 

to project at least 3.71 deciviews 

(approximately) over the first 

implementation period (i.e., 0.265 

deciviews × 14 years = 3.71 deciviews) 

of visibility improvement from the 27.13 

deciviews baseline in 2004, resulting in 

visibility levels at or below 23.42 

deciviews in 2018. As discussed below 

in section IV.C.7, ‘‘Reasonable Progress 

Goals,’’ Georgia projects a 3.31 deciview 

improvement to visibility for the 

Okefenokee and Wolf Island Class I 

areas from the 27.13 deciview baseline 

to 23.82 deciviews in 2018 for the 20 

percent most impaired days, and a 1.31 

deciview improvement to 13.92 

deciviews from the baseline visibility of 

15.23 deciviews for the 20 percent least 

impaired days. 

C. Long-Term Strategy/Strategies 

As described in section III.E of this 

action, the LTS is a compilation of statespecific control measures relied on by 

the state for achieving its RPGs. 

Georgia’s LTS for the first 

implementation period addresses the 

emissions reductions from Federal, 

state, and local controls that take effect 

in the State from the end of the baseline 

period starting in 2004 until 2018. The 

Georgia LTS was developed by the 

State, in coordination with the VISTAS 

RPO, through an evaluation of the 

following components: (1) Identification 

of the emissions units within Georgia 

and in surrounding states that likely 

have the largest impacts currently on 

visibility at the State’s three Class I 

areas; (2) estimation of emissions 

reductions for 2018 based on all 

controls required or expected under 

Federal and state regulations for the 

2004–2018 period (including BART); (3) 

comparison of projected visibility 

improvement with the uniform rate of 

progress for the State’s Class I areas; and 

(4) application of the four statutory 

factors in the reasonable progress 

analysis for the identified emissions 

units to determine if additional 

reasonable controls were required. 

In a separate action proposing limited 

disapproval of the regional haze SIPs of 

a number of states, EPA noted that these 

states relied on the trading programs of 

CAIR to satisfy the BART requirement 

and the requirement for a LTS sufficient 

to achieve the state-adopted RPGs. See 

76 FR 82219 (December 30, 2011). In 

that action, EPA proposed a limited 

disapproval of Georgia’s regional haze 

SIP submittal insofar as the SIP relied 

on CAIR. For that reason, EPA is not 

taking action on that aspect of Georgia’s 

regional haze SIP in this rulemaking. 

Comments on the December 30, 2011, 

proposed determination are accepted at 

Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2011– 

0729. The comment period for EPA’s 

December 30, 2011, proposed 

rulemaking is scheduled to end on 

February 28, 2012. 

1. Emissions Inventory for 2018 With 

Federal and State Control Requirements 

The emissions inventory used in the 

regional haze technical analyses was 

developed by VISTAS with assistance 

from Georgia. The 2018 emissions 

inventory was developed by projecting 

2002 emissions and applying reductions 

expected from Federal and state 

regulations affecting the emissions of 

VOC and the visibility-impairing 

pollutants NOX, PM, and SO2. The 

BART Guidelines direct states to 

exercise judgment in deciding whether 

VOC and NH3 impair visibility in their 

Class I area(s). As discussed further in 

section IV.C.3, VISTAS performed 

modeling sensitivity analyses, which 

demonstrated that anthropogenic 

emissions of VOC and NH3 do not 

significantly impair visibility in the 

VISTAS region. Thus, while emissions 

inventories were also developed for NH3

and VOC, and applicable Federal VOC 

reductions were incorporated into 

Georgia’s regional haze analyses, 

Georgia did not further evaluate NH3

and VOC emissions sources for potential 

controls under BART or reasonable 

progress. 

VISTAS developed emissions for five 

inventory source classifications: 

stationary point and area sources, offroad and on-road mobile sources, and 

biogenic sources. Stationary point 

sources are those sources that emit 

greater than a specified tonnage per 

year, depending on the pollutant, with 

data provided at the facility level. 

Stationary area sources are those 

sources whose individual emissions are 

relatively small, but due to the large 

number of these sources, the collective 

emissions from the source category 

could be significant. VISTAS estimated 

emissions on a countywide level for the 

inventory categories of: (a) Stationary 

area sources; (b) off-road (or non-road) 

mobile sources (i.e., equipment that can 

move but does not use roadways); and 

(c) biogenic sources (which are natural 

sources of emissions, such as trees). Onroad mobile source emissions are 

estimated by vehicle type and road type, 

and are summed to the countywide 

level. 

There are many Federal and state 

control programs being implemented 

that VISTAS and Georgia anticipate will 

reduce emissions between the end of the 

baseline period and 2018. Emissions 

reductions from these control programs 

are projected to achieve substantial 

visibility improvement by 2018 in the 

Georgia Class I areas. The control 

programs relied upon by Georgia 

include: CAIR; Federal 2007 heavy duty 

diesel (2007) engine standards for onroad trucks and buses; Federal Tier 2 

tailpipe controls for on-road vehicles; 

Federal large spark ignition and 

recreational vehicle controls; EPA’s 

non-road diesel rules; Georgia Rule 391– 

3–1–.02(2)(yy), ‘‘Emissions of Nitrogen 

Oxides from Major Sources’’ requiring 

NOX reasonably available control 

technology for subject sources in the 

Atlanta 1-hour ozone non-attainment 

area; Georgia Rule 391–3–1–.02(2)(sss), 

‘‘Multipollutant Control for Electric 

Utility Steam Generating Units;’’ and 

NOX and/or VOC reductions from the 

control rules in 1-hour ozone SIPs for 

Atlanta, Birmingham, and Northern 

Kentucky. Controls from various Federal 

Maximum Achievable Control 

Technology (MACT) rules were also 

utilized in the development of the 2018 

emissions inventory projections. These 

MACT rules include the industrial 

boiler/process heater MACT (referred to 

as ‘‘Industrial Boiler MACT’’), the 

combustion turbine and reciprocating 

internal combustion engines MACTs, 

and the VOC 2-, 4-, 7-, and 10-year 

MACT standards. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 38 / Monday, February 27, 2012 / Proposed Rules 11461 

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

2007). 

14Tables 2 and 3 exclude biogenic emissions data 

provided in the February 2010 Georgia regional 

haze SIP submittal. 

Effective July 30, 2007, the D.C. 

Circuit mandated the vacatur and 

remand of the Industrial Boiler MACT 

Rule.13 This MACT was vacated since it 

was directly affected by the vacatur and 

remand of the Commercial and 

Industrial Solid Waste Incinerator 

Definition Rule. EPA proposed a new 

Industrial Boiler MACT rule to address 

the vacatur on June 4, 2010 (75 FR 

32006) and issued a final rule on March 

21, 2011 (76 FR 15608). The VISTAS 

modeling included emissions 

reductions from the vacated Industrial 

Boiler MACT rule, and Georgia did not 

redo its modeling analysis when the 

rule was re-issued. Even though 

Georgia’s modeling is based on the 

vacated Industrial Boiler MACT limits, 

the State’s modeling conclusions are 

unlikely to be affected because the 

expected reductions due to the vacated 

rule were relatively small compared to 

the State’s total SO2, PM2.5, and coarse 

particulate matter (PM10) emissions in 

2018 (i.e., 0.1 to 0.7 percent, depending 

on the pollutant, of the projected 2018 

SO2, PM2.5, and PM10 inventory). Thus, 

EPA does not expect that differences 

between the vacated and final Industrial 

Boiler MACT emissions limits would 

affect the adequacy of the existing 

Georgia regional haze SIP. If there is a 

need to address discrepancies between 

projected emissions reductions from the 

vacated Industrial Boiler MACT and the 

Industrial Boiler MACT issued March 

21, 2011 (76 FR 15608), EPA expects 

Georgia to do so in the State’s five-year 

progress report. 

Tables 2 and 3, below, summarize the 

2002 baseline and 2018 estimated 

emissions inventories for Georgia.14

TABLE 2—2002 EMISSIONS INVENTORY SUMMARY FOR GEORGIA (TONS PER YEAR (TPY)) 

VOC NOX PM2.5 PM10 NH3 SO2

Point ......................................................... 34,964.3 197,376.9 22,531.7 33,077.3 3,669.2 571,410 .9 

Area .......................................................... 333,044.8 49,987.4 159,437.8 757,656.1 83,066.0 60,370 .2 

On-Road Mobile ....................................... 283,420.6 307,731.7 5,167.8 7,245.9 10,546.2 12,183 .5 

Off-Road Mobile ....................................... 85,965.4 97,961.4 8,226.4 8,617.9 60.4 9,005 .4 

Total .................................................. 737,395.1 653,057.4 195,363.7 806,597.2 97,341.8 652,970 

TABLE 3—2018 EMISSIONS INVENTORY SUMMARY FOR GEORGIA (TPY) 

VOC NOX PM2.5 PM10 NH3 SO2

Point ......................................................... 43,097.8 125,680.0 36,297.4 48,005.1 6,474.4 127,863.6 

Area .......................................................... 353,224.5 55,518.5 180,697.2 944,009.4 102,112.4 62,636.2 

On-Road Mobile ....................................... 109,763.3 102,179.2 2,380.2 4,843.6 14,873.2 1,457.0 

Off-Road Mobile ....................................... 56,760.7 64,578.8 5,729.7 6,015.1 78.6 1,708.8 

Total .................................................. 562,846.3 347,956.5 225,104.5 1,002,873.2 123,538.6 193,665.6 

2. Modeling To Support the LTS and 

Determine Visibility Improvement for 

Uniform Rate of Progress 

VISTAS performed modeling for the 

regional haze LTS for the 10 

southeastern states, including Georgia. 

The modeling analysis is a complex 

technical evaluation that began with 

selection of the modeling system. 

VISTAS used the following modeling 

system: 

• Meteorological Model: The 

Pennsylvania State University/National 

Center for Atmospheric Research 

Mesoscale Meteorological Model is a 

nonhydrostatic, prognostic 

meteorological model routinely used for 

urban- and regional-scale 

photochemical, PM2.5, and regional haze 

regulatory modeling studies. 

• Emissions Model: The Sparse 

Matrix Operator Kernel Emissions 

modeling system is an emissions 

modeling system that generates hourly 

gridded speciated emissions inputs of 

mobile, non-road mobile, area, point, 

fire, and biogenic emissions sources for 

photochemical grid models. 

• Air Quality Model: The EPA’s 

Models-3/Community Multiscale Air 

Quality (CMAQ) modeling system is a 

photochemical grid model capable of 

addressing ozone, PM, visibility, and 

acid deposition at a regional scale. The 

photochemical model selected for this 

study was CMAQ version 4.5. It was 

modified through VISTAS with a 

module for Secondary Organics 

Aerosols in an open and transparent 

manner that was also subjected to 

outside peer review. 

CMAQ modeling of regional haze in 

the VISTAS region for 2002 and 2018 

was carried out on a grid of 12x12 

kilometer cells that covers the 10 

VISTAS states (Alabama, Florida, 

Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, North 

Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, 

Virginia, West Virginia) and states 

adjacent to them. This grid is nested 

within a larger national CMAQ 

modeling grid of 36x36 kilometer cells 

that covers the continental United 

States, portions of Canada and Mexico, 

and portions of the Atlantic and Pacific 

Oceans along the east and west coasts. 

Selection of a representative period of 

meteorology is crucial for evaluating 

baseline air quality conditions and 

projecting future changes in air quality 

due to changes in emissions of 

visibility-impairing pollutants. VISTAS 

conducted an in-depth analysis which 

resulted in the selection of the entire 

year of 2002 (January 1–December 31) as 

the best period of meteorology available 

for conducting the CMAQ modeling. 

The VISTAS states modeling was 

developed consistent with EPA’s 

Guidance on the Use of Models and 

Other Analyses for Demonstrating 

Attainment of Air Quality Goals for 

Ozone, PM2.5, and Regional Haze, 

located at http://www.epa.gov/

scram001/guidance/guide/final-03-pmrh-guidance.pdf, EPA–454/B–07–002, 

April 2007, and EPA document, 

Emissions Inventory Guidance for 

Implementation of Ozone and 

Particulate Matter National Ambient Air 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

11462 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 38 / Monday, February 27, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

Quality Standards (NAAQS) and 

Regional Haze Regulations, located at 

http://www.epa.gov/ttnchie1/eidocs/

eiguid/index.html, EPA–454/R–05–001, 

August 2005, updated November 2005 

(‘‘EPA’s Modeling Guidance’’). 

VISTAS examined the model 

performance of the regional modeling 

for the areas of interest before 

determining whether the CMAQ model 

results were suitable for use in the 

regional haze assessment of the LTS and 

for use in the modeling assessment. The 

modeling assessment predicts future 

levels of emissions and visibility 

impairment used to support the LTS 

and to compare predicted, modeled 

visibility levels with those on the 

uniform rate of progress. In keeping 

with the objective of the CMAQ 

modeling platform, air quality model 

performance was evaluated using 

graphical and statistical assessments 

based on measured ozone, fine particles, 

and acid deposition from various 

monitoring networks and databases for 

the 2002 base year. VISTAS used a 

diverse set of statistical parameters from 

the EPA’s Modeling Guidance to stress 

and examine the model and modeling 

inputs. Once VISTAS determined the 

model performance to be acceptable, 

VISTAS used the model to assess the 

2018 RPGs using the current and future 

year air quality modeling predictions, 

and compared the RPGs to the uniform 

rate of progress. 

In accordance with 40 CFR 

51.308(d)(3), the State of Georgia 

provided the appropriate supporting 

documentation for all required analyses 

used to determine the State’s LTS. The 

technical analyses and modeling used to 

develop the glidepath and to support 

the LTS are consistent with EPA’s RHR 

and interim and final EPA Modeling 

Guidance. EPA proposes to accept the 

VISTAS technical modeling to support 

the LTS and to determine visibility 

improvement for the uniform rate of 

progress because the modeling system 

was chosen and simulated according to 

EPA Modeling Guidance. EPA proposes 

to agree with the VISTAS model 

performance procedures and results, 

and that the CMAQ is an appropriate 

tool for the regional haze assessments 

for the Georgia LTS and regional haze 

SIP. 

3. Relative Contributions to Visibility 

Impairment: Pollutants, Source 

Categories, and Geographic Areas 

An important step toward identifying 

reasonable progress measures is to 

identify the key pollutants contributing 

to visibility impairment at each Class I 

area. To understand the relative benefit 

of further reducing emissions from 

different pollutants, source sectors, and 

geographic areas, VISTAS developed 

emissions sensitivity model runs using 

CMAQ to evaluate visibility and air 

quality impacts from various groups of 

emissions and pollutant scenarios in the 

Class I areas on the 20 percent worst 

visibility days. 

