38654 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 156 / Tuesday, August 15, 2017 / Proposed Rules 

1Areas designated as mandatory Class I federal 

areas consist of national parks exceeding 6000 

acres, wilderness areas and national memorial parks 

exceeding 5000 acres, and all international parks 

that were in existence on August 7, 1977. 42 U.S.C. 

7472(a). These areas are listed at 40 CFR part 81, 

subpart D. 

2 Georgia’s February 11, 2010, regional haze plan 

as supplemented on November 19, 2010, is 

hereinafter collectively referred to as Georgia’s 

regional haze plan unless otherwise specified. 

3CAIR required certain states, including Georgia, 

to reduce emissions of SO2 and NOX that 

significantly contribute to downwind 

nonattainment of the 1997 National Ambient Air 

Quality Standard (NAAQS) for fine particulate 

matter (PM2.5) and ozone. See 70 FR 25162 (May 12, 

2005). 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

U.S.C. 601 et seq.); 

• Does not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); 

• Does not have Federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• Is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); 

• Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); 

• Is not subject to requirements of 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because 

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act; 

and 

• Does not provide EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address, as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable and legally permissible 

methods, under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

In addition, the SIP is not approved 

to apply on any Indian reservation land 

or in any other area where EPA or an 

Indian tribe has demonstrated that a 

tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of 

Indian country, the rule does not have 

tribal implications and will not impose 

substantial direct costs on tribal 

governments or preempt tribal law as 

specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 

FR 67249, November 9, 2000). 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Carbon monoxide, 

Incorporation by reference, 

Intergovernmental relations, Lead, 

Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate 

matter, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile 

organic compounds. 

Dated: July 27, 2017. 

Robert A. Kaplan, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5. 

[FR Doc. 2017–17230 Filed 8–14–17; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R04–OAR–2016–0634; FRL–9966–32– 

Region 4] 

Air Plan Approval; Georgia; Regional 

Haze Progress Report 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve a 

State Implementation Plan (SIP) 

revision submitted by the State of 

Georgia, Department of Natural 

Resources, through the Georgia 

Environmental Protection Division (GA 

EPD) on January 8, 2014. Georgia’s 

January 8, 2014, SIP revision (Progress 

Report) addresses requirements of the 

Clean Air Act (CAA or Act) and EPA’s 

rules that require each state to submit 

periodic reports describing progress 

towards reasonable progress goals 

(RPGs) established for regional haze and 

a determination of the adequacy of the 

state’s existing SIP addressing regional 

haze (regional haze plan). EPA is 

proposing to approve Georgia’s 

determination that the State’s regional 

haze plan is adequate to meet these 

RPGs for the first implementation 

period covering through 2018 and 

requires no substantive revision at this 

time. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before September 14, 2017. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R04– 

OAR–2016–0634 at http://

www.regulations.gov. Follow the online 

instructions for submitting comments. 

Once submitted, comments cannot be 

edited or removed from Regulations.gov. 

EPA may publish any comment received 

to its public docket. Do not submit 

electronically any information you 

consider to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Multimedia submissions (audio, video, 

etc.) must be accompanied by a written 

comment. The written comment is 

considered the official comment and 

should include discussion of all points 

you wish to make. EPA will generally 

not consider comments or comment 

contents located outside of the primary 

submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or 

other file sharing system). For 

additional submission methods, the full 

EPA public comment policy, 

information about CBI or multimedia 

submissions, and general guidance on 

making effective comments, please visit 

http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/ 

commenting-epa-dockets. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Michele Notarianni, Air Regulatory 

Management Section, Air Planning and 

Implementation Branch, Air, Pesticides 

and Toxics Management Division, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., 

Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. Ms. 

Notarianni can be reached by phone at 

(404) 562–9031 and via electronic mail 

at notarianni.michele@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

States are required to submit a 

progress report in the form of a SIP 

revision during the first implementation 

period that evaluates progress towards 

the RPGs for each mandatory Class I 

federal area 1 (Class I area) within the 

state and for each Class I area outside 

the state which may be affected by 

emissions from within the state. 40 CFR 

51.308(g). In addition, the provisions of 

40 CFR 51.308(h) require states to 

submit, at the same time as the 40 CFR 

51.308(g) progress report, a 

determination of the adequacy of the 

state’s existing regional haze plan. The 

first progress report is due five years 

after submittal of the initial regional 

haze plan. Georgia submitted its first 

regional haze plan on February 11, 

2010, and supplemented its plan on 

November 19, 2010.2

Like many other states subject to the 

Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR), 

Georgia relied on CAIR in its regional 

haze plan to meet certain requirements 

of EPA’s Regional Haze Rule, including 

best available retrofit technology 

(BART) requirements for emissions of 

sulfur dioxide (SO2) and nitrogen oxides 

(NOx) from certain electric generating 

units (EGUs) in the State.3 This reliance 

was consistent with EPA’s regulations at 

the time that Georgia developed its 

regional haze plan. See 70 FR 39104 

(July 6, 2005). However, in 2008, the 

United States Court of Appeals for the 

District of Columbia Circuit (D.C. 

mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 156 / Tuesday, August 15, 2017 / Proposed Rules 38655 

4CSAPR requires 27 Eastern states to limit their 

statewide emissions of SO2 and/or NOX in order to 

mitigate transported air pollution unlawfully 

impacting other states’ ability to attain or maintain 

four NAAQS: The 1997 ozone NAAQS, the 1997 

annual PM2.5 NAAQS, the 2006 24-hour PM2.5

NAAQS, and the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. The 

CSAPR emissions limitations are defined in terms 

of maximum statewide budgets for emissions of 

annual SO2, annual NOX, and/or ozone-season NOX

by each covered state’s large EGUs. 