Regarding which pollutants are most 

significantly impacting visibility in the 

VISTAS region, VISTAS’ contribution 

assessment, based on IMPROVE 

monitoring data, demonstrated that 

ammonium sulfate is the major 

contributor to PM2.5 mass and visibility 

impairment at Class I areas in the 

VISTAS and neighboring states. On the 

20 percent worst visibility days in 

2000–2004, ammonium sulfate 

accounted for 75 to 87 percent of the 

calculated light extinction at the inland 

Class I areas in VISTAS, and 69 to 74 

percent of the calculated light extinction 

for all but one of the coastal Class I areas 

in the VISTAS states. In particular, for 

the Okefenokee and Cohutta Wilderness 

Areas, sulfate particles resulting from 

SO2 emissions contribute roughly 69 

and 84 percent, respectively, to the 

calculated light extinction on the 

haziest days. In contrast, ammonium 

nitrate contributed five percent or less 

of the calculated light extinction at 

VISTAS Class I areas on the 20 percent 

worst visibility days. Particulate organic 

matter (organic carbon) accounted for 20 

percent or less of the light extinction on 

the 20 percent worst visibility days at 

the VISTAS Class I areas. 

VISTAS grouped its 18 Class I areas 

into two types, either ‘‘coastal’’ or 

‘‘inland’’ (sometimes referred to as 

‘‘mountain’’) sites, based on common/ 

similar characteristics (e.g., terrain, 

geography, meteorology), to better 

represent variations in model sensitivity 

and performance within the VISTAS 

region and to describe the common 

factors influencing visibility conditions 

in the two types of Class I areas. The 

Cohutta Class I area is considered an 

‘‘inland’’ area and the Okefenokee and 

Wolf Island Class I areas are both 

‘‘coastal’’ areas. 

Results from VISTAS’ emissions 

sensitivity analyses indicate that sulfate 

particles resulting from SO2 emissions 

are the dominant contributor to 

visibility impairment on the 20 percent 

worst days at all Class I areas in 

VISTAS, including the three Georgia 

areas. Georgia concluded that reducing 

SO2 emissions from EGU and non-EGU 

point sources in the VISTAS states 

would have the greatest visibility 

benefits for the Georgia Class I areas. 

Because ammonium nitrate is a small 

contributor to PM2.5 mass and visibility 

impairment on the 20 percent worst 

days at the inland Class I areas in 

VISTAS, the benefits of reducing NOX

and NH3 emissions at these sites are 

small. 

The VISTAS sensitivity analyses 

show that VOC emissions from biogenic 

sources such as vegetation also 

contribute to visibility impairment. 

However, control of these biogenic 

sources of VOC would be extremely 

difficult, if not impossible. The 

anthropogenic sources of VOC 

emissions are minor compared to the 

biogenic sources. Therefore, controlling 

anthropogenic sources of VOC 

emissions would have little, if any, 

visibility benefits at the Class I areas in 

the VISTAS region, including those in 

Georgia. The sensitivity analyses also 

show that reducing primary carbon from 

point sources, ground level sources, or 

fires is projected to have small to no 

visibility benefit at the VISTAS Class I 

areas. 

Georgia considered the factors listed 

in 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(v) and in section 

III.E of this action to develop its LTS as 

described below. Georgia, in 

conjunction with VISTAS, 

demonstrated in its SIP that elemental 

carbon (a product of highway and nonroad diesel engines, agricultural 

burning, prescribed fires, and wildfires) 

and fine soils (a product of construction 

activities and activities that generate 

fugitive dust), are relatively minor 

contributors to visibility impairment at 

the Class I areas in Georgia. 

Additionally, the State, in conjunction 

with VISTAS, demonstrated that the 

benefits of reducing point source 

ammonia emissions are small. With 

regard to area source ammonia 

emissions, while reducing ammonia 

emissions would be relatively more 

beneficial for Georgia’s two coastal Class 

I areas than the Cohutta area, these 

emissions are primarily from 

agricultural activity, specifically 

fertilizing operations and animal 

farming. The State explains in its SIP 

that because there are no economically 

feasible options for controlling these 

types of area sources of ammonia 

emissions, and GA EPD does not have 

regulatory authority to control these 

sources, Georgia did not further evaluate 

this source category for control. 

Georgia considered agricultural and 

forestry smoke management techniques 

to address visibility impacts from 

elemental carbon. On July 11, 2008, GA 

EPD entered into a memorandum of 

understanding with the Georgia Forestry 

and Georgia Department of Natural 

Resources Wildlife Resources Division 

adopting a smoke management program 

that utilizes basic smoke management 

practices and addresses the issues laid 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 38 / Monday, February 27, 2012 / Proposed Rules 11463 

15Prior to VISTAS, the southern states cooperated 

in a voluntary regional partnership ‘‘to identify and 

recommend reasonable measures to remedy existing 

and prevent future adverse effects from humaninduced air pollution on the air quality related 

values of the Southern Appalachian Mountains.’’ 

States cooperated with FLMs, EPA, industry, 

environmental organizations, and academia to 

complete a technical assessment of the impacts of 

acid deposition, ozone, and fine particles on 

sensitive resources in the Southern Appalachians. 

The SAMI Final Report was delivered in August 

2002. 

out in the EPA’s 1998 Interim Air 

Quality Policy on Wildland and 

Prescribed Fires available at: http://

www.epa.gov/ttncaaa1/t1/memoranda/

firefnl.pdf. With regard to fine soils, the 

State considered those activities that 

generate fugitive dust, including 

construction activities. Georgia’s Rules 

for Air Quality Control include 

requirements for precautions to prevent 

fugitive dust from becoming airborne 

and to limit the opacity of fugitive 

emissions to less than 20 percent. The 

requirements of Georgia Rule 391–3–1– 

.02(n), ‘‘Fugitive Dust,’’ include 

preventive measures for construction 

activities. 

EPA preliminarily concurs with the 

State’s technical demonstration showing 

that elemental carbon, fine soils, and 

ammonia are not significant 

contributors to visibility in the State’s 

Class I areas, and therefore, proposes to 

find that Georgia has adequately 

satisfied 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(v). EPA’s 

TSD to this Federal Register action and 

Georgia’s SIP provide more details on 

the State’s consideration of these factors 

for Georgia’s LTS. 

The emissions sensitivity analyses 

conducted by VISTAS predict that 

reductions in SO2 emissions from EGU 

and non-EGU industrial point sources 

will result in the greatest improvements 

in visibility in the Class I areas in the 

VISTAS region, more than any other 

visibility-impairing pollutant. Specific 

to Georgia, the VISTAS sensitivity 

analysis projects visibility benefits in 

the Georgia Class I areas and Class I 

areas outside the State impacted by 

Georgia sources from SO2 reductions 

from EGUs in the VISTAS states. 

Additional, smaller benefits are 

projected from SO2 emissions 

reductions from non-utility industrial 

point sources. SO2 emissions 

contributions to visibility impairment 

from other RPO regions are 

comparatively small in contrast to the 

VISTAS states’ contributions, and thus, 

controlling sources outside of the 

VISTAS region is predicted to provide 

less significant improvements in 

visibility in the Class I areas in VISTAS. 

Taking the VISTAS sensitivity 

analyses results into consideration, 

Georgia concluded that reducing SO2

emissions from EGU and non-EGU point 

sources in certain VISTAS states would 

have the greatest visibility benefits for 

the Georgia Class I areas. The State 

chose to focus solely on evaluating 

certain SO2 sources contributing to 

visibility impairment to the State’s Class 

I areas for additional emissions 

reductions for reasonable progress in 

this first implementation period 

(described in sections IV.C.4 and IV.C.5 

of this action). EPA proposes to agree 

with the State’s analyses and 

conclusions used to determine the 

pollutants and source categories that 

most contribute to visibility impairment 

in the Georgia Class I areas, and 

proposes to find the State’s approach to 

focus on developing a LTS that includes 

largely additional measures for point 

sources of SO2 emissions to be 

appropriate. 

SO2 sources for which it is 

demonstrated that no additional 

controls are reasonable in this current 

implementation period will not be 

exempted from future assessments for 

controls in subsequent implementation 

periods or, when appropriate, from the 

five-year periodic SIP reviews. In future 

implementation periods, additional 

controls on these SO2 sources evaluated 

in the first implementation period may 

be determined to be reasonable, based 

on a reasonable progress control 

evaluation, for continued progress 

toward natural conditions for the 20 

percent worst days and to avoid further 

degradation of the 20 percent best days. 

Similarly, in subsequent 

implementation periods, the State may 

use different criteria for identifying 

sources for evaluation and may consider 

other pollutants as visibility conditions 

change over time. 

4. Procedure for Identifying Sources To 

Evaluate for Reasonable Progress 

Controls in Georgia and Surrounding 

Areas 

As discussed in section IV.C.3 of this 

action, through comprehensive 

evaluations by VISTAS and the 

Southern Appalachian Mountains 

Initiative (SAMI),15 the VISTAS states 

concluded that sulfate particles 

resulting from SO2 emissions account 

for the greatest portion of the regional 

haze affecting the Class I areas in 

VISTAS states, including those in 

Georgia. Utility and non-utility boilers 

are the main sources of SO2 emissions 

within the southeastern United States. 

VISTAS developed a methodology for 

Georgia that enables the State to focus 

its reasonable progress analysis on those 

geographic regions and source 

categories that impact visibility at each 

of its Class I areas. Recognizing that 

there was neither sufficient time nor 

adequate resources available to evaluate 

all emissions units within a given area 

of influence (AOI) around each of the 

Class I areas that Georgia’s sources 

impact, the State established a threshold 

to determine which emissions units 

would be evaluated for reasonable 

progress control. In applying this 

methodology, GA EPD first calculated 

the fractional contribution to visibility 

impairment from all emissions units 

within the SO2 AOI for each of its Class 

I areas, and those surrounding areas in 

other states potentially impacted by 

emissions from emissions units in 

Georgia. The State then identified those 

emissions units with a contribution of 

one half (0.5) percent or more to the 

visibility impairment at that particular 

Class I area, and evaluated each of these 

units for control measures for 

reasonable progress using the following 

four ‘‘reasonable progress factors’’ 

required under 40 CFR 

51.308(d)(1)(i)(A): (i) Cost of 

compliance; (ii) time necessary for 

compliance; (iii) energy and non-air 

quality environmental impacts of 

compliance; and (iv) remaining useful 

life of the emissions unit. 

Georgia’s SO2 AOI methodology 

captured greater than 70 percent of the 

total point source SO2 contribution to 

visibility impairment in two of Georgia’s 

three Class I areas and required an 

evaluation of more than 30 units. At the 

remaining area, Cohutta Wilderness 

Area, the 0.5-percent threshold 

represents 69 percent of the total SO2

contribution to visibility impairment 

and required an evaluation of 38 units. 

Capturing a significantly greater 

percentage of the total contribution 

would involve an evaluation of many 

more emissions units that have 

substantially less impact. EPA believes 

the approach developed by VISTAS and 

implemented for the Class I areas in 

Georgia is a reasonable methodology to 

prioritize the most significant 

contributors to regional haze and to 

identify sources to assess for reasonable 

progress control in the State’s Class I 

area. The approach is consistent with 

EPA’s Reasonable Progress Guidance. 

The technical approach of VISTAS and 

Georgia was objective and based on 

several analyses including the 

evaluation of a large universe of 

emissions units within and surrounding 

the State of Georgia and all of the 18 

VISTAS Class I areas. It also included 

an analysis of the VISTAS emissions 

units affecting nearby Class I areas 

surrounding the VISTAS states that are 

located in other RPOs’ Class I areas. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

11464 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 38 / Monday, February 27, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

16See also EPA’s TSD, section III.C.2, fractional 

contribution analysis tables for each Class I area, 

excerpted from the Georgia SIP, Appendix H.2. 

17EPA’s Reasonable Progress Guidance, pages 

4.2–4.3. 

5. Application of the Four CAA Factors 

in the Reasonable Progress Analysis 

Under Georgia’s state rule 391–3–1– 

.02(13), ‘‘Clean Air Interstate Rule SO2

Annual Trading Program,’’ SO2

emissions from Georgia EGUs will be 

capped at 149,140 tons in 2015, a 70- 

percent reduction from 2002 actual 

emissions. GA EPD concluded that 

additional EGU control for SO2 during 

this time period is not reasonable for the 

EGU sources that contribute greater than 

0.5 percent to visibility impairment at 

Class I areas that are clearly projected to 

meet or exceed the uniform rate of 

progress in 2018. However, for five 

EGUs at three facilities owned by 

Georgia Power (see Table 4) that meet 

the State’s minimum threshold for 

reasonable progress evaluation at Class 

I areas not clearly at or below the 

glidepath (Okefenokee and Wolf Island 

Wilderness Areas), GA EPD did 

consider additional controls. 

GA EPD initially identified 24 

additional non-EGU emissions units at 

13 facilities in Georgia (see Table 4) 

which meet the State’s minimum 

threshold for a reasonable progress 

control evaluation (i.e., because they 

were modeled to fall within the SO2

AOI of any Class I area and have a 0.5 

percent or greater contribution to the 

sulfate visibility impairment in at least 

one Class I area).16 GA EPD later 

determined, based on updated data, that 

of these 24 non-EGU units, seven units 

at four facilities would not contribute 

0.5 percent or greater of the total sulfate 

visibility impairment at any Class I area 

in 2018 and thus, these seven units were 

not subject to a reasonable progress 

control evaluation. In addition, six units 

at three facilities requested and received 

emissions limits to reduce the projected 

sulfate visibility impairment from each 

emissions unit to less than 0.5 percent. 

Finally, one of the emissions units is 

subject to BART review under the RHR. 

As discussed in EPA’s Reasonable 

Progress Guidance, since the BART 

analysis is based, in part, on an 

assessment of many of the same factors 

that must be addressed in establishing 

the RPG, EPA believes it is reasonable 

to conclude that any control 

requirements imposed in the BART 

determination also satisfy the RPGrelated requirements for source review 

in the first implementation period.17

Therefore, reasonable progress control 

reviews were conducted on the 

remaining 10 non-EGU emissions units 

at five facilities and five EGUs at three 

facilities. 

TABLE 4—GEORGIA FACILITIES SUBJECT TO REASONABLE PROGRESS ANALYSIS

Facilities With Emissions Unit(s) Subject to Reasonable Progress Analysis 

Georgia Pacific—Brunswick Cellulose, Power Boiler 4 (F1), Recovery Boiler R407 (M24). 

Georgia Pacific—Cedar Springs, Power Boilers U500, U501, Recovery Boiler R402. 

Georgia Pacific—Savannah River Mill, Boilers B001, B002, B003. 

Georgia Power—Plant Kraft, Steam Generators (SG) 1, 2, 3. 

Georgia Power—Plant Mitchell, SG 3. 

Georgia Power—Plant McIntosh, SG 1. 

International Paper—Savannah Mill, Power Boiler 13. 

Temple-Inland Rome Linerboard, Power Boiler 4. 

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

Non-EGUs Subject to BART 

Interstate Paper, Power Boiler F1. 

Not Subject to Evaluation Based on Updated Information 

Miller Brewing, Boilers B001, B002. 

Mount Vernon Mills, Boilers E U 03, E U 04. 

Savannah Sugar Refinery, Boiler U161. 

Mohawk Industries, Boilers BL06, BL07. 

Exempted With Additional Emission Limits 

Packaging Corporation of America, C E Boiler. 

Rayonier Performance Fibers—Jessup Mill, Power Boilers 2, 3, Recovery Furnace 1,2. 

Southern States Phosphate and Fertilizer, Sulfuric Acid Plant 2. 

A. Facilities with Emissions Unit(s) 

Subject to Reasonable Progress Analysis 

The RHR requires that states consider 

the following factors and demonstrate 

how these factors were taken into 

consideration in selecting the RPGs: 

costs of compliance; time necessary for 

compliance; energy and non-air quality 

environmental impacts of compliance; 

and remaining useful life of any 

potentially-affected sources. As stated 

previously, GA EPD performed 

reasonable progress control analyses for 

15 emissions units. The results of GA 

EPD’s analyses are summarized below, 

followed by EPA’s assessment. 

1. Georgia Pacific—Brunswick Cellulose 

(a). Power Boiler 4 (F1) 

Georgia Pacific’s Brunswick Cellulose 

facility is located in Glynn County near 

the Georgia coast. Power Boiler No. 4 is 

an 800 million British thermal units per 

hour (MMBtu/hr) boiler that burns 

primarily No. 6 fuel oil and wood waste, 

including bark. The boiler is also 

permitted to burn tire-derived fuel 

(TDF) and wastewater treatment sludge. 

The sulfur content of the fuel oil is three 

percent or less. 

Power Boiler 4 at the Brunswick 

Cellulose facility meets Georgia’s 

minimum threshold for reasonable 

progress control evaluation. The unit 

contributes to the total sulfate visibility 

impairment at two Class I areas (i.e., 

approximately 12.6 percent at Wolf 

Island and 3.9 percent at Okefenokee). 

The State noted in its SIP that these 

contributions are the highest level of 

visibility impairment contribution to 

any Class I area caused by any single 

emissions unit that GA EPD analyzed. 

The 2018 projected SO2 emissions 

developed by VISTAS are 1,642 tpy. 

However, the boiler had already 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 38 / Monday, February 27, 2012 / Proposed Rules 11465 

reduced emissions to approximately 

1,099 tpy due to a 2002 modification 

achieving higher efficiency. 

The reasonable progress control 

analysis reviewed wet flue gas 

desulfurization (FGD), in-duct sorbent 

injection, and a limitation on fuel oil 

usage coupled with lower sulfur content 

fuel oil (2.2 percent and 1.0 percent 

sulfur fuel oil). Of these control 

measures, the fuel oil changes could 

take place prior to 2012 and the wet 

FGD and in-duct sorbent injection could 

be installed before 2013. The remaining 

useful life of the unit extends past 2018 

and past the control equipment 

amortization period. The wet FGD 

would have an impact on water usage 

and wastewater discharge, and in-duct 

sorbent injection would result in 

additional solid waste. The company 

did not identify any significant energy 

impacts for any of the options. 

Of the control options considered, 

both in-duct sorbent injection and a 

switch to 1.0 percent sulfur fuel oil 

coupled with a five million gallon-peryear oil usage limit were considered 

reasonably cost effective. The costs are 

$3,562 per ton of SO2 removed ($/ton 

SO2) and $20.7 million per inverse 

megameter (MM/Mm-1) at Wolf Island 

for in-duct sorbent injection, and 

$3,228/ton SO2 and $18.8 MM/Mm-1 at 

Wolf Island for 1.0 percent sulfur fuel 

oil. These controls were considered cost 

effective due to the relatively high 

visibility impact on two Class I areas 

and the fact that neither of these Class 

I areas are projected to be clearly at or 

below the glidepath. Both in-duct 

sorbent injection and 1.0 percent sulfur 

fuel oil achieve approximately the same 

amount of SO2 emissions reductions 

(769 tpy for sorbent injection and 731 

tpy for 1.0 percent sulfur fuel oil) from 

the current emissions level of 1,099 tpy 

SO2. Implementation of the more cost 

effective of these two options would 

reduce SO2 emissions to 368 tons of SO2

per 12-consecutive months (i.e., 1,099 

tpy ¥ 731 tpy = 368 tpy SO2). 

Supplemental information provided 

by the facility indicated that the two 

controls deemed to be reasonable would 

control emissions from oil combustion 

but would not affect SO2 emissions from 

combustion of wood waste and TDF. 

The facility requested an allowance for 

an additional 200 tons of emissions 

based on calculations of historical 

emissions from wood waste and TDF. 

This request was also supported by the 

facility’s assertion that the sulfur 

content of locally available TDF may be 

above what has been burned 

historically. GA EPD concurred with the 

facility’s request and established an SO2

emissions limit in the facility’s title V 

permit for the power boiler of 568 tpy 

SO2 (368 + 200 = 568 tpy) for reasonable 

progress with a compliance date of 

2012. The revised permit is included in 

Appendix M of the Georgia regional 

haze submittal. 

(b). Recovery Boiler R407 (M24) 

Recovery Boiler R407 (M24) 

contributes approximately 1.3 percent to 

the total sulfate visibility impairment at 

the Wolf Island Wilderness Area. The 

2018 projected SO2 emissions are 193 

tpy. Georgia Pacific’s reasonable 

progress control analysis found 

combustion control and wet FGD to be 

the only technically feasible control 

options. The company stated that 

emissions of SO2 of 38 parts per million 

(ppm), as measured in a 2006 stack test, 

are too low of a load for effective 

operation of a FGD. Therefore, the 

company ruled out this control 

technology. 

Combustion control, the other 

technically feasible control option, is 

already included in the boiler design. 

Because this emissions unit only 

contributes to visibility impairment at 

one Class I area and has a relatively low 

2018 projected emissions level, the State 

determined that no additional controls 

are required for reasonable progress for 

the Recovery Boiler R407 at Georgia 

Pacific—Brunswick Cellulose. 

2. Georgia Pacific—Cedar Springs 

(a). Power Boiler U500 (‘‘Power Boiler 

1’’) and Power Boiler U501 (‘‘Power 

Boiler 2’’) 

Power Boilers 1 and 2 at the Georgia 

Pacific—Cedar Springs facility are two 

nearly identical power boilers. Each of 

these units contributes approximately 

1.1 percent to the total sulfate visibility 

impairment at the Saint Marks Class I 

area in Florida. The 2018 projected SO2

emissions are 1,976 tpy for each boiler. 

The reasonable progress control 

analyses for these units reviewed six 

options: (1) Wet FGD, (2) addition of 

spray towers and caustic to the existing 

venturi scrubbers, (3) adding caustic to 

the existing venturi scrubbers (resulting 

in a 79 percent SO2 reduction), (4) induct sorbent injection, (5) coal washing, 

and (6) coal switching. In addition to 

these control measures, Georgia Pacific 

submitted two variations of option 3 as 

part of their BART exemption modeling 

request that included the addition of 

lower amounts of caustic to their 

existing scrubbers (resulting in 

approximately a 68 percent and 37 

percent SO2 reduction for these two 

variations). All of the control options 

could be installed prior to 2012 except 

the wet FGD, which could be installed 

before 2013. All three of the scrubber 

options (i.e., wet FGD, adding spray 

towers and caustic to the existing 

scrubbers, and adding caustic to the 

existing venturi scrubbers) would 

generate approximately 15,000 tpy of 

solid waste. The company did not 

identify any significant energy impacts 

associated with the scrubber options. 

The remaining useful life of the unit 

extends past 2018 and past the control 

equipment amortization period. 

Out of all the control options 

considered, adding caustic to the 

existing venturi scrubber and installing 

in-duct sorbent injection were 

considered reasonably cost effective. 

The costs were $1,675/ton SO2 and 

$849.2 MM/Mm-1 at the Saint Marks 

Class I area for adding caustic to the 

scrubber, and $1,663/ton SO2 and 

$843.2 MM/Mm-1 at the Saint Marks 

area for in-duct sorbent injection. These 

figures were considered cost effective 

even with a relatively low visibility 

impact on only one Class I area because 

the Saint Marks area is not clearly at or 

below the uniform rate of progress. 

Since the company submitted control 

options for three different levels of 

caustic use (resulting in 79 percent, 68 

percent, and 37 percent SO2 reduction), 

GA EPD analyzed the information to 

determine which level of caustic use 

was considered reasonable. In 

comparison, in-duct sorbent injection 

achieves approximately 70 percent SO2

reduction, which is within the range of 

control efficiencies for caustic 

scrubbing. GA EPD concluded that a 70 

percent SO2 reduction was reasonable 

for this unit. As part of Georgia Pacific’s 

BART exemption modeling, the 

company proposed SO2 emissions limits 

to avoid being subject to BART of 135 

pounds of SO2 per hour (lb SO2/hr) for 

each power boiler, along with additional 

SO2 limits on Recovery Boiler R402 

(‘‘Recovery Boiler 3’’) as discussed 

below. The State agreed with this limit 

of 135 lb SO2/hr, which would result in 

maximum annual emissions of 591 tpy 

of SO2 (a 70 percent reduction from 

current emissions), and determined that 

this limit satisfies reasonable progress. 

The actual annual reduction is expected 

to be even higher since the power 

boilers are not anticipated to emit SO2

at the maximum allowable level for an 

entire year. A copy of the revised title 

V permit is included in Appendix M of 

the Georgia regional haze SIP submittal. 

(b). Recovery Boiler 3 

This unit contributes approximately 

0.8 percent to the sulfate visibility 

impairment at the Saint Marks Class I 

area. The 2018 projected SO2 emissions 

are 1,726 tpy. However, the State notes 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

11466 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 38 / Monday, February 27, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

that Georgia Pacific’s 2006 and 2007 

SO2 emissions were significantly lower 

than this 2018 projected SO2 emissions 

level at 462 and 741 tpy SO2, 

respectively. The facility accepted a 

limit of 350 ppm SO2 on this unit when 

firing black liquor solids to avoid being 

subject to BART. 

The reasonable progress control 

analyses reviewed three additional 

options: (1) Switching from No. 6 

residual fuel oil (1.8 percent sulfur) to 

No. 2 distillate fuel oil (0.5 percent 

sulfur); (2) switching to lower sulfur No. 

6 residual fuel oil (1.0 percent sulfur); 

and (3) the installation of a new 

concentrator and new multi-level air 

system. The company did not provide 

any indications that any of the control 

options could not be installed prior to 

2012. No negative energy impacts or 

non-air quality environmental impacts 

were identified by the company. 

Remaining useful life of the unit 

extends past 2018 and past the control 

equipment amortization periods. 

Of the control options considered, 

none were considered reasonable 

because their implementation would 

have a visibility impact of less than 0.01 

inverse megameter (Mm-1) on a single 

Class I area. Therefore, no additional 

controls were required for reasonable 

progress for Recovery Boiler 3 at the 

Georgia Pacific—Cedar Springs facility. 

3. Georgia Pacific—Savannah River 

Mill, Boilers B001, B002, and B003 

Boilers B001, B002, and B003 at the 

Georgia Pacific—Savannah River Mill 

facility are three relatively similar 

boilers, with B002 and B003 being 

almost identical. The emissions units 

exceed Georgia’s minimum threshold 

for reasonable progress evaluation at 

one Class I area (approximately 1.1 

percent, 0.9 percent, and 0.8 percent of 

the total sulfate visibility impairment at 

the Wolf Island Wilderness Area for 

B001, B002, and B003, respectively). 

The 2018 projected SO2 emissions for 

B001, B002, and B003 are 1,659 tpy, 

1,195 tpy, and 1,190 tpy, respectively. 

All three of these boilers are relatively 

well controlled, re-circulating fluidized 

bed boilers with limestone injection in 

the combustion chamber. B001 

currently achieves approximately 87 

percent SO2 removal and Boilers B002 

and B003 achieve approximately 90 

percent SO2 removal. 

The reasonable progress control 

analyses reviewed wet FGD, circulating 

fluidized bed scrubber, switching from 

petroleum coke to coal, increased 

limestone injection, and rotating 

opposed fire air. Of all the proposed 

changes, only increased limestone 

injection could occur prior to 2012. All 

other control measures could not be 

installed until after 2012, although 

estimated control dates were not 

provided. Wet FGD controls would 

result in increased water use and 

wastewater discharges. No significant 

energy impacts were identified by the 

company. Remaining useful life of the 

emissions units extended past 2018 and 

past the control equipment amortization 

periods. Increased limestone injection 

would result in increased solid waste 

generation. Georgia Pacific conducted 

trial operations with increased 

limestone injection rates and found that 

SO2 removal could only be increased by 

an additional two percent (from 87 

percent to 89 percent for B001 and from 

90 percent to 92 percent for B002 and 

B003). Revised cost estimates were also 

derived from the trial operations. 

Of the control options considered, 

none were considered reasonable given 

their low control efficiencies and a 

visibility impact of less than 0.01 Mm1 on a single Class I area that would 

result from their implementation. 

Therefore, no additional controls were 

required for reasonable progress. 