5Sulfate levels on the 20 percent worst days 

account for 60–70 percent of the visibility 

impairment at Georgia’s Class I areas. For additional 

information, see Georgia’s February 11, 2010, 

regional haze plan submittal at page 13. 

Circuit) remanded CAIR to EPA without 

vacatur to preserve the environmental 

benefits provided by CAIR. North 

Carolina v. EPA, 550 F.3d 1176, 1178 

(D.C. Cir. 2008). On August 8, 2011 (76 

FR 48208), acting on the D.C. Circuit’s 

remand, EPA promulgated CSAPR to 

replace CAIR and issued Federal 

Implementation Plans (FIPs) to 

implement the rule in CSAPR-subject 

states.4 Implementation of CSAPR was 

scheduled to begin on January 1, 2012, 

when CSAPR would have superseded 

the CAIR program. However, numerous 

parties filed petitions for review of 

CSAPR, and at the end of 2011, the D.C. 

Circuit issued an order staying CSAPR 

pending resolution of the petitions and 

directing EPA to continue to administer 

CAIR. Order of December 30, 2011, in 

EME Homer City Generation, L.P. v. 

EPA, D.C. Cir. No. 11–1302. 

On June 28, 2012 (77 FR 38501), EPA 

finalized a limited approval of Georgia’s 

regional haze plan as meeting some of 

the applicable regional haze 

requirements of the first implementation 

period for regional haze. In a separate 

action published on June 7, 2012 (77 FR 

33642), EPA finalized a limited 

disapproval of Georgia’s regional haze 

plan because of deficiencies arising 

from the State’s reliance on CAIR to 

satisfy certain regional haze 

requirements. In the June 7, 2012, 

action, EPA also promulgated FIPs to 

replace reliance on CAIR with reliance 

on CSAPR to address deficiencies in 

CAIR-dependent regional haze plans of 

several states, including Georgia’s 

regional haze plan. 

On August 21, 2012, the D.C. Circuit 

issued its ruling on CSAPR, vacating 

and remanding the Rule to EPA and 

ordering continued implementation of 

CAIR. EME Homer City Generation, L.P. 

v. EPA, 696 F.3d 7, 38 (D.C. Cir. 2012). 

The D.C. Circuit’s vacatur of CSAPR was 

reversed by the United States Supreme 

Court on April 29, 2014, and the case 

was remanded to the D.C. Circuit to 

resolve remaining issues in accordance 

with the high court’s ruling. EPA v. EME 

Homer City Generation, L.P., 134 S. Ct. 

1584 (2014). On remand, the D.C. 

Circuit affirmed CSAPR in most 

respects, but invalidated without 

vacating some of the CSAPR budgets as 

to a number of states. EME Homer City 

Generation, L.P. v. EPA, 795 F.3d 118 

(D.C. Cir. 2015). The remanded budgets 

include the Phase 2 SO2 emissions 

budget for Georgia. This litigation 

ultimately delayed implementation of 

CSAPR for three years, from January 1, 

2012, when CSAPR’s cap-and-trade 

programs were originally scheduled to 

replace the CAIR cap-and-trade 

programs, to January 1, 2015. Thus, the 

rule’s Phase 2 budgets, originally 

promulgated to begin on January 1, 

2014, began on January 1, 2017. On July 

26, 2017, Georgia submitted a SIP 

revision that adopts provisions for 

participation in the CSAPR annual NOX

and annual SO2 trading programs, 

including annual NOX and annual SO2

budgets that are equal to the budgets for 

Georgia in EPA’s CSAPR FIP. 

On January 8, 2014, Georgia 

submitted its Progress Report which, 

among other things, details the progress 

made in the first period toward 

implementation of the long term 

strategy outlined in the State’s regional 

haze plan; the visibility improvement 

measured at the three Class I areas 

within its borders (Cohutta Wilderness 

Area, Okefenokee Wilderness Area, and 

Wolf Island Wilderness Area) and at 

Class I areas outside of the State 

potentially impacted by emissions from 

Georgia; and a determination of the 

adequacy of the State’s existing regional 

haze plan. EPA is proposing to approve 

Georgia’s January 8, 2014, Progress 

Report for the reasons discussed below. 

II. EPA’s Evaluation of Georgia’s 

Progress Report and Adequacy 

Determination 

A. Regional Haze Progress Report 

This section includes EPA’s analysis 

of Georgia’s Progress Report and an 

explanation of the basis for the Agency’s 

proposed approval. 

1. Control Measures 

In its Progress Report, Georgia 

summarizes the status of the emissions 

reduction measures that were included 

in the final iteration of the Visibility 

Improvement State and Tribal 

Association of the Southeast (VISTAS) 

regional haze emissions inventory and 

RPG modeling used by the State in 

developing its regional haze plan. The 

measures include, among other things, 

applicable federal programs (e.g., mobile 

source rules and Maximum Achievable 

Control Technology standards) and 

federal and state control strategies for 

EGUs. Georgia also described the court 

decisions addressing CAIR and CSAPR 

at the time of Progress Report 

development. 