4. Georgia Power—Plant Kraft, SGs 1, 2, 

and 3 

Emissions units SG 1, 2, and 3 at 

Georgia Power—Plant Kraft are three 

coal-fired steam generating units (i.e., 

boilers) rated at 50, 54, and 104 MW, 

respectively. Units 1 and 2 each 

contribute to the total sulfate visibility 

impairment at the Wolf Island Class I 

area by approximately 0.5 percent. Unit 

3 was initially determined to contribute 

to the total sulfate visibility impairment 

at three Class I areas (approximately 3.3 

percent at Wolf Island, 0.9 percent at 

Okefenokee, and 0.8 percent at Cape 

Romain). However, with projected 

reductions in SO2 emissions by 2018, 

the visibility impacts on Okefenokee 

and Cape Romain Class I areas from 

Units 1, 2, and 3 are expected to drop 

below Georgia’s minimum threshold for 

reasonable progress evaluation, and the 

visibility impact at Wolf Island should 

drop below two percent. The 2018 

projected SO2 emissions for Units 1, 2, 

and 3 were initially estimated by 

VISTAS at 691 tpy, 704 tpy, and 4,474 

tpy, respectively. As part of the 

supporting documentation for the 

reasonable progress control analyses, 

Georgia Power provided projected heat 

input through 2018 for these units, 

which indicates that SO2 emissions for 

Units 1, 2, and 3 will be 632 tpy, 889 

tpy, and 2,455 tpy, respectively. While 

the heat inputs provided by Georgia 

Power for Units 1 and 2 are similar to 

the VISTAS 2018 projections, Georgia 

Power’s projection for Unit 3 represents 

a 45 percent reduction in heat input and 

SO2 emissions from the VISTAS 

projections. This was explained by 

Georgia Power as the result of additional 

capacity coming on-line elsewhere 

between 2010 and 2017. The reduction 

in heat input for Plant Kraft is expected 

to occur around 2015. GA EPD utilized 

these revised heat inputs in conducting 

the reasonable progress control 

analyses, and GA EPD plans to verify 

the heat input reduction during 

development of the next regional haze 

SIP (due in 2018). 

The following control measures were 

analyzed for the four statutory factors 

for all three units: Wet FGD, coal 

switching (i.e., using a coal with a lower 

sulfur content), and coal washing (i.e., 

mechanically removing pyritic sulfur 

from powdered coal by a flotation 

process, which does not separate 

organic sulfur from the coal). Wet FGD 

could not be installed until 2016 

because of required control device 

installations scheduled up until 2015 in 

Georgia Power’s system. The company 

did not address the implementation 

time for the other control options, so GA 

EPD assumed the controls could be 

implemented by January 1, 2012. All 

three control options would require 

additional energy usage. Wet FGD and 

coal washing would result in increased 

water usage and wastewater discharges 

as well as additional solid waste 

generation. The remaining useful life of 

the units extends past 2018 and past the 

control equipment amortization periods. 

The cost effectiveness of wet FGD and 

coal switching were $3,216 to $8,161/ 

ton SO2 and $56.9 MM to $144.5 MM/ 

Mm-1 for wet FGD and $4,041 to 

$4,306/ton SO2 and $71.5 MM/Mm-1 for 

coal switching. Coal washing cost 

effectiveness was $1,839 to $1,847/ton 

SO2 and $32.5 to $32.7 MM/Mm-1; the 

control efficiency is six percent. 

Regarding non-air environmental 

impacts, the company indicated that 

coal washing could possibly reduce 

boiler efficiency, would use up to 7,500 

gallons (at Unit 3) per day of water, 

would result in acidic wastewater 

requiring treatment, and would result in 

coal refuse in the amount of 

approximately five percent of the total 

coal consumption. Emissions reductions 

from these control options are projected 

to achieve very little visibility 

improvement at the Wolf Island 

Wilderness Area. 

Based on the control efficiency of coal 

washing, the negative non-air 

environmental impacts, and the 

visibility impact of less than 0.01 Mm1, the State determined that this control 

option is not reasonable. The State 

eliminated coal switching and FGD from 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 38 / Monday, February 27, 2012 / Proposed Rules 11467 

consideration due to the cost 

effectiveness considerations. Based on 

the above considerations, no additional 

controls were required for any of the 

Georgia Power—Plant Kraft units. 

5. Georgia Power—Plant McIntosh, SG 1 

Emissions unit SG 1 at Georgia 

Power—Plant McIntosh is a coal-fired 

steam generating unit rated at 178 MW. 

The 2018 projected SO2 emissions were 

initially estimated by VISTAS at 7,015 

tpy. As part of the supporting 

documentation for the reasonable 

progress control analyses, Georgia 

Power provided projected heat input 

through 2018 for this unit. Those 

projections indicate that SO2 emissions 

will drop to 1,860 tpy by 2018. Georgia 

Power’s projection represents a 73 

percent reduction in heat input and SO2

emissions. This was explained by 

Georgia Power as a result of additional 

capacity coming on line elsewhere 

between 2010 and 2017. The State 

initially determined that this unit 

impacts visibility at five Class I areas 

(4.1 percent at Wolf Island, 1.2 percent 

at Okefenokee, 0.6 percent at Saint 

Marks, 1.5 percent at Cape Romain, and 

0.7 percent at Swanquarter). However, 

with the projected reduction in SO2

emissions by 2018, the visibility 

impacts on all of these areas except 

Wolf Island are expected to drop below 

Georgia’s 0.5 percent evaluation 

threshold, and the impact at Wolf Island 

is expected to drop to approximately 

one percent. The reduction in heat input 

for Plant McIntosh is to occur between 

around 2011 and 2016. GA EPD utilized 

this revised SO2 emission rate in 

conducting the reasonable progress 

control analyses. GA EPD plans to verify 

the heat input reduction during 

development of the next regional haze 

SIP. 

Georgia Power analyzed the following 

control measures: Wet FGD, coal 

switching, and coal washing. Wet FGD 

could not be installed until 2016 

because required control device 

installations are scheduled up until 

2015 in Georgia Power’s system. The 

company did not address the time 

necessary for compliance for the other 

control options so GA EPD assumed the 

controls could be implemented by 

January 1, 2012. All three control 

options would require additional energy 

usage. Wet FGD and coal washing 

would result in increased water usage 

and wastewater discharges as well as 

additional solid waste generation. The 

remaining useful life of the units 

extends past 2018 and past the control 

equipment amortization periods. The 

cost effectiveness of all the control 

operations is $7,131/ton SO2 and $118.5 

MM/Mm-1 for wet FGD, $4,306/ton SO2

and $71.5 MM/Mm-1 for coal switching, 

and $5,334/ton SO2 and $91.9 MM/Mm1 for coal washing. Based on these 

factors, GA EPD required no additional 

controls for SG 1 at Georgia Power’s 

Plant McIntosh. 

6. Georgia Power—Plant Mitchell, SG 3 

SG 3 at Georgia Power’s Plant 

Mitchell is a coal-fired steam-generating 

unit rated at 163 MW and is the only 

remaining operational boiler at Plant 

Mitchell. The 2018 projected SO2

emissions were initially estimated by 

VISTAS at 4,930 tpy. As part of the 

supporting documentation for the 

reasonable progress control analyses, 

Georgia Power provided projected heat 

input through 2018 for this unit. Those 

projections indicate that SO2 emissions 

will drop to 1,189 tpy by 2018. The 

State initially determined this unit to 

impact the total sulfate visibility 

impairment at two Class I areas at 

approximately 0.8 percent at the 

Okefenokee Wilderness Area and 

approximately 2.7 percent at the Saint 

Marks Class I area in Florida. However, 

with the projected reduction in SO2

emissions by 2018, the visibility impact 

at Okefenokee is expected to drop below 

Georgia’s 0.5 percent reasonable 

progress evaluation threshold and the 

impact on Saint Marks is predicted to 

drop to below one percent. Georgia 

Power’s projection represents a 76 

percent reduction in heat input and SO2

emissions. This was explained by 

Georgia Power as a result of additional 

capacity coming online elsewhere else 

starting in 2010. The reduction in heat 

input for Plant Mitchell is to occur 

between around 2008 and 2010. GA EPD 

utilized this revised SO2 emissions rate 

in conducting the reasonable progress 

control analyses. GA EPD plans to verify 

the heat input reduction during the 

regional haze periodic progress review 

described in section IV.G of this action. 

Georgia Power analyzed wet FGD and 

coal switching as possible control 

measures at SG 3. Wet FGD could not 

be installed until 2016 because required 

control device installations are 

scheduled up until 2015 in Georgia 

Power’s system. The company did not 

address the time necessary for 

compliance for coal switching so GA 

EPD assumed this control could be 

implemented by January 1, 2012. Both 

control options would require 

additional energy usage. Georgia Power 

did not indicate any additional water 

use, wastewater discharge, or solid 

waste generation issues for any of the 

control options. The remaining useful 

life of the units extends past 2018 and 

past the control equipment amortization 

periods. The cost effectiveness for wet 

FGD was $9,119/ton SO2 and $148.5 

MM/Mm-1, and the cost effectiveness 

for coal switching was $2,347/ton SO2

and $38.2 MM/Mm-1; the control 

efficiency was at 43 percent. Based on 

these factors, including the projected 

significant utilization drop within the 

next few years, Georgia required no 

additional controls for SG 3 at Georgia 

Power—Plant Mitchell. 

7. International Paper—Savannah Mill, 

Power Boiler 13 

International Paper’s Savannah Mill 

Power Boiler 13 is a 1,280 MMBtu/hr 

coal, oil, and wood waste-fired boiler. 

The unit also combusts both lowvolume high-concentration (LVHC) and 

high-volume low-concentration (HVLC) 

non-condensable gases from the pulping 

process as well as stripper off-gas (SOG) 

from the stripper used to control 

hazardous air pollutant (HAP) emissions 

from wastewater streams. The 2018 

projected SO2 emissions are 8,578 tpy 

with approximately 1,944 tpy of this 

amount coming from the combustion of 

LVHC, HVLC, and SOG. The State 

identified this unit as significantly 

contributing to sulfate visibility 

impairment at five Class I areas 

(approximately 6.4 percent at Wolf 

Island, 1.7 percent at Okefenokee, 0.7 

percent at the Saint Marks area in 

Florida, 1.6 percent at the Cape Romain 

area in South Carolina, and 0.9 percent 

at the Swanquarter area in North 

Carolina). The State noted in its SIP that 

this is the highest number of Class I 

areas significantly impacted by any 

single emissions unit of all those 

reviewed by Georgia. 

The reasonable progress control 

analysis reviewed the following control 

options: (1) Wet FGD (packed tower), (2) 

FGD (wet limestone spray tower), (3) 

semi-dry lime spray tower, (4) fuel 

switching to natural gas, (5) dry sorbent 

injection, and (6) a stand-alone 

regenerative thermal oxidizer (RTO) 

with SO2 scrubbing for the control of 

LVHC, HVLC, and SOG. The RTO 

control option was presented as three 

different options for LVHC, HVLC, and 

SOG combustion. International Paper 

also suggested an SO2 reduction of 2,000 

tpy (a reduction in the SO2 emissions 

limit from 8,758 tpy to 6,758 tpy) as a 

control option that would provide 

maximum flexibility for compliance. 

Except for the 2,000 tpy SO2 reduction 

alternative, all of these control options 

could be implemented by 2012. 

International Paper requested a 2016 

compliance date for the 2,000 tpy SO2

reduction alternative in order for the 

company to take into consideration any 

reductions that will occur as a result of 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

11468 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 38 / Monday, February 27, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

the Industrial Boiler MACT and the 

uncertainty surrounding the final 

requirements of that standard. 

The remaining useful life of the unit 

extends past 2018 and past the control 

equipment amortization period. The wet 

FGD and all three RTO sub-options 

increased water usage and wastewater 

discharge. GA EPD evaluated the 

potential water usage and wastewater 

discharges associated with these 

controls. One additional consideration 

was to ensure that there would be no 

additional dissolved oxygen load on the 

Savannah River due to a problem with 

the dissolved oxygen load in the 

Savannah River. Because of strict 

limitations on any additional dissolved 

oxygen load to the river, any projects 

that could possibly increase dissolved 

oxygen load were not considered 

reasonable at this time. Based on the 

type of chemicals that would be 

associated with effluent from a wet FGD 

(packed tower option) and the semi-dry 

lime spray tower, GA EPD eliminated 

these options from further consideration 

because they could potentially increase 

dissolved oxygen load. FGD (wet 

limestone spray tower), semi-dry lime 

spray tower, and dry sorbent injection 

also resulted in additional solid waste 

generation. There were energy impacts 

associated with all but the fuel 

switching option. These energy costs 

were factored into the overall control 

cost effectiveness. 

Regarding the company’s cost 

effectiveness estimates, GA EPD’s 

review indicated that the cost estimates 

for a packed tower wet FGD and wet 

FGD limestone spray tower were higher 

than expected based on the following 

factors: The costs per actual cubic feet 

per minute are about four times higher 

than other units of comparable size, the 

company’s estimate is three to eight 

times higher than results from EPA cost 

estimation software, and International 

Paper used a conservative retrofit factor 

with a cost estimation model not 

recommended by EPA. In a letter to 

International Paper dated December 27, 

2007, GA EPD requested site-specific 

cost analyses for these control options. 

In that letter, GA EPD stated that if sitespecific estimates were not provided, 

control option recommendations would 

be made with the understanding that the 

cost estimates may be overstated. In 

response, International Paper chose not 

to provide site-specific cost estimates as 

requested. GA EPD completed its 

evaluations and determined that the 

cost effectiveness of the FGD—wet 

limestone spray tower ($4,391/ton SO2) 

was not cost effective in this case. Wet 

FGD—packed tower was not considered 

reasonable because of the possible 

impact on dissolved oxygen load to the 

Savannah River. Fuel switching to 

natural gas ($9,506/ton SO2), and dry 

sorbent injection ($5,223/ton SO2) were 

determined not to be reasonable because 

of cost effectiveness. 

Another cost effective control option 

that GA EPD evaluated is an emissions 

limit of 6,758 tpy SO2 proposed by the 

company. The 6,758 tpy SO2 limit was 

determined by reducing the projected 

2018 SO2 emissions level of 8,758 tpy 

SO2 by 2,000 tons. GA EPD reviewed 

recent SO2 emissions data and 

determined that the projected 8,758 tpy 

SO2 level is reasonable. No specific 

emissions reduction methodologies 

were associated with this control 

option. However, certain control 

methodologies are under consideration. 

A compliance date of 2016 was 

proposed in order to take into 

consideration any controls that will be 

required under EPA’s Industrial Boiler 

MACT currently under development 

(discussed in section IV.C.1). A 2016 

compliance date should provide 

sufficient time for the MACT to be 

proposed and promulgated, provide the 

three years required for compliance 

with the standard, and provide time to 

determine an appropriate method for 

complying with the 6,758 tpy SO2

emissions limit for Power Boiler 13 

following compliance with this MACT 

standard. 

Of the control options considered, GA 

EPD determined that the 2,000 tpy SO2

reduction alternative, which results in 

an emissions limit of 6,758 tpy SO2, was 

reasonably cost effective. This limit will 

include SO2 emissions resulting from 

the combustion of LVHC, HVLC, and 

SOG, whether they are combusted in 

Power Boiler 13 or some other 

combustion device. In order to provide 

flexibility for the facility, an emissions 

limit of 6,578 tons SO2/12-consecutive 

months is required for Power Boiler 13 

as a requirement for reasonable progress 

with a compliance date of 2016. A copy 

of the revised title V permit was 

included in Appendix M of the Georgia 

regional haze submittal. 

8. Temple-Inland Rome Linerboard, 

Power Boiler 4 

Temple-Inland Rome Linerboard’s 

Power Boiler 4 is a 565 MMBtu/hr coaland oil-fired boiler. The State identified 

this unit as significantly contributing to 

the total sulfate visibility impairment at 

two Class I areas (4.4 percent at Cohutta 

and 1.0 percent at Joyce Kilmer/ 

Slickrock Wilderness Area in North 

Carolina/Tennessee). 

The company’s reasonable progress 

control analysis reviewed: (a) Two wet 

FGD configurations (magnesium 

enhanced lime) and limestone forced 

oxidation; (b) dry FGD (lime absorbent); 

(c) fuel switching; and (d) dry sorbent 

injection. All of these control options 

could be implemented by 2012. The 

remaining useful life of the power boiler 

extends past 2018 and past the control 

equipment amortization period. 

The wet FGD options had an impact 

on water usage. GA EPD notes that the 

mill had sufficient capacity within their 

currently permitted water withdrawal 

permit to adequately handle the 

increased water use associated with wet 

FGD. All of the control options resulted 

in additional solid waste generation, 

and there were energy impacts 

associated with all of the control 

options. These energy costs were 

factored into the overall control cost 

effectiveness. 

The State determined that none of the 

control options considered for Power 

Boiler 4 are reasonable at this time. A 

key factor in determining what was 

considered ‘‘reasonable’’ for reasonable 

progress requirements for this source is 

that the affected Class I areas impacted 

by this unit are predicted to meet the 

uniform rate of progress in 2018 with 

controls that are already required. This 

determination may be revisited at the 

periodic SIP progress review or when 

determining future RPGs for subsequent 

implementation periods. 

9. EPA Assessment 

As noted in EPA’s Reasonable 

Progress Guidance, the states have wide 

latitude to determine appropriate 

additional control requirements for 

ensuring reasonable progress, and there 

are many ways for a state to approach 

identification of additional reasonable 

measures. States must consider the four 

statutory factors, at a minimum, in 

determining reasonable progress, but 

states have flexibility in how to take 

these factors into consideration. 

GA EPD applied the methodology 

developed by VISTAS for identifying 

appropriate sources to be considered for 

additional controls under reasonable 

progress for the implementation period 

addressed by this SIP, which ends in 

2018. Using this methodology, GA EPD 

first identified those emissions and 

emissions units most likely to have an 

impact on visibility in the State’s and 

neighboring Class I areas. Units with 

emissions of SO2 with a relative 

contribution to total sulfate visibility 

impairment of at least 0.5 percent 

contribution at any Class I area were 

then subject to a reasonable progress 

control analysis, except for utilities 

subject to Georgia’s state rule 391–3–1– 

.02(13), ‘‘Clean Air Interstate Rule SO2

Annual Trading Program,’’ that only 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 38 / Monday, February 27, 2012 / Proposed Rules 11469 

18EPA’s Reasonable Progress Guidance, pages 

4.2–4.3. 

impacted visibility at Class I areas 

projected to be below the uniform rate 

of progress line. 

Having reviewed GA EPD’s 

methodology and analyses presented in 

the SIP materials prepared by GA EPD, 

EPA is proposing to approve Georgia’s 

reasonable progress determinations. 

EPA preliminarily agrees with the 

State’s approach of identifying the key 

pollutants contributing to visibility 

impairment at its Class I areas, and 

proposes to consider the State’s 

methodology to identify sources of SO2

most likely to have an impact on 

visibility on any Class I area to be an 

appropriate methodology for narrowing 

the scope of the State’s analysis. In 

general, EPA also proposes to find 

Georgia’s evaluation of the four 

statutory factors for reasonable progress 

to be reasonable and believes that the 

Georgia regional haze SIP ensures 

reasonable progress. EPA also proposes 

that, given the emissions reductions 

resulting from CAIR, Georgia’s BART 

determinations, the measures in nearby 

states, and the visibility improvements 

projected for the affected Class I areas, 

these emissions reductions are in excess 

of that needed to be on the glidepath for 

the Cohutta Wilderness Area, and are 

close to the glidepaths for the Wolf 

Island and Okefenokee Wilderness 

Areas. 

In addition, EPA proposes to find that 

Georgia fully evaluated all control 

technologies available at the time of its 

analysis and applicable to these 

facilities. EPA also proposes to find that 

Georgia consistently applied its criteria 

for reasonable compliance costs, and 

where it diverged, the State included 

justification for the other factors 

influencing the control determination. 

B. Facilities With Emissions Unit(s) Not 

Subject to Reasonable Progress Analysis 

1. EGUs Subject to CAIR 

In concert with VISTAS, GA EPD 

applied its reasonable progress 

methodology and identified 20 Georgia 

Power Company emissions units at 

seven facilities that contributed greater 

than 0.5 percent of the total sulfate 

visibility impairment at a Class I area: 

(1) Plant Bowen SG 01, SG 02, SG 03, 

SG 04; (2) Plant Hammond SG 04; (3) 

Plant Mitchell SG 03; (4) Plant Scherer 

SG 01, SG 02, SG 03, SG 04; (5) Plant 

Yates SG 02, SG 03, SG 04, SG 05, SG 

06, SG 07; (6) Plant Kraft SG 01, SG 02, 

SG 03; and (7) Plant McIntosh SG 01. 

Georgia, as part of its long-term 

reasonable progress analysis to consider 

potential sources contributing to 

visibility impairment, examined other 

CAA requirements such as CAIR and 

Georgia state rule 391–3–1–.02(13). 

Under Georgia’s rule, SO2 emissions 

from Georgia EGUs will be capped at 

149,140 tons in 2015, a 70 percent 

reduction from 2002 actual emissions. 

In addition, a 70 percent reduction of 

SO2 emissions is expected during this 

time period across all CAIR-affected 

EGUs in 28 eastern states due to CAIR. 

Since EGUs will be reducing their SO2

emissions by approximately 70 percent 

through these programs and based on 

detailed analyses in EPA’s May 2, 2005, 

CAIR, GA EPD concluded that 

additional EGU control during this time 

period is not reasonable for sources that 

significantly contribute to visibility 

impairment at Class I areas that are 

clearly projected to meet or exceed the 

uniform rate of progress in 2018. 

However, for sources that significantly 

contribute to visibility impairment at 

Class I areas not clearly meeting the 

uniform rate of progress (Okefenokee 

and Wolf Island), GA EPD considered 

additional controls at CAIR-affected 

units. The Cohutta Class I area is 

expected, based on modeling, to clearly 

meet/exceed the glidepath in 2018. GA 

EPD has therefore concluded that CAIR 

constitutes reasonable measures for 

Georgia EGUs that significantly impact 

visibility in Cohutta during this first 

assessment period (between baseline 

and 2018). Thus, GA EPD concluded 

that no additional controls beyond CAIR 

are reasonable for the remaining four 

identified Georgia Power facilities 

(Plants Bowen, Hammond, Scherer, and 

Yates) for SO2 for the first 

implementation period ending in 2018. 

Because the Okefenokee, Wolf Island, 

and Saint Marks Class I areas are not 

expected to clearly meet or exceed the 

glidepath in 2018, controls required 

under CAIR have not been deemed to 

constitute reasonable measures for 

Georgia EGUs that significantly impact 

visibility in these Class I areas (Georgia 

Power’s Plants Mitchell, Kraft and 

MacIntosh). 

2. Non-EGUs Subject to BART 

One of the emissions units considered 

for reasonable progress control, 

Interstate Paper’s Power Boiler F1, is 

subject to BART and subsequently was 

evaluated for BART controls. GA EPD 

concluded that BART for the power 

boiler at Interstate Paper is a 

requirement to burn natural gas only, 

other than during curtailment periods 

(i.e., during reduction or discontinuance 

of supply in natural gas). GA EPD 

believes that, for this implementation 

period, the application of BART 

constitutes reasonable progress for this 

unit, and thus, is not requiring any 

additional controls for reasonable 

progress. As discussed in EPA’s 

Reasonable Progress Guidance, since the 

BART analysis is based, in part, on an 

assessment of many of the same factors 

that must be addressed in establishing 

the RPG, EPA believes it is reasonable 

to conclude that any control 

requirements imposed in the BART 

determination also satisfy the RPGrelated requirements for source review 

in the first implementation period.18

Thus, EPA proposes to agree with the 

State’s conclusions that the BART 

control evaluations satisfy reasonable 

progress for the first implementation 

period for Interstate Paper—Power 

Boiler F1. 

3. Other Emissions Units Not Subject to 

Preparing a Reasonable Progress Control 

Analysis 

GA EPD requested reasonable 

progress control analyses from all 

facilities identified as potentially 

contributing at least 0.5 percent of the 

total sulfate visibility impairment at a 

Class I area. In response to this request, 

additional information regarding 

projected 2018 actual emissions was 

received from a number of sources. As 

a result of this revised information, 

seven units at four facilities (Miller 

Brewing, Boilers B001, B002; Mount 

Vernon Mills, Boilers E U 03, E U 04; 

Savannah Sugar Refinery, Boiler U161; 

and Mohawk Industries, Boilers BL06, 

BL07) were removed from consideration 

for additional controls based on an 

analysis that the emissions units would 

not contribute 0.5 percent or greater of 

the total sulfate visibility impairment at 

any Class I area in 2018. 

Due to resource limitations and/or 

uncertainty regarding future operations, 

the following three facilities with six 

emissions units requested emissions 

limits on their affected units in lieu of 

performing reasonable progress control 

analyses: (1) Rayonier Performance 

Fibers, Power Boilers 2 and 3, Recovery 

Furnaces 1 and 4; (2) Southern States 

Phosphate and Fertilizer, Sulfuric Acid 

Plant 2; and (3) Packaging Corporation 

of America, C E Boiler. The required 

emissions limits reduced the sulfate 

contributions of these units below 0.5 

percent of the total sulfate visibility 

impact on any affected Class I areas. 

6. BART 

BART is an element of Georgia’s LTS 

for the first implementation period. The 

BART evaluation process consists of 

three components: (a) An identification 

of all the BART-eligible sources, (b) an 

assessment of whether the BARTmstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

11470 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 38 / Monday, February 27, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

19Note that EPA’s reference to CALPUFF 

encompasses the entire CALPUFF modeling system, 

which includes the CALMET, CALPUFF, and 

CALPOST models and other pre and post 

processors. The different versions of CALPUFF 

have corresponding versions of CALMET, 

CALPOST, etc. which may not be compatible with 

previous versions (e.g., the output from a newer 

version of CALMET may not be compatible with an 

older version of CALPUFF). The different versions 

of the CALPUFF modeling system are available 

from the model developer on the following Web 

site: http://www.src.com/verio/download/ 

download.htm. 

eligible sources are subject to BART and 

(c) a determination of the BART 

controls. These components, as 

addressed by GA EPD, and the State’s 

findings, are discussed as follows. 

A. BART-Eligible Sources 

The first phase of a BART evaluation 

is to identify all the BART-eligible 

sources within the state’s boundaries. 

GA EPD identified the BART-eligible 

sources in Georgia by utilizing the three 

eligibility criteria in the BART 

Guidelines (70 FR 39158) and EPA’s 

regulations (40 CFR 51.301): (1) One or 

more emissions units at the facility fit 

within one of the 26 categories listed in 

the BART Guidelines; (2) the emissions 

units were not in operation prior to 

August 7, 1962, and were in existence 

on August 7, 1977; and (3) these units 

have the potential to emit 250 tons or 

more per year of any visibility-impairing 

pollutant. 

The BART Guidelines also direct 

states to address SO2, NOX, and direct 

PM (including both PM10 and PM2.5) 

emissions as visibility-impairment 

pollutants and to exercise judgment in 

determining whether VOC or ammonia 

emissions from a source impair 

visibility in a Class I area. See 70 FR 

39160. VISTAS modeling demonstrated 

that VOC from anthropogenic sources 

and ammonia from point sources, 

except for potentially one ammonia 

source, are not significant visibilityimpairing pollutants in Georgia, as 

discussed in section IV.C.3 of this 

action. Based on the VISTAS modeling, 

GA EPD determined that ammonia 

emissions from the State’s point sources 

are not anticipated to cause or 

contribute significantly to any 

impairment of visibility in Class I areas 

and should be exempt for BART 

purposes. The only ammonia source in 

Georgia that was identified by VISTAS 

as a possible contributor to visibility 

impairment, PCS Nitrogen, adequately 

addressed its contribution in its BART 

exemption modeling analysis. 

B. BART-Subject Sources 

The second phase of the BART 

evaluation is to identify those BARTeligible sources that may reasonably be 

anticipated to cause or contribute to 

visibility impairment at any Class I area, 

i.e., those sources that are subject to 

BART. The BART Guidelines allow 

states to consider exempting some 

BART-eligible sources from further 

BART review because they may not 

reasonably be anticipated to cause or 

contribute to any visibility impairment 

in a Class I area. Consistent with the 

BART Guidelines, Georgia required each 

of its BART-eligible sources to develop 

and submit dispersion modeling to 

assess the extent of their contribution to 

visibility impairment at Class I areas in 

surrounding states. 