As discussed above, a number of 

states, including Georgia, submitted 

regional haze plans that relied on CAIR 

to meet certain regional haze 

requirements. EPA finalized a limited 

disapproval of Georgia’s regional haze 

plan due to this reliance and 

promulgated a FIP to replace reliance on 

CAIR with reliance on CSAPR. The D.C. 

Circuit ultimately affirmed CSAPR in 

most respects, and CSAPR is now in 

effect. EME Homer City Generation, L.P. 

v. EPA, 795 F.3d 118 (D.C. Cir. 2015). 

Georgia notes in its Progress Report that 

CAIR was in effect due to the D.C. 

Circuit’s decisions at the time of 

submittal. Because CSAPR should result 

in greater emissions reductions of SO2

and NOX than CAIR throughout the 

affected region, EPA expects Georgia to 

maintain and continue its progress 

towards its RPGs for 2018 through 

continued, and additional, SO2 and NOX

reductions. See generally 76 FR 48208 

(August 8, 2011). 

In its Progress Report, Georgia 

identifies the status of implementation 

of SO2 controls required by Georgia Rule 

391–3–1–.02(2)(sss)—‘‘Multipollutant 

Rule’’ (Rule (sss)) that were scheduled 

to be installed at the time of the original 

regional haze plan submittal. Rule (sss), 

enacted in response to CAIR, requires 

the installation and operation of flue gas 

desulfurization (FGD) to control SO2

emissions and selective catalytic 

reduction (SCR) to control NOX

emissions on the majority of the coalfired EGUs in Georgia. The State notes 

that these controls will reduce NOX

emissions from these EGUs by 

approximately 85 percent and reduce 

SO2 emissions by at least 95 percent. 

The implementation dates vary by EGU, 

starting on December 31, 2008, and 

ending on December 31, 2015. To date, 

all planned controls have been 

implemented either early or on time. By 

installing and operating FGD and SCR 

controls in accordance with Rule (sss), 

Georgia EGUs also met the requirements 

of CAIR. In its regional haze plan and 

Progress Report, Georgia focuses its 

assessment on SO2 emissions from 

EGUs because of VISTAS’ findings that 

ammonium sulfate accounted for more 

than 70 percent of the visibilityimpairing pollution in the VISTAS 

states 5 and that SO2 point source 

emissions are projected to represent 

more than 95 percent of the total SO2

emissions in the VISTAS states in 

mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with PROPOSALS

38656 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 156 / Tuesday, August 15, 2017 / Proposed Rules 

6For additional information, see Georgia’s 

February 11, 2010, regional haze plan submittal at 

page 76. 

7See Table 2–3 of Georgia’s Progress Report, 

pp.20–22. This table excludes EGU and non-EGU 

units where existing controls or CAIR controls were 

determined to satisfy reasonable progress for the 

first implementation period. 

8The following six units in Georgia have permit 

limits which exempt them from being eligible for 

a reasonable progress analysis: Packaging 

Corporation of America C E Boiler; Rayonier 

Performance Fibers—Jessup Mill Power Boilers 2 

and 3 and Recovery Furnaces 1 and 4; and Southern 

States Phosphate and Fertilizer Sulfuric Acid Plant 

2. 

9The following three units in Georgia have 

implemented BART-related controls by the required 

due dates: Georgia Pacific Cedar Springs—Power 

Boilers U500 and U501 (BART exemption limits) 

and Interstate Paper Power Boiler F1 (BART control 

limits). 

10The following two units in Georgia are 

applying additional control measures to meet their 

permit limits which satisfy reasonable progress: 

Georgia Pacific Brunswick Cellulose Power Boiler 

No. 4 and International Paper—Savannah Mill 

Power Boiler 13. 

11See Table 2–3 of Georgia’s Progress Report, 

pp.20–22. 

12See page 24 of Georgia’s Progress Report and 

a November 18, 2016, email from Georgia to EPA 

documenting these EGU retirements. The Progress 

Report, email from the State, and associated 

documentation of these retirements and fuel 

conversions are located in the docket for this 

proposed action. 13 Id. 14See 77 FR 11474–11475. 

15See 77 FR 11475. 

16 In its regional haze plan, the State identified, 

through an area of influence modeling analysis 

based on back trajectories, seven Class I areas in 

five neighboring states potentially impacted by 

Georgia sources using the State’s reasonable 

progress eligibility criteria as a screening tool: 

Sipsey Wilderness Area (AL), Saint Marks 

Wilderness Area (FL), Shining Rock Wilderness 

Area (NC), Swanquarter Wilderness Area (NC), 

Great Smoky Mountains National Park (NC/TN), 

Joyce Kilmer-Slickrock Wilderness Area (NC/TN), 

and Cape Romain Wilderness Area (SC). See 77 FR 

11474 (February 27, 2012). Georgia evaluated the 20 

percent worst day visibility conditions for these 

areas. See pages 42–43 and Appendix D of Georgia’s 

Progress Report. 

17See Table 2–2 on pages 15–18 of Georgia’s 

Progress Report. 

18See page 14 of Georgia’s Progress Report. 

2018.6 As discussed below in Section 

II.A.5, Georgia determined that sulfates 

continue to be the largest contributor to 

regional haze for Class I areas in the 

State. 