1. Modeling Methodology 

The BART Guidelines allow states to 

use the CALPUFF 19 modeling system 

(CALPUFF) or another appropriate 

model to predict the visibility impacts 

from a single source on a Class I area, 

and therefore, to determine whether an 

individual source is anticipated to cause 

or contribute to impairment of visibility 

in Class I areas, i.e., ‘‘is subject to 

BART.’’ The Guidelines state that EPA 

believes that CALPUFF is the best 

regulatory modeling application 

currently available for predicting a 

single source’s contribution to visibility 

impairment (70 FR 39162). Georgia, in 

coordination with VISTAS, used the 

CALPUFF modeling system to 

determine whether individual sources 

in the State are subject to BART. 

The BART Guidelines also 

recommend that states develop a 

modeling protocol for making 

individual source attributions and 

suggest that states may want to consult 

with EPA and their RPO to address any 

issues prior to modeling. The VISTAS 

states, including Georgia, developed a 

‘‘Protocol for the Application of 

CALPUFF for BART Analyses.’’ 

Stakeholders, including EPA, FLMs, 

industrial sources, trade groups, and 

other interested parties, actively 

participated in the development and 

review of the VISTAS protocol. 

VISTAS developed a post-processing 

approach to use the new IMPROVE 

equation with the CALPUFF model 

results so that the BART analyses could 

consider the old and new IMPROVE 

equations. GA EPD sent a letter and 

supplemental email to EPA justifying 

the need for this post-processing 

approach, and the EPA Region 4 

Regional Administrator sent the State a 

letter of approval dated September 11, 

2008. Georgia’s justification included a 

method to process the CALPUFF output 

and a rationale on the benefits of using 

the new IMPROVE equation. The State’s 

description of the new post-processing 

methodology and the State and Region 

4 letters are located in Appendices H.9a, 

H.9b, and H.9c, respectively, of the 

Georgia regional haze SIP submittal and 

can be accessed at www.regulations.gov 

using Docket ID No. EPA–R04–OAR– 

2010–0936. 

2. Contribution Threshold 

For states using modeling to 

determine the applicability of BART to 

single sources, the BART Guidelines 

note that the first step is to set a 

contribution threshold to assess whether 

the impact of a single source is 

sufficient to cause or contribute to 

visibility impairment at a Class I area. 

The BART Guidelines state that ‘‘[a] 

single source that is responsible for a 1.0 

deciview change or more should be 

considered to ‘cause’ visibility 

impairment.’’ The BART Guidelines 

also state that ‘‘the appropriate 

threshold for determining whether a 

source ‘contributes to visibility 

impairment’ may reasonably differ 

across states,’’ but, ‘‘[a]s a general 

matter, any threshold that you use for 

determining whether a source 

‘contributes’ to visibility impairment 

should not be higher than 0.5 

deciviews.’’ The Guidelines affirm that 

states are free to use a lower threshold 

if they conclude that the location of a 

large number of BART-eligible sources 

in proximity of a Class I area justifies 

this approach. 

Georgia used a contribution threshold 

of 0.5 deciview for determining which 

sources are subject to BART and 

concluded that the threshold of 0.5 

deciview was appropriate in this 

situation. Georgia determined that, 

considering the results of the visibility 

impacts modeling conducted, a 0.5 

deciview threshold was appropriate and 

a lower threshold was not warranted for 

the following reasons. There are a 

limited number of BART-eligible 

sources in close proximity to each of the 

State’s Class I areas, and the overall 

impact of the BART-eligible sources on 

visibility in nearby Class I areas is 

relatively minimal. In addition, the 

results of the visibility impacts 

modeling demonstrated that the 

majority of the individual BART-eligible 

sources had visibility impacts well 

below 0.5 deciview. As stated in the 

BART Guidelines, where a state 

concludes that a large number of these 

BART-eligible sources within proximity 

of a Class I area justify a lower 

threshold, it may warrant establishing a 

lower contribution threshold. See 70 FR 

39161–39162 (July 6, 2005). EPA 

proposes to concur with Georgia that the 

overall impacts of these sources are not 

sufficient to warrant a lower 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 38 / Monday, February 27, 2012 / Proposed Rules 11471 

20EGUs were only evaluated for PM emissions. 

Georgia relied on CAIR to satisfy BART for SO2 and 

NOX for its EGUs in CAIR, in accordance with 40 

CFR 51.308(e)(4). Thus, SO2 and NOX were not 

analyzed. 

contribution threshold and that a 0.5 

deciview threshold was appropriate in 

this instance. 

3. Identification of Sources Subject to 

BART 

Georgia identified 24 facilities with 

BART-eligible sources. All of Georgia’s 

24 BART-eligible sources were required 

by the State to submit exemptionmodeling demonstrations. Georgia 

found that two of its BART-eligible 

sources (Interstate Paper and Georgia 

Power—Plant Bowen) had modeled 

visibility impacts of more than the 0.5 

deciview threshold for BART 

exemption. Therefore, these two 

facilities are subject to BART and 

submitted State permit applications 

including their proposed BART 

determinations. 

Of the 22 exempted BART-eligible 

sources, two (Lafarge Building Materials 

and International Paper—Savannah) 

were exempted because they met EPA’s 

model plant exemption criteria in the 

BART Guidelines (70 FR 39162–39163), 

and one, Georgia Pacific—Cedar 

Springs, was able to demonstrate 

exemption from BART by accepting SO2

emissions limits on Power Boilers 1 and 

2 (135 lb SO2/hr each) and on Recovery 

Boiler 3 (350 ppm). These limits result 

in a 0.499 deciview impact at the Saint 

Marks Class I area and a 0.306 deciview 

impact at the Okefenokee Class I area. 

The remaining 19 sources demonstrated 

that they are not subject to BART by 

modeling less than a 0.5 deciview 

visibility impact at the affected Class I 

areas. For the non-EGU BART-eligible 

sources, this modeling involved 

emissions of NOX, SO2, and PM10 as 

applicable to individual facilities. 

Ten of Georgia’s BART-eligible 

sources are facilities with EGUs. These 

units are subject to CAIR. Because 

Georgia relied on CAIR to satisfy BART 

for SO2 and NOX for its EGUs in CAIR, 

in accordance with 40 CFR 51.308(e)(4), 

Georgia’s EGUs were allowed to submit 

BART exemption modeling 

demonstrations for PM emissions only. 

All EGUs other than Georgia Power— 

Plant Bowen demonstrated that their 

PM10 emissions do not contribute to 

visibility impairment in any Class I area. 

Table 5 identifies the 24 BART-eligible 

sources located in Georgia. 

TABLE 5—GEORGIA BART-ELIGIBLE

AND SUBJECT-TO-BART SOURCES

Facilities With Unit(s) Subject to BART 

Georgia Power—Plant Bowen 

Interstate Paper, LLC 

TABLE 5—GEORGIA BART-ELIGIBLE

AND SUBJECT-TO-BART SOURCES— 

Continued 

Facilities With Unit(s) Not Subject to BART 

EGU CAIR and BART Modeling (PM only) 

Exempt Sources 20

Georgia Power—Plant Branch 

Georgia Power—Plant Hammond 

Georgia Power—Plant McDonough 

Georgia Power—Plant Mitchell 

Georgia Power—Plant Scherer 

Georgia Power—Plant Wansley 

Georgia Power—Plant Yates 

Georgia Power—Plant Kraft 

Georgia Power—Plant McIntosh 

Non-EGUs Exempt with Additional Model 

Based Emission Limits 

Georgia Pacific—Cedar Springs 

Non-EGUs Exempt using Model Plant Criteria 

Lafarge Building Materials (Blue Circle Cement—Atlanta Plant) 

International Paper—Savannah 

Non-EGU BART Modeling Exempt 

Chemical Products Corporation 

DSM Chemicals, North America 

International Paper—Augusta 

Georgia Pacific—Brunswick Cellulose 

Owens Corning 

PCA—Valdosta (Tenneco Packaging, Inc.) 

PCS Nitrogen 

Prayon, Inc. 

Rayonier (Rayonier ITT, Inc.) 

Tronox (Kerr-McGee/Kemira) 

Prior to the CAIR remand, the State’s 

reliance on CAIR to satisfy BART for 

NOX and SO2 for affected CAIR EGUs 

was fully approvable and in accordance 

with 40 CFR 51.308(e)(4). However, the 

BART assessments for CAIR EGUs for 

NOX and SO2 and other provisions in 

this SIP revision are based on CAIR. In 

a separate action, EPA has proposed a 

limited disapproval of the Georgia 

regional haze SIP because of 

deficiencies in the State’s regional haze 

SIP submittal arising from the remand 

by the D.C. Circuit to EPA of CAIR. See 

76 FR 82219. Consequently, EPA is not 

taking action in this proposed 

rulemaking to address the State’s 

reliance on CAIR to meet certain 

regional haze requirements. 

C. BART Determinations 

Two BART-eligible sources (Interstate 

Paper and Georgia Power—Plant 

Bowen) had modeled visibility impacts 

of more than 0.5 deciview and are 

therefore subject to BART. 

Consequently, they each submitted to 

the State permit applications that 

included their proposed BART 

determinations. 

In accordance with the BART 

Guidelines, to determine the level of 

control that represents BART for each 

source, the State first reviewed existing 

controls on these units to assess 

whether these constituted the best 

controls currently available, then 

identified what other technically 

feasible controls are available, and 

finally, evaluated the technically 

feasible controls using the five BART 

statutory factors. The State’s evaluations 

and conclusions, and EPA’s assessment, 

are summarized below. 

1. Georgia Power—Plant Bowen 

Georgia Power—Plant Bowen has four 

BART-eligible emissions units that 

comprise the BART-eligible source. 

These units are coal fired EGUs, 

numbers 1, 2, 3, and 4. Each of the 

EGU’s PM emissions are already 

controlled by electrostatic precipitators 

(ESPs) and wet FGD. The SO2 scrubbers 

were installed on Plant Bowen between 

2008 and 2010. Modeling results 

estimate that visibility impacts from 

Plant Bowen will exceed 0.5 deciview 

for at least one Class I area even with 

the PM emissions reductions that occur 

from scrubbing. Georgia Power 

identified the following four potential 

additional control technologies: (a) High 

voltage power conditioners (juice cans); 

(b) particle agglomerators; (c) the 

combination of juice cans and particle 

agglomerators; and (d) a wet ESP. The 

company evaluated the cost 

effectiveness, visibility impacts, and 

energy and non-air environmental 

impacts of these control options. 

GA EPD determined that no 

additional control was reasonable for 

BART for this facility. Wet ESPs are the 

only control option that resulted in a 

modeled visibility improvement greater 

than 0.01 deciviews. Wet ESPs were 

predicted to improve visibility by 

approximately 0.14 to 0.16 deciviews 

for each unit at a cost effectiveness of 

$37,107 to $47,909/ton SO2. In addition, 

the wet ESP would consume additional 

electricity and have non-air 

environmental impacts. The 

combination juice can/particle 

agglomerator option modeled a visibility 

benefit of 0.01 deciview for each unit at 

a cost effectiveness of $12,222 to 

$21,914/ton SO2. 

2. Interstate Paper—Power Boiler (F1), 

Recovery Boiler (F3), and Lime Kiln (F4) 

Interstate Paper, located in Riceboro, 

Georgia, is a paper facility owned and 

operated by Interstate Resources 

Incorporated. Interstate Paper is located 

within 100 kilometers of the Wolf Island 

and Okefenokee Wilderness Class I 

areas. Three of Interstate Paper’s units 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

11472 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 38 / Monday, February 27, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

are BART-eligible: Power Boiler (F1), 

Recovery Boiler (F3), and Lime Kiln 

(F4). 

There are no known energy and nonair quality environmental impacts 

related to BART determined controls for 

Interstate paper, LLC. The remaining 

useful life of the source is at least 10 

years. 

(a). Power Boiler (F1) 

Power Boiler (F1) at Interstate Paper 

was installed in 1968 and has a 

maximum heat input of 400 MMBtu/hr. 

It fires natural gas and No. 6 fuel oil. 

The power boiler, along with the lime 

kiln, is used as a backup control device 

for LVHC non-condensable gases (NCGs) 

generated in the pulp mill. Air 

pollutants emitted from the power 

boiler include all three BART relevant 

pollutants at the following rates: 300.49 

tpy SO2, 409.24 tpy NOX, and 19 tpy 

PM. 

GA EPD evaluated additional controls 

for NOX, SO2, and particulates. For 

NOX, selective catalytic reduction 

(SCR), low NOX burners, and low NOX

burner with flue gas recirculation were 

identified as economically feasible 

controls. However, they were not 

considered further for BART because of 

a visibility improvement of less than 

0.01 Mm-1 from NOX controls on this 

unit. An ESP and a fabric filter were 

identified as technically feasible 

controls for PM emissions reduction, 

but capital and operating costs caused 

them to be economically infeasible for 

BART. The resulting costs per ton of PM 

reduction ranged from $19,364 to 

$79,470/ton. 

For SO2, fuel switching to natural gas 

and a wet scrubber were found 

technically feasible. The cost per ton of 

SO2 emissions reductions of each 

alternative is well within the range that 

GA EPD considers economically 

feasible. Hence, both control options 

were further considered for BART 

analysis. Conversion to natural gas has 

higher control efficiency at lower cost 

than a wet scrubber. A fuel switch to 

natural gas has a PM and SO2 removal 

efficiency of more than 99 percent. The 

cost that the facility will incur for such 

a fuel switch is also relatively less than 

the addition of control equipment and, 

along with reduction in PM and SO2

emissions, NOX emission reductions 

will also be achieved. Therefore, GA 

EPD concluded that BART for the power 

boiler at Interstate Paper is a 

requirement to burn natural gas only, 

other than during curtailment periods 

(i.e., during reduction or discontinuance 

of supply in natural gas). 

(b). Recovery Boiler (F3) 

Recovery Boiler (F3) has a low odor, 

indirect contact evaporator design. The 

boiler fulfills the essential functions of 

evaporating the residual moisture from 

the black liquor solids, burning the 

organic constituents, producing steam, 

and producing sodium carbonate and 

sodium sulfides. Black liquor with more 

than 68 percent solids is fired into the 

recovery boiler where the organics from 

the black liquor are burned off in a 

reducing atmosphere, generating steam, 

molten sodium carbonate, and sodium 

sulfides. Air pollutants emitted from the 

recovery boiler include all three BART 

relevant pollutants at the following 

rates: 2.46 tpy SO2, 349.92 tpy NOX, and 

0.5 tpy PM. Emissions of the recovery 

boiler currently pass through a venturi 

scrubber. 

GA EPD evaluated additional controls 

for particulates, NOX, and SO2. No 

control technology was identified as 

being technically and economically 

feasible; therefore, GA EPD concluded 

that BART for this unit is no additional 

controls. 

(c). Lime Kiln (F4) 

The lime kiln dries and processes 

lime mud from the causticizing system 

by burning fuel oil with a sulfur content 

no greater than 2.5 percent. The lime 

kiln is permitted to burn natural gas, 

No. 6 fuel oil, or limited quantities of 

used oil. It is equipped with a venturi 

scrubber to control PM emissions. The 

lime kiln also serves as a back-up 

combustion device for LVHC NGCs 

generated in the pulp mill. Air 

pollutants emitted from the lime kiln 

include all three BART relevant 

pollutants at the following rates: 9.50 

tpy SO2, 149.16 tpy NOX, and 127.56 

tpy PM. Emissions of the lime kiln 

currently pass through a venturi 

scrubber. 

GA EPD evaluated additional controls 

for particulates, NOX, and SO2. No 

control technologies were identified as 

being technically and economically 

feasible for particulates or SO2. For 

NOX, the low-NOX burner control 

option and two selective non-catalytic 

reduction (SNCR) control options were 

considered to be economically feasible. 

However, they were not considered 

further as retrofit controls because of the 

visibility improvement of less than 0.01 

Mm-1 from NOX controls on this unit. 

GA EPD concluded that BART for 

particulates, NOX, and SO2 for this unit 

is no additional controls. 

3. EPA Assessment 

EPA proposes to approve Georgia’s 

analyses and conclusions for BART for 

the Interstate Paper and Georgia 

Power—Plant Bowen facilities because 

the analyses were conducted in a 

manner that is consistent with EPA’s 

BART Guidelines and EPA’s Air 

Pollution Control Cost Manual. In 

addition, EPA believes that the 

conclusions reflect a reasonable 

application of EPA’s guidance to these 

sources. 

4. Enforceability of BART Limits 

The required operational restrictions 

limiting the power boiler at the 

Interstate Paper facility to natural gas 

except during curtailment periods to 

meet BART were added as permit 

conditions to the facility’s title V 

operating permit. Georgia EPD included 

a copy of the permit in the SIP (see 

Appendix M as revised in GA EPD’s 

technical supplement dated November 

19, 2010). 

GA EPD also issued an operating 

permit with BART exemption limits for 

Georgia Pacific—Cedar Springs. Power 

Boilers 1 and No. 2 have limits of 135 

lbs SO2/hr each. Recovery Boiler No. 3 

has an emissions limit of 350 ppm SO2

on a dry basis corrected to eight percent 

oxygen as a 24-hour average when firing 

black liquor solids. These limits were 

added to the facility’s title V operating 

permit. A copy of the revised title V 

permit was included in Appendix M of 

the Georgia regional haze submittal. 

Recordkeeping, monitoring, and 

testing requirements were included to 

demonstrate compliance with the BART 

limits. These requirements are 

consistent with GA EPD’s Procedures 

for Testing and Monitoring Sources of 

Air Pollutants, and must meet the 

requirements of Compliance Assurance 

Monitoring (40 CFR Part 64) or Periodic 

Monitoring (40 CFR 70.6(3)(i)(B)), as 

appropriate. 

7. RPGs 

The RHR at 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1) 

requires states to establish RPGs for 

each Class I area within the state 

(expressed in deciviews) that provide 

for reasonable progress towards 

achieving natural visibility. VISTAS 

modeled visibility improvements under 

existing Federal and state regulations for 

the period 2004–2018 and additional 

control measures which the VISTAS 

states planned to implement in the first 

implementation period. At the time of 

VISTAS modeling, some of the other 

states with sources potentially 

impacting visibility at the Georgia Class 

I areas had not yet made final control 

determinations for BART and/or 

reasonable progress, and thus, these 

controls were not included in the 

modeling submitted by Georgia. Any 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 38 / Monday, February 27, 2012 / Proposed Rules 11473 

21Many of the CAIR states without Class I areas 

similarly relied on CAIR emission reductions 

within the state to address some or all of their 

contribution to visibility impairment in other states’ 

Class I areas, which the impacted Class I area 

state(s) used to set the RPGs for their Class I area(s). 

Certain surrounding non-CAIR states also relied on 

emissions reductions due to CAIR in nearby states 

to develop their regional haze SIP submittals. 

controls resulting from those 

determinations will provide additional 

emissions reductions and resulting 

visibility improvement, which give 

further assurances that Georgia will 

achieve its RPGs. This modeling 

demonstrates that the 2018 base control 

scenario provides for an improvement 

in visibility better than the uniform rate 

of progress for the Cohutta Class I area 

for the most impaired days over the 

period of the implementation plan and, 

for all three of Georgia’s areas, ensures 

no degradation in visibility for the least 

impaired days over the same period. For 

the Okefenokee and Wolf Island 

Wilderness Areas, the modeling predicts 

an improvement in visibility that is 

slightly slower than the uniform rate of 

progress by approximately 0.40 

deciview for the most impaired days 

over the period of the implementation 

plan. 

As shown in Table 6 below, Georgia’s 

RPG for the 20 percent worst days 

(22.80 deciviews in 2018) at the Cohutta 

Wilderness Area provides greater 

visibility improvement from the 

baseline of 30.25 deciviews by 2018 

than the uniform rate of progress (25.71 

deciviews in 2018). For Okefenokee and 

Wolf Island, the RPGs for the 20 percent 

worst days (23.82 deciviews in 2018) 

provide slightly less visibility 

improvement from the baseline of 27.13 

deciviews by 2018 than the uniform rate 

of progress (23.42 deciviews in 2018). 

Also, the RPGs for the 20 percent best 

days for all three Class I areas in the 

State provide greater visibility 

improvement by 2018 than current best 

day conditions. The regional haze 

provisions specify that a state may not 

adopt a RPG that represents less 

visibility improvement than is expected 

to result from other CAA requirements 

during the implementation period. 40 

CFR 51.308(d)(1)(vi). Therefore, the 

CAIR states with Class I areas, like 

Georgia, took into account emissions 

reductions anticipated from CAIR in 

determining their 2018 RPGs.21 The 

modeling supporting the analysis of 

these RPGs is consistent with EPA 

guidance at the time. 

TABLE 6—GEORGIA 2018 RPGS

[In deciviews] 

Class I area 

Baseline 

visibility—20% 

worst days 

2018 RPG—20% 

worst days 

(improvement 

from baseline) 

Uniform rate of 

progress at 

2018—20% 

worst days 

Baseline 

visibility—20% 

best days 

2018 RPG—20% 

best days 

(improvement 

from baseline) 

Cohutta Wilderness Area ................................. 30.25 22.80 

(7.45) 

25.71 13.77 11.75 

(2.02) 

Okefenokee Wilderness Area .......................... 27.13 23.82 

(3.31) 

23.42 15.23 13.92 

(1.31) 

Wolf Island Wilderness Area ........................... 27.13 23.82 

(3.31) 

23.42 15.23 13.92 

(1.31) 

The RPGs for the Class I areas in 

Georgia are based on modeled 

projections of future conditions that 

were developed using the best available 

information at the time the analysis was 

done. These projections can be expected 

to change as additional information 

regarding future conditions becomes 

available. For example, new sources 

may be built, existing sources may shut 

down or modify production in response 

to changed economic circumstances, 

and facilities may change their 

emissions characteristics as they install 

control equipment to comply with new 

rules. It would be both impractical and 

resource-intensive to require a state to 

continually revise its RPGs every time 

an event affecting these future 

projections changed. 

EPA recognized the problems of a 

rigid requirement to meet a long-term 

goal based on modeled projections of 

future visibility conditions and 

addressed the uncertainties associated 

with RPGs in several ways. EPA made 

clear in the RHR that the RPG is not a 

mandatory standard which must be 

achieved by a particular date. See 64 FR 

at 35733. At the same time, EPA 

established a requirement for a 

midcourse review and, if necessary, 

correction of the states’ regional haze 

plans. See 40 CFR 52.308(g). In 

particular, the RHR calls for a five-year 

progress review after submittal of the 

initial regional haze plan. The purpose 

of this progress review is to assess the 

effectiveness of emissions management 

strategies in meeting the RPG and to 

provide an assessment of whether 

current implementation strategies are 

sufficient for the state or affected states 

to meet their RPGs. If a state concludes, 

based on its assessment, that the RPGs 

for a Class I area will not be met, the 

RHR requires the state to take 

appropriate action. See 40 CFR 

52.308(h). The nature of the appropriate 

action will depend on the basis for the 

state’s conclusion that the current 

strategies are insufficient to meet the 

RPGs. Georgia specifically committed to 

follow this process in the LTS portion 

of its submittal. 

D. Coordination of RAVI and Regional 

Haze Requirements 

EPA’s visibility regulations direct 

states to coordinate their RAVI LTS and 

monitoring provisions with those for 

regional haze, as explained in sections 

III.F and III.G of this action. Under 

EPA’s RAVI regulations, the RAVI 

portion of a state SIP must address any 

integral vistas identified by the FLMs 

pursuant to 40 CFR 51.304. An integral 

vista is defined in 40 CFR 51.301 as a 

‘‘view perceived from within the 

mandatory Class I Federal area of a 

specific landmark or panorama located 

outside the boundary of the mandatory 

Class I Federal area.’’ Visibility in any 

mandatory Class I area includes any 

integral vista associated with that area. 

The FLMs did not identify any integral 

vistas in Georgia. In addition, the Class 

I areas in Georgia are neither 

experiencing RAVI nor are any of its 

sources affected by the RAVI provisions. 

Thus, the Georgia regional haze SIP 

submittal does not explicitly address the 

two requirements regarding 

coordination of the regional haze with 

the RAVI LTS and monitoring 

provisions. However, Georgia 

previously made a commitment to 

address RAVI should the FLMs certify 

visibility impairment from an 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

11474 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 38 / Monday, February 27, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

22 Georgia submitted its visibility SIP revisions 

addressing RAVI on August 31, 1987, which EPA 

approved on July 12, 1988, (53 FR 26253). 

individual source.22 EPA finds that this 

regional haze submittal appropriately 

supplements and augments Georgia’s 

RAVI visibility provisions to address 

regional haze by updating the 

monitoring and LTS provisions as 

summarized below in this section. 

In its January 25, 2010, submittal, GA 

EPD updated its visibility monitoring 

program and developed a LTS to 

address regional haze. Also in this 

submittal, GA EPD affirmed its 

commitment to complete items required 

in the future under EPA’s RHR. 

Specifically, GA EPD made a 

commitment to review and revise its 

regional haze implementation plan and 

submit a plan revision to EPA by July 

31, 2018, and every 10 years thereafter. 

See 40 CFR 51.308(f). In accordance 

with the requirements listed in 40 CFR 

51.308(g) of EPA’s regional haze 

regulations and 40 CFR 51.306(c) of the 

RAVI LTS regulations, GA EPD 

committed to submit a report to EPA on 

progress towards the RPGs for each 

mandatory Class I area located within 

Georgia and for each mandatory Class I 

area located outside Georgia that may be 

affected by emissions from within 

Georgia. The progress report is required 

to be in the form of a SIP revision and 

is due every five years following the 

initial submittal of the regional haze 

SIP. Consistent with EPA’s monitoring 

regulations for RAVI and regional haze, 

Georgia will rely on the IMPROVE 

network for compliance purposes, in 

addition to any RAVI monitoring that 

may be needed in the future. See 40 CFR 

51.305, 40 CFR 51.308(d)(4). Also, the 

Georgia new source review rules, 

previously approved in the State’s SIP, 

continue to provide a framework for 

review and coordination with the FLMs 

on new sources which may have an 

adverse impact on visibility in either 

form (i.e., RAVI and/or regional haze) in 

any Class I area. 

E. Monitoring Strategy and Other 

Implementation Plan Requirements 

The primary monitoring network for 

regional haze in Georgia is the 

IMPROVE network. As discussed in 

section IV.B.2 of this action, there are 

currently two IMPROVE monitoring 

sites in Georgia, one for Cohutta and the 

other monitor for Okefenokee. The 

Okefenokee monitor is also used to 

represent visibility conditions at Wolf 

Island. 

IMPROVE monitoring data from 

2000–2004 serves as the baseline for the 

regional haze program, and is relied 

upon in the State’s regional haze 

submittal. In the submittal, Georgia 

states its intention to rely on the 

IMPROVE network for complying with 

the regional haze monitoring 

requirement in EPA’s RHR for the 

current and future regional haze 

implementation periods. 

Data produced by the IMPROVE 

monitoring network will be used nearly 

continuously for preparing the five-year 

progress reports and the 10-year SIP 

revisions, each of which relies on 

analysis of the preceding five years of 

data. The Visibility Information 

Exchange Web System (VIEWS) Web 

site has been maintained by VISTAS 

and the other RPOs to provide ready 

access to the IMPROVE data and data 

analysis tools. Georgia is encouraging 

VISTAS and the other RPOs to maintain 

VIEWS or a similar data management 

system to facilitate analysis of the 

IMPROVE data. 

In addition to the IMPROVE 

measurements, Georgia also operates a 

comprehensive PM2.5 network of filterbased Federal reference method 

monitors, continuous mass monitors, 

filter-based speciated monitors, and the 

continuous speciated monitors listed 

below. GA EPD will use Southeastern 

Aerosol Research and Characterization 

(SEARCH) data from the monitoring 

sites listed below to further the 

understanding of both PM2.5 and 

visibility formation and trends in 

Georgia. The SEARCH monitors provide 

the following data related to the nature 

of ambient PM2.5: 

• 24-hr PM2.5 filter samples, analyzed 

for mass, ions (sulfate, nitrate, 

ammonium), organic carbon, elemental 

(black) carbon, and elements as 

measured by X-ray fluorescence (XRF); 

• 24-hr PM coarse mass, ions, and 

XRF elements; 

• 24-hr gaseous ammonia as collected 

with an annular denuder; 

• Continuous (minute to hourly) 

PM2.5 mass, organic carbon, elemental 

carbon, ammonium, nitrate, and sulfate; 

light scattering and light absorption; 

• Continuous gaseous ozone, nitric 

oxide, nitrogen dioxide, total oxidized 

nitrogen, nitric acid, carbon monoxide, 

and SO2; and 

• Continuous 10-meter 

meteorological parameters: wind speed, 

wind direction, precipitation, 

temperature, barometric pressure, 

relative humidity and solar radiation. 