Georgia also reviewed the status of 

SO2 controls for 11 non-EGU emissions 

units at seven facilities in the State 

which were included in the universe of 

emissions units initially determined 

eligible for a reasonable progress control 

analysis.7 Of these 11 emissions units, 

six units at three facilities accepted 

permit limits to exempt out of being 

subject to a reasonable progress control 

analysis; 8 the State determined that the 

BART-related controls for three units at 

two facilities satisfied reasonable 

progress; 9 and for the remaining two 

units at two facilities, Georgia required 

additional controls.10 At the time of 

Progress Report submission, all units 

have required permit limits in place and 

have met or are expected to meet the 

required control due dates.11

In addition, the State discusses the 

status of several measures that were not 

included in the final VISTAS emissions 

inventory and were not relied upon in 

the initial regional haze plan to meet 

RPGs, including EPA’s Mercury and Air 

Toxics Rule, a 2011 federal consent 

agreement with the Tennessee Valley 

Authority, and EGU retirements and 

fuel conversions that have occurred or 

are planned to occur before 2018. 

Georgia Power decertified and retired 15 

fossil fuel fired EGUs (10 coal-fired, 

three oil-fired, and two gas-fired units) 

between 2013 and 2016.12 Further, 

Georgia Power’s Yates Steam Electric 

Generating Plant converted Units 6 and 

7 from coal to natural gas.13 The State 

notes that the emissions reductions from 

these measures will help ensure that 

Class I areas impacted by Georgia 

sources achieve their RPGs. 

Regarding the impact of sources 

outside of the State on Class I areas in 

Georgia, GA EPD sent letters to Florida, 

South Carolina, and Tennessee 

pertaining to emissions units within 

these states that it believes contribute to 

visibility impairment at Georgia’s Class 

I areas using the State’s methodology for 

determining sources eligible for a 

reasonable progress control 

determination.14 Georgia consulted with 

these states regarding these sources and 

opted not to rely upon any additional 

emissions reductions from sources 

located outside the State’s boundaries 

beyond those already identified in the 

State’s regional haze plan.15

Regarding the impact of Georgia’s 

sources on Class I areas outside of the 

State, Georgia applied its area of 

influence methodology to identify 

sources in the State that have emissions 

units with impacts large enough to 

potentially warrant further evaluation 

and analysis because, at the time of 

Georgia’s SIP development, many of 

these states had not yet defined their 

criteria for identifying sources to 

evaluate for reasonable progress. The 

State identified eight emissions units in 

Georgia within the area of influence of 

seven Class I areas in five neighboring 

states. Georgia determined that there are 

no additional control measures for these 

Georgia emissions units that would be 

reasonable to implement to mitigate 

visibility impacts in Class I areas in the 

five neighboring states.16

EPA proposes to find that Georgia 

adequately addressed the applicable 

provisions under 40 CFR 51.308(g) 

regarding the implementation of control 

measures for the reasons discussed 

below. The State documents the 

implementation status of measures from 

its regional haze plan in addition to 

describing additional measures not 

originally accounted for in the final 

VISTAS emissions inventory that came 

into effect since the VISTAS analyses 

for the regional haze plan were 

completed. Georgia reviewed the status 

of BART requirements for the two 

BART-subject non-EGU sources in the 

State and reviewed the status of 

additional reasonable progress controls 

for these two sources. The State’s 

Progress Report also discusses the status 

of existing and future expected SO2

controls for Georgia’s EGUs because, in 

its regional haze plan, Georgia identified 

SO2 emissions from coal-fired EGUs as 

the key contributor to regional haze in 

the VISTAS region. 

2. Emissions Reductions 

As discussed above, Georgia focused 

its assessment on SO2 emissions from 

EGUs because of VISTAS’ findings that 

ammonium sulfate is the primary 

component of visibility-impairing 

pollution in the VISTAS states. In its 

Progress Report, Georgia presents SO2

emissions data for 23 coal-fired EGUs at 

seven facilities in the State that, at the 

time the State submitted its February 11, 

2010, regional haze plan, were 

scheduled to install SO2 controls as a 

result of Rule (sss).17 Eleven of these 

coal-fired EGUs were identified by 

Georgia as having visibility impacts at 

one or more neighboring Class I areas. 

As of the time that Georgia developed 

its Progress Report, all planned controls 

had been implemented either early or 

on time and the requirements for 

controls in 2013 or later are still in 

place. Georgia Power—Plant 

McDonough retired Units 1 and 2 prior 

to their control dates in 2012 and 2011, 

respectively, for FGD controls. 

Based on EGU emissions projections 

from its regional haze plan, Georgia 

notes that the estimated total SO2

emission reductions for these coal-fired 

EGUs from 2002 to 2018 would be 

441,989 tons per year (tpy) and from 

2002 to 2009 would be 161,949 tpy. 

Actual SO2 emissions reductions 

implemented by the end of 2009 totaled 

184,215 tpy of SO2, over 20,000 tpy 

greater than originally projected through 

2009 in Georgia’s regional haze plan. 

Georgia also estimates in its Progress 

Report that an additional 93,000 tons of 

SO2 emissions reductions were achieved 

from 2010 through 2012.18

mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 156 / Tuesday, August 15, 2017 / Proposed Rules 38657 

19For the first regional haze plans, ‘‘baseline’’ 

conditions were represented by the 2000–2004 time 

period. See 64 FR 35730 (July 1, 1999). Wolf Island 

Wilderness Area does not have a visibility monitor; 

therefore, visibility data from Okefenokee 

Wilderness Area is used for both areas given their 

proximity. For more information, see 77 FR 11459. 

20There is no annual average for Cohutta for the 

year 2006. 

21 Id. 

22For the typical 2002 stationary point source 

emissions inventory, Georgia adjusted the EGU 

emissions for a typical year so that if sources were 

shut down or operating above or below normal, the 

emissions are normalized to a typical emissions 

inventory year. The purpose is to smooth out 

potential anomalies in EGU emissions (related to 

meteorology, economic, and outage factors) in a 

given year. The typical year data is used to develop 

projected typical future year emissions inventories. 

Georgia’s Progress Report also 

includes SO2 and NOX emissions data 

from 2002–2011 for EGUs in the State 

and for EGUs in the VISTAS region that 

are subject to reporting under the Acid 

Rain Program. This data shows a decline 

in these emissions over this time period. 

From 2002–2011, SO2 emissions from 

these EGUs in Georgia decreased by 

325,795 tons annually. Table 1 shows 

actual SO2 emissions from Georgia 

EGUs obtained from EPA’s Clean Air 

Markets Division (CAMD) database. 

EGU SO2 emissions dropped from 2007 

to 2011 by 448,625 tons. 

TABLE 1—GEORGIA EGU SO2 EMISSIONS FROM CAMD 

[2007–2011] 

SO2 Emissions (tons) 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 

CAMD EGU Emissions ........................................................ 635,484 514,539 262,337 218,904 186,859 

Change from 2007 ............................................................... 0 120,945 373,147 416,580 448,625 

EPA proposes to conclude that 

Georgia has adequately addressed 40 

CFR 51.308(g). As discussed above, the 

State provides estimates, and where 

available, actual emissions reductions of 

SO2 and NOX at EGUs in the State. 

3. Visibility Progress 

In its Progress Report, Georgia 

provides figures with visibility 

monitoring data for the State’s three 

Class I areas. Georgia reported current 

conditions as the 2006–2010 five-year 

time period and used the 2000–2004 

baseline period for its Class I areas.19

Table 2 shows the current visibility 

conditions and the difference between 

current visibility conditions and 

baseline visibility conditions. Table 3 

shows the changes in visibility from 

2005–2010 in terms of five-year 

averages. 

TABLE 2—BASELINE VISIBILITY, CURRENT VISIBILITY, AND VISIBILITY CHANGES IN CLASS I AREAS IN GEORGIA

Class I area Baseline 

(2000–2004) 

Current 

(2006–2010) Difference RPG (2018) 

20% Worst Days 

Cohutta ............................................................................................................ 30.25 26.18 ¥4.07 22.80 

Okefenokee ...................................................................................................... 27.13 25.01 ¥2.13 23.82 

Wolf Island ....................................................................................................... 27.13 25.01 ¥2.13 23.82 

20% Best Days 

Cohutta ............................................................................................................ 13.77 12.18 ¥1.59 11.75 

Okefenokee ...................................................................................................... 15.23 14.19 ¥1.04 13.92 

Wolf Island ....................................................................................................... 15.23 14.19 ¥1.04 13.92 

TABLE 3—CHANGES IN FIVE-YEAR VISIBILITY AVERAGES FROM 2005–2010 

Class I area 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Change 

(2010–2005) 

20% Worst Days 

Cohutta 20 ..................... 30.43 30.52 30.43 29.63 28.01 26.18 ¥4.24 

Okefenokee .................. 27.14 27.24 27.21 26.88 26.00 25.01 ¥2.13 

Wolf Island ................... 27.14 27.24 27.21 26.88 26.00 25.01 ¥2.13 

20% Best Days 

Cohutta 21 ..................... 13.88 13.63 13.62 13.43 12.5 12.18 ¥1.70 

Okefenokee .................. 14.95 15.03 14.90 14.90 14.46 14.19 ¥0.75 

Wolf Island ................... 14.95 15.03 14.90 14.90 14.46 14.19 ¥0.75 

All Georgia Class I areas saw an 

improvement in visibility between 

baseline and 2006–2010 conditions and 

an overall decline in the five-year 

visibility averages from 2006–2010. 

EPA proposes to find that Georgia has 

adequately addressed the applicable 

provisions under 40 CFR 51.308(g) 

regarding visibility conditions because 

the State provided baseline visibility 

conditions (2000–2004), current 

conditions based on the most recently 

available visibility monitoring data 

available at the time of Progress Report 

development, and the change in 

visibility impairment from 2006–2010. 

4. Emissions Tracking 

In its Progress Report, Georgia 

includes data from a statewide actual 

emissions inventory for 2007 and 

compares this data to the baseline 

emissions inventory for 2002 (actual 

and typical emissions) from its regional 

haze plan.22 The pollutants inventoried 

include volatile organic compounds 

(VOC), ammonia (NH3), NOX, coarse 

particulate matter (PM10), fine 

mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with PROPOSALS

38658 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 156 / Tuesday, August 15, 2017 / Proposed Rules 

23See Appendices F through I of Georgia’s 

Progress Report for inventories of these pollutants. 24 Georgia focuses on the visibility-impairing 

pollutants of SO2, NOX, and PM2.5 in its Progress 

Report narrative because VISTAS performed 

modeling sensitivity analyses which demonstrated 

that anthropogenic emissions of VOC and NH3 do 

not significantly impair visibility in the VISTAS 

region, including Georgia. See 77 FR 11456, 11460 

(February 27, 2012). 

particulate matter (PM2.5), and SO2.23

The emissions inventories include the 

following source classifications: Point, 

area, biogenics, non-road mobile, and 

on-road mobile sources. 

Georgia’s Progress Report narrative 

includes the actual and typical 

emissions inventories from its regional 

haze plan for 2002, and summarizes 

actual emissions data for SO2, NOX, and 

PM2.5 from 2007.24 Although EPA’s 

2008 National Emissions Inventory was 

available, Georgia believes that the 2007 

inventory was a more accurate and more 

detailed inventory because additional 

work was done to improve and verify its 

accuracy. Georgia estimated on-road 

mobile source emissions in the 2007 

inventory using EPA’s MOVES model. 

This model tends to estimate higher 

emissions for NOX and PM than its 

previous counterpart, EPA’s MOBILE6.2 

model, used by the State to estimate onroad mobile source emissions for the 

2002 inventories. Georgia also included 

projected emissions data from its 

February 11, 2010, regional haze plan 

submittal for these visibility-impairing 

pollutants for the years 2009 and 2018. 

Table 4 shows that actual emissions of 

PM2.5 in 2007 are slightly higher than 

2002 emissions. Both the 2002 and 2007 

actual emissions inventories are lower 

than the projected emissions for 2009 

and 2018 from Georgia’s regional haze 

plan. The State notes that the increase 

in on-road mobile PM2.5 emissions from 

2002 to 2007 is due to the change from 

MOBILE 6.2 to the MOVES model and 

that the decrease in area source PM2.5

emissions from 2002 to 2007 is mainly 

due to a change in the methodology 

used for calculating this sector’s 

emissions. 

TABLE 4—PM2.5 EMISSIONS

[tons] 

Sector 2002 Actual 2002 Typical 2007 Actual 2009 Projected 

2018 Projected 

Point ..................................................................................... 22,401 22,532 25,058 29,890 36,297 

Area ...................................................................................... 103,726 103,726 83,594 111,924 123,610 

On-road ................................................................................ 5,168 5,168 13,681 3,840 2,380 

Non-road .............................................................................. 8,226 8,226 6,608 7,175 5,730 

Fires ..................................................................................... 57,293 55,712 68,766 57,087 57,087 

Total .............................................................................. 196,814 195,364 197,707 209,916 225,104 

Table 5 shows that actual emissions of 

NOX in 2007 are slightly higher than 

2002 emissions. With the exception of 

area sources, both the 2002 and 2007 

actual emissions inventories for all 

other source categories remain higher 

than or approximately equal to the 

projected emissions for 2009 and 2018 

from Georgia’s regional haze plan. 

Georgia notes that the increase in onroad mobile NOX emissions from 2002 

to 2007 is due to the change to the 

MOVES model; the decrease in area 

source NOX emissions is mainly due to 

a change in the methodology used for 

calculating this sector’s emissions and 

the decrease in point source NOX is due 

to the installation of emissions controls. 

Georgia notes in its Progress Report that 

if there was no change in the mobile 

model used, the State would expect that 

2007 emissions would be less than the 

2002 base year emissions for NOX. 

TABLE 5—NOX EMISSIONS

[tons] 

Sector 2002 

Actual 

2002 

Typical 

2007 

Actual 

2009 

Projected 

2018 

Projected 

Point ..................................................................................... 196,767 197,377 154,041 148,850 125,680 

Area ...................................................................................... 36,105 36,105 12,351 37,689 41,282 

On-road ................................................................................ 307,732 307,732 396,837 209,349 102,179 

Non-road .............................................................................. 97,961 97,961 91,081 85,733 64,579 

Fires ..................................................................................... 14,203 13,882 19,429 14,236 14,236 

Total .............................................................................. 652,768 653,057 673,739 495,857 347,956 

Table 6 shows that actual emissions of 

SO2 from point sources and fires are 

higher in 2007 than 2002. Georgia notes 

that the decrease in area source SO2

emissions is mainly due to a change in 

the methodology used for calculating 

this sector’s emissions and that the 

increase in point source SO2 emissions 

from 2002 to 2007 is due to increased 

electricity generation. Despite the 

increase from 2002 to 2007 in point 

source emissions of SO2, significant 

emissions reductions occurred in this 

sector from 2007 to 2011 (as 

summarized in Table 1, above). The 

State attributes these decreased 

emissions to FGD being installed at 

several of the coal-fired EGUs in 

Georgia. 

mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 156 / Tuesday, August 15, 2017 / Proposed Rules 38659 

25See Appendices A and B of Georgia’s Progress 

Report. 

26See Figures 1–2, 1–3, 1–4, and 1–5 of Georgia’s 

Progress Report on pages 5–7. 

27See pages 42–43 of the narrative and Appendix 

D of Georgia’s Progress Report. 

TABLE 6—SO2 EMISSIONS

[tons] 

Sector 2002 

Actual 

2002 

Typical 

2007 

Actual 

2009 

Projected 

2018 

Projected 

Point ..................................................................................... 568,731 571,411 683,358 462,666 127,864 

Area ...................................................................................... 57,555 57,555 4,858 57,692 59,724 

On-road ................................................................................ 12,184 12,184 6,407 1,585 1,457 

Non-road .............................................................................. 9,005 9,005 5,983 2,725 1,709 

Fires ..................................................................................... 3,372 2,815 4,492 2,912 2,912 

Total .............................................................................. 650,847 652,970 705,098 527,580 193,666 

EPA proposes to find that Georgia 

adequately addressed the provisions of 

40 CFR 51.308(g) regarding emissions 

tracking because the State compared the 

most recent updated emission inventory 

data available at the time of Progress 

Report development with the baseline 

emissions used in the modeling for the 

regional haze plan. 

5. Assessment of Changes Impeding 

Visibility Progress 

In its Progress Report, Georgia 

documented that sulfates, which are 

formed from SO2 emissions, continue to 

be the biggest single contributor to 

regional haze for Class I areas in the 

VISTAS states, including Georgia, and 

therefore focused its analysis on large 

SO2 emissions from point sources. 

Specifically, Georgia provided data 

showing the composition of PM2.5

(‘‘speciated data’’) for Class I areas in 

the VISTAS region and bordering areas, 

including Cohutta and Okefenokee, for 

the years 2001 through 2010. This 

speciated data shows that ammonium 

sulfate continues to be the most 

important contributor to visibility 

impairment and fine particle mass on 

the 20 percent worst and 20 percent best 

visibility days at all of Georgia’s Class 

I areas.25 The State notes that there are 

no significant changes in anthropogenic 

emissions that have impeded progress 

in reducing emissions and improving 

visibility in Class I areas impacted by 

Georgia sources, and refers to decreases 

in point source SO2 emissions from 

2002 to 2011. Given the heat input data 

reported by CAMD, the State concludes 

that these reductions are not attributable 

to reduced power demand. Furthermore, 

the Progress Report shows that the State 

is on track to meeting its 2018 RPGs for 

Class I areas in Georgia. 

EPA proposes to find that Georgia has 

adequately addressed the provisions of 

40 CFR 51.308(g) regarding an 

assessment of significant changes in 

anthropogenic emissions. EPA 

preliminarily agrees with Georgia’s 

conclusion that there have been no 

significant changes in emissions of 

visibility-impairing pollutants which 

have limited or impeded progress in 

reducing emissions and improving 

visibility in Class I areas impacted by 

the State’s sources. 

6. Assessment of Current Strategy 

The State believes that it is on track 

to meet the 2018 RPGs for Georgia Class 

I areas and will not impede Class I areas 

outside of Georgia from meeting their 

RPGs based on the trends in visibility 

and emissions presented in its Progress 

Report. As noted above, Georgia 

provided speciated data for the period 

2006 to 2010 for the 20 percent best and 

worst days at Class I areas in and 

surrounding the VISTAS region, 

including Okefenokee and Cohutta, 

showing that sulfates continue to be the 

largest contributor to visibility 

impairment at these Class I areas.26

Georgia’s Progress Report shows that 

SO2 emissions from EGUs in Georgia 

have decreased from 2002 to 2011 by 

325,795 tons; that visibility has 

improved on the 20 percent worst days 

for the State’s Class I areas and the Class 

I areas potentially impacted by the 

State’s sources (Cape Romain National 

Wilderness Area in South Carolina, 

Shining Rock and Swanquarter 

Wilderness Areas in North Carolina, 

Joyce Kilmer—Slick Rock Wilderness 

Area and Great Smoky Mountains 

National Park in North Carolina and 

Tennessee, St. Marks National 

Wilderness Area in Florida, and Sipsey 

Wilderness Area in Alabama); and that 

these areas are on track to achieve their 

RPGs by 2018.27

As discussed in Section II.A.1, above, 

CAIR was implemented during the time 

period evaluated by Georgia for its 

Progress Report, but has now been 

replaced by CSAPR. At the present time, 

the requirements of CSAPR apply to 

sources in Georgia under the terms of a 

FIP. Georgia’s regional haze plan 

accordingly does not contain sufficient 

provisions to ensure that the RPGs of 

Class I areas in nearby states will be 

achieved. The term ‘‘implementation 

plan,’’ however, is defined for purposes 

of the Regional Haze Rule to mean ‘‘any 

[SIP], [FIP], or Tribal Implementation 

Plan.’’ 40 CFR 51.301. Measures in any 

issued FIP, as well as those in a state’s 

regional haze plan, may therefore be 

considered in assessing the adequacy of 

the ‘‘existing implementation plan.’’ As 

noted above, Georgia submitted a SIP 

revision on July 26, 2017, that adopts 

provisions for participation in the 

CSAPR annual NOX and annual SO2

trading programs, including annual NOX

and annual SO2 budgets that are equal 

to the budgets for Georgia in EPA’s 

CSAPR FIP. 

EPA proposes to find that Georgia has 

adequately addressed the provisions of 

40 CFR 51.308(g) regarding the strategy 

assessment. In its Progress Report, 

Georgia described the improving 

visibility trends using data from the 

IMPROVE network and the downward 

emissions trends in NOX and SO2

emissions from EGUs in the State. These 

trends support the State’s determination 

that its regional haze plan is sufficient 

to meet RPGs for Class I areas within 

and outside the State potentially 

impacted by Georgia sources. EPA finds 

that Georgia’s conclusion regarding the 

sufficiency of its regional haze plan is 

appropriate because CAIR was in effect 

in Georgia through 2014, providing the 

emission reductions relied upon in 

Georgia’s regional haze plan through 

that date. CSAPR is now being 

implemented, and by 2018, the end of 

the first regional haze implementation 

period, CSAPR will reduce emissions of 

SO2 and NOX from EGUs in Georgia by 

the same amount assumed by EPA when 

it issued the CSAPR FIP for Georgia. 

Because CSAPR will ensure the control 

of SO2 and NOX emissions reductions 

relied upon by Georgia and other states 

in setting their RPGs beginning in 

January 2015 at least through the 

mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with PROPOSALS

38660 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 156 / Tuesday, August 15, 2017 / Proposed Rules 

28See page 39 of Georgia’s Progress Report. 

remainder of the first implementation 

period in 2018, EPA is proposing to 

approve Georgia’s finding that the plan 

elements and strategies in its 

implementation plan are sufficient to 

achieve the RPGs for the Class I area in 

the State and for Class I areas in nearby 

states potentially impacted by sources 

in the State. 

7. Review of Current Monitoring 

Strategy 

Georgia’s Progress Report summarizes 

the existing monitoring network in the 

State to monitor visibility in Georgia’s 

Class I areas and concludes that no 

modifications to the existing visibility 

monitoring strategy are necessary. The 

primary monitoring network for regional 

haze, both nationwide and in Georgia, is 

the IMPROVE network. There are 

currently two IMPROVE sites in 

Georgia. One is located in the Cohutta 

Wilderness Area. The other monitor is 

located in the Okefenokee Wilderness 

area and serves as the monitoring site 

for both the Okefenokee and Wolf Island 

Wilderness Areas. 

The State also explains the 

importance of the IMPROVE monitoring 

network for tracking visibility trends at 

Class I areas in Georgia, noting that 

because IMPROVE monitoring data from 

2000–2004 serve as the baseline for the 

regional haze program, the future 

regional haze monitoring strategy 

should be based on IMPROVE data (or 

data directly comparable to IMPROVE 

data). Georgia also highlights that the 

IMPROVE measurements provide the 

only long-term record available for 

tracking visibility improvement or 

degradation. The Visibility Information 

Exchange Web System Web site has 

been maintained by VISTAS and the 

other Regional Planning Organizations 

to provide ready access to the IMPROVE 

data and data analysis tools. 

EPA proposes to find that Georgia has 

adequately addressed the applicable 

provisions of 40 CFR 51.308(g) 

regarding monitoring strategy because 

the State reviewed its visibility 

monitoring strategy and determined that 

no further modifications to the strategy 

are necessary. 

B. Determination of Adequacy of 

Existing Regional Haze Plan 

In its Progress Report, Georgia 

submitted a declaration to EPA that the 

existing regional haze plan requires no 

further substantive revision at this time 

to achieve the RPGs for Class I areas 

affected by the State’s sources. The basis 

for the State’s declaration is the findings 

from the Progress Report, including the 

findings that: The control measures in 

Georgia’s regional haze plan are on track 

to meet their implementation schedules; 

reduction of SO2 emissions continues to 

be the appropriate strategy for 

improvement of visibility in Georgia’s 

Class I areas; EGU SO2 emissions 

dropped from 2002 to 2011 by 325,795 

tons,28 and the actual change in 

visibility through 2010 for Georgia’s 

Class I areas is better than the what the 

State predicted for 2010 and is 

exceeding the uniform rate of progress. 

EPA proposes to find that Georgia has 

adequately addressed 40 CFR 51.308(h) 

because the visibility trends at the Class 

I areas in the State and at Class I areas 

outside the State potentially impacted 

by sources within Georgia and the 

emissions trends of the largest emitters 

of visibility-impairing pollutants in the 

State indicate that the relevant RPGs 

will be met. 

III. Proposed Action 

EPA is proposing to approve Georgia’s 

Regional Haze Progress Report SIP 

revision, submitted by the State on 

January 8, 2014, as meeting the 

applicable regional haze requirements 

set forth in 40 CFR 51.308(g) and 

51.308(h). 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the CAA, the Administrator is 

required to approve a SIP submission 

that complies with the provisions of the 

Act and applicable federal regulations. 

See 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). 

Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, 

EPA’s role is to approve state choices, 

provided that they meet the criteria of 

the CAA. Accordingly, this proposed 

action merely proposes to approve state 

law as meeting federal requirements and 

does not impose additional 

requirements beyond those imposed by 

state law. For that reason, this proposed 

action: 

• Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to review by the Office of 

Management and Budget under 

Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, 

January 21, 2011); 

• does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.); 

• is certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

U.S.C. 601 et seq.); 

• does not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); 

• does not have Federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); 

• is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); 

• is not subject to requirements of 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because 

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the CAA; and 

• does not provide EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address, as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable and legally permissible 

methods, under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

The SIP is not approved to apply on 

any Indian reservation land or in any 

other area where EPA or an Indian tribe 

has demonstrated that a tribe has 

jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian 

country, the rule does not have tribal 

implications as specified by Executive 

Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 

2000), nor will it impose substantial 

direct costs on tribal governments or 

preempt tribal law. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Nitrogen oxides, Particulate matter, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Sulfur dioxide, Volatile 

organic compounds. 

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

Dated: August 7, 2017. 

V. Anne Heard, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4. 

[FR Doc. 2017–17229 Filed 8–14–17; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R04–OAR–2017–0360; FRL–9966–39– 

Region 4] 

Air Plan Approval; Alabama: 

Prevention of Significant Deterioration 

Updates 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with PROPOSALS