In addition, the Clean Air Status and 

Trends Network (‘‘CASTNet’’) provides 

atmospheric data on the dry deposition 

component of total acid deposition, 

ground-level ozone, and other forms of 

atmospheric pollution. 

F. Consultation With States and FLMs 

1. Consultation With Other States 

In December 2006 and May 2007, the 

State Air Directors from the VISTAS 

states held formal interstate 

consultation meetings. The purpose of 

these meetings was to discuss the 

methodology proposed by VISTAS for 

identifying sources to evaluate for 

reasonable progress. The states invited 

FLM and EPA representatives to 

participate and to provide additional 

feedback. The Directors discussed the 

results of analyses showing 

contributions to visibility impairment 

from states to each of the Class I areas 

in the VISTAS region. 

GA EPD has evaluated the impact of 

Georgia sources on Class I areas in 

neighboring states. The state in which a 

Class I area is located is responsible for 

determining which sources, both inside 

and outside of that state, to evaluate for 

reasonable progress controls. Because at 

the time of Georgia’s SIP development 

many of these states had not yet defined 

their criteria for identifying sources to 

evaluate for reasonable progress, 

Georgia applied its AOI methodology to 

identify sources in the State that have 

emissions units with impacts large 

enough to potentially warrant further 

evaluation and analysis. The State 

identified eight emissions units in 

Georgia with a contribution of 0.5 

percent or more to the visibility 

impairment at the following seven Class 

I areas in five neighboring states: Sipsey 

Wilderness Area (AL), Saint Marks 

Wilderness Area (FL), Shining Rock 

Wilderness Area (NC), Swanquarter 

Wilderness Area (NC), Great Smoky 

Mountains National Park (NC/TN), 

Joyce Kilmer-Slickrock Wilderness Area 

(NC/TN), and Cape Romain Wilderness 

Area (SC). Based on an evaluation of the 

four reasonable progress statutory 

factors, Georgia determined that there 

are no additional control measures for 

these Georgia emissions units that 

would be reasonable to implement to 

mitigate visibility impacts in Class I 

areas in these neighboring states. GA 

EPD consulted with these states in the 

VISTAS region regarding its reasonable 

progress control evaluations showing no 

cost-effective controls available for 

those emissions units in Georgia 

contributing at least 0.5 percent to 

visibility impairment at Class I areas in 

those states. No adverse comments were 

received from the other VISTAS states. 

The documentation for these formal 

consultations is provided in Appendix J 

of Georgia’s SIP. 

Regarding the impact of sources 

outside of the State on Class I areas in 

Georgia, GA EPD sent letters to Florida, 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 38 / Monday, February 27, 2012 / Proposed Rules 11475 

South Carolina, and Tennessee 

pertaining to emissions units within 

these states that it believes contribute 

0.5 percent or more to visibility 

impairment in the Georgia Class I areas. 

At that time, these neighboring states 

were still in the process of evaluating 

BART and reasonable progress for their 

sources. Any controls resulting from 

those determinations will provide 

additional emissions reductions and 

resulting visibility improvement, which 

gives further assurances that Georgia 

will achieve its RPGs. Therefore, to be 

conservative, Georgia opted not to rely 

on any additional emissions reductions 

from sources located outside the State’s 

boundaries beyond those already 

identified in the State’s regional haze 

SIP submittal and as discussed in 

section IV.C.1 (Federal and state 

controls in place by 2018) of this action. 

In 2007, Georgia received a letter sent 

by the Mid-Atlantic/Northeast Visibility 

Union (MANE–VU) RPO on behalf of 

the States of Maine, New Jersey, New 

Hampshire, and Vermont, inviting 

Georgia to participate in upcoming state 

consultation calls and meetings. This 

letter also requested a control strategy to 

provide a 28-percent reduction in SO2

emissions from sources other than EGUs 

that would be equivalent to MANE– 

VU’s proposed low sulfur fuel oil 

strategy. Georgia also received 

individual letters in 2007 from the 

MANE–VU States of Maine and 

Vermont stating that based on MANE– 

VU’s analysis of 2002 emissions data, 

Georgia contributed to visibility 

impairment to Class I areas in those 

states. The letters invited Georgia to 

participate in future consultation 

discussions. Georgia sent letters to 

Maine and Vermont stating that GA EPD 

was currently in the process of requiring 

95-percent SO2 control on the seven 

largest coal-fired power plants in 

Georgia, and that these controls were 

not fully accounted for in the VISTAS 

modeling for 2009 and SO2 AOI 

analyses for 2018. Georgia affirms it will 

continue to work through VISTAS to 

continue discussions with MANE–VU 

regarding this issue. 

GA EPD evaluated both EGU and nonEGU sources to determine what controls 

are reasonable in this first 

implementation period. EPA proposes 

to find that Georgia has adequately 

addressed the consultation requirements 

in the RHR and appropriately 

documented its consultation with other 

states in its SIP submittal. 

2. Consultation With the FLMs 

Through the VISTAS RPO, Georgia 

and the nine other member states 

worked extensively with the FLMs from 

the U.S. Departments of the Interior and 

Agriculture to develop technical 

analyses that support the regional haze 

SIPs for the VISTAS states. The 

proposed regional haze plan for Georgia 

was out for public comment and FLM 

review from July to August 2009 and an 

earlier draft plan was shared for FLM 

and EPA discussions between December 

2008 and February 2009. The FLMs did 

not submit any significant adverse 

comments regarding either the State’s 

December 2008 draft or the July 2009 

proposed regional haze SIP. The FLMs 

requested that the State include a 

discussion regarding the Georgia 

sources’ visibility impacts to out-of-state 

Class I areas in the draft SIP as well as 

a discussion on consideration of 

measures to address construction 

activity. Additionally, the FLMs offered 

some clarifications to the text and 

requested inclusion of the BART 

exemption modeling reports for eight 

BART-eligible sources. Georgia 

addressed the FLMs’ comments, 

including the requested BART modeling 

exemption reports and discussion 

regarding out-of-state Class I area 

impacts, and also provided written 

responses explaining its changes. 

To address the requirement for 

continuing consultation procedures 

with the FLMs under 40 CFR 

51.308(i)(4), Georgia stated in its SIP 

that GA EPD will offer the FLMs an 

opportunity for consultation on a yearly 

basis, including the opportunity to 

discuss the implementation process and 

the most recent IMPROVE monitoring 

data and VIEWS data. Records of annual 

consultations and progress report 

consultations will be maintained in 

Georgia EPD’s regional haze files. 

G. Periodic SIP Revisions and Five-Year 

Progress Reports 

As also summarized in section IV.D of 

this action, consistent with 40 CFR 

51.308(g), GA EPD affirmed its 

commitment to submitting a progress 

report in the form of a SIP revision to 

EPA every five years following this 

initial submittal of the Georgia regional 

haze SIP. The report will evaluate the 

progress made towards the RPGs for 

each mandatory Class I area located 

within Georgia and for each mandatory 

Class I area located outside Georgia that 

may be affected by emissions from 

within Georgia. Georgia also offered 

recommendations for several technical 

improvements that, as funding allows, 

can support the State’s next LTS. These 

recommendations are discussed in 

detail in the Georgia submittal in 

Appendix K. 

If another state’s regional haze SIP 

identifies that Georgia’s SIP needs to be 

supplemented or modified, and if after 

appropriate consultation Georgia agrees, 

today’s action may be revisited or 

additional information and/or changes 

will be addressed in the five-year 

progress report SIP revision. 

V. What action is EPA taking? 

EPA is proposing a limited approval 

of a revision to the Georgia SIP 

submitted by the State of Georgia on 

February 11, 2010, and supplemented 

on November 19, 2010, as meeting some 

of the applicable regional haze 

requirements as set forth in sections 

169A and 169B of the CAA and in 40 

CFR 51.300–308, as described 

previously in this action. 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory 

Planning and Review 

The Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) has exempted this regulatory 

action from Executive Order 12866, 

entitled ‘‘Regulatory Planning and 

Review.’’ 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act 

Under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 

44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., OMB must 

approve all ‘‘collections of information’’ 

by EPA. The Act defines ‘‘collection of 

information’’ as a requirement for 

answers to * * * identical reporting or 

recordkeeping requirements imposed on 

ten or more persons * * *. 44 U.S.C. 

3502(3)(A). The Paperwork Reduction 

Act does not apply to this action. 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 

The RFA generally requires an agency 

to conduct a regulatory flexibility 

analysis of any rule subject to notice 

and comment rulemaking requirements 

unless the agency certifies that the rule 

will not have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities. Small entities include small 

businesses, small not-for-profit 

enterprises, and small governmental 

jurisdictions. 

This rule will not have a significant 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities because SIP approvals under 

section 110 and subchapter I, part D of 

the CAA do not create any new 

requirements but simply approve 

requirements that the State is already 

imposing. Therefore, because the 

Federal SIP approval does not create 

any new requirements, I certify that this 

action will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. 

Moreover, due to the nature of the 

Federal-state relationship under the 

CAA, preparation of flexibility analysis 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

11476 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 38 / Monday, February 27, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

would constitute Federal inquiry into 

the economic reasonableness of state 

action. The CAA forbids EPA to base its 

actions concerning SIPs on such 

grounds. Union Electric Co., v. EPA, 427 

U.S. 246, 255–66 (1976); 42 U.S.C. 

7410(a)(2). 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

(UMRA) 

Under sections 202 of the UMRA of 

1995 (‘‘Unfunded Mandates Act’’), 

signed into law on March 22, 1995, EPA 

must prepare a budgetary impact 

statement to accompany any proposed 

or final rule that includes a Federal 

mandate that may result in estimated 

costs to State, local, or tribal 

governments in the aggregate; or to the 

private sector, of $100 million or more. 

Under section 205, EPA must select the 

most cost-effective and least 

burdensome alternative that achieves 

the objectives of the rule and is 

consistent with statutory requirements. 

Section 203 requires EPA to establish a 

plan for informing and advising any 

small governments that may be 

significantly or uniquely impacted by 

the rule. 

EPA has determined that today’s 

proposal does not include a Federal 

mandate that may result in estimated 

costs of $100 million or more to either 

state, local, or tribal governments in the 

aggregate, or to the private sector. This 

Federal action proposes to approve preexisting requirements under State or 

local law, and imposes no new 

requirements. Accordingly, no 

additional costs to State, local, or tribal 

governments, or to the private sector, 

result from this action. 

E. Executive Order 13132, Federalism 

Federalism (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999) revokes and replaces Executive 

Orders 12612 (Federalism) and 12875 

(Enhancing the Intergovernmental 

Partnership). Executive Order 13132 

requires EPA to develop an accountable 

process to ensure ‘‘meaningful and 

timely input by State and local officials 

in the development of regulatory 

policies that have Federalism 

implications.’’ ‘‘Policies that have 

federalism implications’’ is defined in 

the Executive Order to include 

regulations that have ‘‘substantial direct 

effects on the states, on the relationship 

between the national government and 

the states, or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities among the 

various levels of government.’’ Under 

Executive Order 13132, EPA may not 

issue a regulation that has Federalism 

implications, that imposes substantial 

direct compliance costs, and that is not 

required by statute, unless the Federal 

government provides the funds 

necessary to pay the direct compliance 

costs incurred by state and local 

governments, or EPA consults with state 

and local officials early in the process 

of developing the proposed regulation. 

EPA also may not issue a regulation that 

has Federalism implications and that 

preempts state law unless the Agency 

consults with state and local officials 

early in the process of developing the 

proposed regulation. 

This rule will not have substantial 

direct effects on the states, on the 

relationship between the national 

government and the states, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government, as specified in 

Executive Order 13132, because it 

merely approves a state rule 

implementing a Federal standard, and 

does not alter the relationship or the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities established in the CAA. 

Thus, the requirements of section 6 of 

the Executive Order do not apply to this 

rule. 

F. Executive Order 13175, Coordination 

With Indian Tribal Governments 

Executive Order 13175, entitled 

‘‘Consultation and Coordination with 

Indian Tribal Governments’’ (65 FR 

67249, November 9, 2000), requires EPA 

to develop an accountable process to 

ensure ‘‘meaningful and timely input by 

tribal officials in the development of 

regulatory policies that have tribal 

implications.’’ This proposed rule does 

not have tribal implications, as specified 

in Executive Order 13175. It will not 

have substantial direct effects on tribal 

governments. Thus, Executive Order 

13175 does not apply to this rule. EPA 

specifically solicits additional comment 

on this proposed rule from tribal 

officials. 

G. Executive Order 13045, Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks 

Protection of Children from 

Environmental Health Risks and Safety 

Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), 

applies to any rule that: (1) is 

determined to be ‘‘economically 

significant’’ as defined under Executive 

Order 12866, and (2) concerns an 

environmental health or safety risk that 

EPA has reason to believe may have a 

disproportionate effect on children. If 

the regulatory action meets both criteria, 

the Agency must evaluate the 

environmental health or safety effects of 

the planned rule on children, and 

explain why the planned regulation is 

preferable to other potentially effective 

and reasonably feasible alternatives 

considered by the Agency. 

This rule is not subject to Executive 

Order 13045 because it does not involve 

decisions intended to mitigate 

environmental health or safety risks. 

H. Executive Order 13211, Actions That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

This rule is not subject to Executive 

Order 13211, ‘‘Actions Concerning 

Regulations That Significantly Affect 

Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use’’ (66 

FR 28355, May 22, 2001) because it is 

not a significant regulatory action under 

Executive Order 12866. 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act 

Section 12 of the National Technology 

Transfer and Advancement Act 

(NTTAA) of 1995 requires Federal 

agencies to evaluate existing technical 

standards when developing a new 

regulation. To comply with NTTAA, 

EPA must consider and use ‘‘voluntary 

consensus standards’’ (VCS) if available 

and applicable when developing 

programs and policies unless doing so 

would be inconsistent with applicable 

law or otherwise impractical. 

EPA believes that VCS are 

inapplicable to this action. Today’s 

action does not require the public to 

perform activities conducive to the use 

of VCS. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Intergovernmental 

relations, Nitrogen oxides, Particulate 

matter, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Sulfur dioxide, Volatile 

organic compounds. 

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

Dated: February 15, 2012. 

A. Stanley Meiburg, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4. 

[FR Doc. 2012–4516 Filed 2–24–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 63 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2012–0117; FRL–9635–8] 

Delegation of National Emission 

Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants 

for Source Categories; Nevada 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: Pursuant to section 112(l) of 

the 1990 Clean Air Act, EPA granted 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS