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

brokerage and other sales-related costs, appointed contractors to notify potential other petitioners. This authority must be the amount of any liens and associated petitioners, process petitions, and make either expressed in documents giving costs paid by the Government on the recommendations to the Ruling Official the petitioner the authority to file property, costs incurred in paying the on the distribution of property to petitions for remission, or reasonably ordinary and necessary expenses of a petitioners. The expense for such implied from documents giving the business seized for forfeiture, awards for assistance shall be paid out of the petitioner express authority to file information as authorized by statute, forfeited funds. claims or lawsuits related to the course expenses of trustees or other assistants (4) Other agencies of the United of conduct in question on behalf of pursuant to paragraph (i)(3) of this States. Where another agency of the these petitioners. An insurer or an section, investigative or prosecutorial United States is entitled to remission or administrator of an employee benefit costs specially incurred incident to the mitigation of forfeited assets because of plan, for example, which itself has particular forfeiture, and costs incurred an interest that is recognizable under standing to file a petition as a ‘‘victim’’ incident to the processing of petitions this part or is eligible for such transfer within the meaning of paragraph (b)(22) for remission or mitigation. The pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 981(e)(6), such of this section, may also file a petition remaining balance shall be available for agency shall request the transfer in on behalf of its insured or plan remission or mitigation. The Ruling writing, in addition to complying with beneficiaries for any claims they may Official shall direct the distribution of any applicable provisions of paragraphs have based on co-payments made to the the remaining balance in the following (c) through (e) of this section. The perpetrator of the offense underlying the order or priority, except that the Ruling decision to make such transfer shall be forfeiture, or the perpetrator of a Official may exercise discretion in made in writing by the Ruling Official. ‘‘related offense’’ within the meaning of determining the priority between (5) Financial institution regulatory paragraph (b)(20), if the authority to file petitioners belonging to classes agencies. A Ruling Official may direct claims or lawsuits is contained in the described in paragraph (i)(1)(iii) and (iv) the transfer of property under 18 U.S.C. document or documents establishing the of this section in exceptional 981(e) to certain Federal financial plan. Where such a petition is filed, any circumstances: institution regulatory agencies or an amounts granted as remission must be (i) Owners; entity acting in their behalf, upon transferred to the other petitioners, not (ii) Lienholders; receipt of a written request, in lieu of the party filing the petition; although, as (iii) Federal financial institution ruling on a petition for remission or a matter of discretion, the Ruling regulatory agencies (pursuant to mitigation. Official may use the actual petitioner as paragraph (i)(5) of this section), not (6) Transfers to foreign governments. an intermediary for transferring the constituting owners or lienholders; and A Ruling Official may decline to grant amounts authorized as a remission to (iv) Victims not constituting owners remission to any petitioner other than the other petitioners. or lienholders pursuant to paragraph (h) an owner or lienholder so that forfeited 5. Section 233.10 is reserved. of this part. assets may be transferred to a foreign (2) Sale or disposition of property government pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 233.10 [Reserved]. prior to ruling. If forfeited property has 981(i)(1); 19 U.S.C. 1616a(c)(2); or 21 Stanley F. Mires, been sold or otherwise disposed of prior U.S.C. 881(e)(1)(E). to a ruling, the Ruling Official may grant (7) Filing by attorneys. Attorney, Legal Policy & Legislative Advice. relief in the form of a monetary amount. (i) A petition for remission or [FR Doc. 2012–4396 Filed 2–24–12; 8:45 am] The amount realized by the sale of mitigation may be filed by a petitioner BILLING CODE 7710–12–P property is presumed to be the value of or by that person’s attorney or legal the property. Monetary relief shall not guardian. If an attorney files on behalf be greater than the appraised value of of the petitioner, the petition must ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION the property at the time of seizure and include a signed and sworn statement AGENCY shall not exceed the amount realized by the client-petitioner stating that: from the sale or other disposition. The (A) The attorney has the authority to 40 CFR Part 52 represent the petitioner in this proceeds of the sale shall be distributed [EPA–R04–OAR–2010–0936–201150, FRL– as follows: proceeding; 9637–9] (i) Payment of the Government’s (B) The petitioner has fully reviewed expenses incurred incident to the the petition; and Approval and Promulgation of Air forfeiture and sale, including court costs (C) The petition is truthful and Quality Implementation Plans; State of and storage charges, if any; accurate in every respect. Georgia; Regional Haze State (ii) Payment to the petitioner of an (ii) Verbal notification of Implementation Plan amount up to that person’s interest in representation is not acceptable. the property; Responses and notification of rulings AGENCY: Environmental Protection (iii) Payment to the Postal Service shall not be sent to an attorney claiming Agency (EPA). Forfeiture Fund of all other costs and to represent a petitioner unless a written ACTION: Proposed rule. expenses incident to the forfeiture; notice of representation is filed. No (iv) In the case of victims, payment of extensions of time shall be granted due SUMMARY: EPA is proposing a limited any amount up to the amount of that to delays in submission of the notice of approval of a revision to the Georgia person’s loss; and representation. state implementation plan (SIP) (v) Payment of the balance remaining, (8) Consolidated petitions. At the submitted by the State of Georgia if any, to the Postal Service Forfeiture discretion of the Ruling Official in through the Georgia Department of Fund. individual cases, a petition may be filed Natural Resources, Environmental (3) Trustees and other assistants. As by one petitioner on behalf of other Protection Division (GA EPD), on a matter of discretion, the Ruling petitioners, provided the petitions are February 11, 2010, as supplemented on Official, with the approval of the Chief based on similar underlying facts, and November 19, 2010, that addresses Postal Inspector, may use the services of the petitioner who files the petition has regional haze for the first a trustee, other Government official, or written authority to do so on behalf of implementation period. This SIP

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:33 Feb 24, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\27FEP1.SGM 27FEP1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 38 / Monday, February 27, 2012 / Proposed Rules 11453

revision, as supplemented, addresses the public docket without change and FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sara the requirements of the Clean Air Act may be made available online at Waterson or Michele Notarianni, (CAA) and EPA’s rules that require www.regulations.gov, including any Regulatory Development Section, Air states to prevent any future and remedy personal information provided, unless Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and any existing anthropogenic impairment the comment includes information Toxics Management Division, U.S. of visibility in mandatory Class I areas claimed to be Confidential Business Environmental Protection Agency, (national parks and wilderness areas) Information (CBI) or other information Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., caused by emissions of air pollutants whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. Sara from numerous sources located over a Do not submit through Waterson can be reached at telephone wide geographic area (also referred to as www.regulations.gov or email, number (404) 562–9061 and by the ‘‘regional haze program’’). States are information that you consider to be CBI electronic mail at required to assure reasonable progress or otherwise protected. The [email protected]. Michele toward the national goal of achieving www.regulations.gov Web site is an Notarianni can be reached at telephone natural visibility conditions in Class I ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which number (404) 562–9031 and by areas. EPA is proposing a limited means EPA will not know your identity electronic mail at approval of this SIP revision to or contact information unless you [email protected]. implement the regional haze provide it in the body of your comment. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: requirements for Georgia on the basis If you send an email comment directly Table of Contents that the revision, as a whole, to EPA without going through strengthens the Georgia SIP. EPA has www.regulations.gov, your email I. What action is EPA proposing to take? previously proposed a limited address will be automatically captured II. What is the background for EPA’s disapproval of the Georgia regional haze proposed action? and included as part of the comment A. The Regional Haze Problem SIP because of deficiencies in the State’s that is placed in the public docket and regional haze SIP submittal arising from B. Requirements of the CAA and EPA’s made available on the Internet. If you the remand by the U.S. Court of Appeals Regional Haze Rule (RHR) submit an electronic comment, EPA C. Roles of Agencies in Addressing for the District of Columbia Circuit (D.C. recommends that you include your Regional Haze Circuit) to EPA of the Clean Air name and other contact information in III. What are the requirements for the regional Interstate Rule (CAIR). Consequently, the body of your comment and with any haze SIPs? EPA is not proposing to take action in disk or CD–ROM you submit. If EPA A. The CAA and the RHR this rulemaking to address the State’s B. Determination of Baseline, Natural, and cannot read your comment due to reliance on CAIR to meet certain Current Visibility Conditions technical difficulties and cannot contact regional haze requirements. C. Determination of Reasonable Progress you for clarification, EPA may not be Goals (RPGs) DATES: Comments must be received on able to consider your comment. D. Best Available Retrofit Technology or before March 28, 2012. Electronic files should avoid the use of (BART) ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, special characters, any form of E. Long-Term Strategy (LTS) identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R04– encryption, and be free of any defects or F. Coordinating Regional Haze and Reasonably Attributable Visibility OAR–2010–0936, by one of the viruses. For additional information following methods: Impairment (RAVI) LTS about EPA’s public docket visit the EPA G. Monitoring Strategy and Other 1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the Docket Center homepage at http:// Implementation Plan Requirements on-line instructions for submitting www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm. H. Consultation With States and Federal comments. Docket: All documents in the Land Managers (FLMs) 2. Email: [email protected]. IV. What is EPA’s analysis of Georgia’s 3. Fax: 404–562–9019. electronic docket are listed in the regional haze submittal? 4. Mail: EPA–R04–OAR–2010–0936, www.regulations.gov index. Although A. Affected Class I Areas Regulatory Development Section, Air listed in the index, some information is B. Determination of Baseline, Natural and Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other Current Visibility Conditions Toxics Management Division, U.S. information whose disclosure is 1. Estimating Natural Visibility Conditions 2. Estimating Baseline Conditions Environmental Protection Agency, restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, 3. Summary of Baseline and Natural Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., Conditions Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. is not placed on the Internet and will be 4. Uniform Rate of Progress 5. Hand Delivery or Courier: Lynorae publicly available only in hard copy C. Long-Term Strategy/Strategies Benjamin, Chief, Regulatory form. Publicly available docket 1. Emissions Inventory for 2018 With Development Section, Air Planning materials are available either Federal and State Control Requirements Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics electronically in www.regulations.gov or 2. Modeling To Support the LTS and Management Division, U.S. in hard copy at the Regulatory Determine Visibility Improvement for Uniform Rate of Progress Environmental Protection Agency, Development Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics 3. Relative Contributions To Visibility Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., Impairment: Pollutants, Source Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. Such Management Division, U.S. Categories, and Geographic Areas deliveries are only accepted during the Environmental Protection Agency, 4. Procedure for Identifying Sources To Regional Office’s normal hours of Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., Evaluate for Reasonable Progress operation. The Regional Office’s official Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. EPA Controls in Georgia and Surrounding hours of business are Monday through requests that if at all possible, you Areas Friday, 8:30 to 4:30, excluding Federal contact the person listed in the FOR 5. Application of the Four CAA Factors in the Reasonable Progress Analysis FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to holidays. A. Facilities With Emissions Unit(s) Instructions: Direct your comments to schedule your inspection. The Regional Subject To Reasonable Progress Analysis Docket ID No. ‘‘EPA–R04–OAR–2010– Office’s official hours of business are B. Facilities With Emissions Unit(s) Not 0936.’’ EPA’s policy is that all Monday through Friday, 8:30 to 4:30, Subject To Reasonable Progress Analysis comments received will be included in excluding Federal holidays. 6. BART

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:33 Feb 24, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\27FEP1.SGM 27FEP1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS 11454 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 38 / Monday, February 27, 2012 / Proposed Rules

A. BART-Eligible Sources SIP submittal arising from the State’s memorial parks, wilderness areas, and B. BART-Subject Sources reliance on CAIR to meet certain international parks meeting certain size C. BART Determinations regional haze requirements. See 76 FR criteria) in the western United States is 7. RPGs 82219 (December 30, 2011). EPA is not D. Coordination of RAVI and Regional 100–150 kilometers, or about one-half to Haze Requirements proposing to take action in today’s two-thirds of the visual range that E. Monitoring Strategy and Other rulemaking on issues associated with would exist without anthropogenic air Implementation Plan Requirements Georgia’s reliance on CAIR in its pollution. In most of the eastern Class F. Consultation With States and FLMs regional haze SIP. Comments on EPA’s I areas of the United States, the average 1. Consultation With Other States proposed limited disapproval of visual range is less than 30 kilometers, 2. Consultation With the FLMs Georgia’s regional haze SIP are accepted or about one-fifth of the visual range G. Periodic SIP Revisions and Five-Year at the docket for EPA’s December 30, that would exist under estimated Progress Reports 2011, proposed rulemaking (see Docket V. What action is EPA taking? natural conditions. See 64 FR 35715 VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2011–0729). The (July 1, 1999). A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory comment period for EPA’s December 30, 2011, proposed rulemaking is scheduled B. Requirements of the CAA and EPA’s Planning and Review Regional Haze Rule (RHR) B. Paperwork Reduction Act to end on February 28, 2012. C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) In section 169A of the 1977 D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act II. What is the background for EPA’s proposed action? Amendments to the CAA, Congress (UMRA) created a program for protecting E. Executive Order 13132, Federalism A. The Regional Haze Problem F. Executive Order 13175, Coordination visibility in the nation’s national parks With Indian Tribal Governments Regional haze is visibility impairment and wilderness areas. This section of the G. Executive Order 13045, Protection of that is produced by a multitude of CAA establishes as a national goal the Children From Environmental Health sources and activities which are located ‘‘prevention of any future, and the Risks and Safety Risks across a broad geographic area and emit remedying of any existing, impairment H. Executive Order 13211, Actions That fine particles (PM2.5) (e.g., sulfates, of visibility in mandatory Class I areas Significantly Affect Energy Supply, nitrates, organic carbon, elemental which impairment results from Distribution, or Use carbon, and soil dust), and their manmade air pollution.’’ On December I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act precursors (e.g., sulfur dioxide (SO2), 2, 1980, EPA promulgated regulations to nitrogen oxides (NOX), and in some address visibility impairment in Class I I. What action is EPA proposing To cases, ammonia (NH3) and volatile areas that is ‘‘reasonably attributable’’ to take? organic compounds (VOC)). Fine a single source or small group of EPA is proposing a limited approval particle precursors react in the sources, i.e., ‘‘reasonably attributable of Georgia’s February 11, 2010, SIP atmosphere to form fine particulate visibility impairment.’’ See 45 FR revision and November 19, 2010, SIP matter which impairs visibility by 80084. These regulations represented supplement, addressing regional haze scattering and absorbing light. Visibility the first phase in addressing visibility under CAA sections 301(a) and impairment reduces the clarity, color, impairment. EPA deferred action on 110(k)(3) because these revisions, as a and visible distance that one can see. regional haze that emanates from a whole, strengthen the Georgia SIP. PM2.5 can also cause serious health variety of sources until monitoring, Throughout this document, references effects and mortality in humans and modeling and scientific knowledge To Georgia’s ‘‘regional haze SIP’’ or ‘‘SIP contributes to environmental effects about the relationships between submittal’’ or ‘‘SIP revision’’ collectively such as acid deposition and pollutants and visibility impairment refer To Georgia’s original February 11, eutrophication. were improved. 2010, SIP revision and the supplement Data from the existing visibility Congress added section 169B to the to this February 2010 SIP revision monitoring network, the ‘‘Interagency CAA in 1990 to address regional haze submitted on November 19, 2010. This Monitoring of Protected Visual issues. EPA promulgated a rule to proposed rulemaking and the Environments’’ (IMPROVE) monitoring address regional haze on July 1, 1999 accompanying Technical Support network, show that visibility (64 FR 35713), the RHR. The RHR Document 1 (TSD) explain the basis for impairment caused by air pollution revised the existing visibility EPA’s proposed limited approval occurs virtually all the time at most regulations to integrate into the 2 national park and wilderness areas. The regulation provisions addressing action. 3 In a separate action, EPA has average visual range in many Class I regional haze impairment and 4 proposed a limited disapproval of the areas (i.e., national parks and established a comprehensive visibility Georgia regional haze SIP because of protection program for Class I areas. The 3 Visual range is the greatest distance, in deficiencies in the State’s regional haze kilometers or miles, at which a dark object can be requirements for regional haze, found at viewed against the sky. 40 CFR 51.308 and 51.309, are included 1 EPA’s TSD to this action, entitled ‘‘Technical 4 Areas designated as mandatory Class I areas in EPA’s visibility protection Support Document for Georgia Regional Haze SIP consist of national parks exceeding 6,000 acres, regulations at 40 CFR 51.300–309. Some Submittal,’’ is included in the public docket for this wilderness areas and national memorial parks of the main elements of the regional action. exceeding 5,000 acres, and all international parks 2 Under CAA sections 301(a) and 110(k)(6) and that were in existence on August 7, 1977. See 42 haze requirements are summarized in EPA’s long-standing guidance, a limited approval U.S.C. 7472(a). In accordance with section 169A of section III of this preamble. The results in approval of the entire SIP submittal, even the CAA, EPA, in consultation with the Department requirement to submit a regional haze of those parts that are deficient and prevent EPA of Interior, promulgated a list of 156 areas where SIP applies to all 50 states, the District from granting a full approval of the SIP revision. visibility is identified as an important value. See 44 Processing of State Implementation Plan (SIP) FR 69122 (November 30, 1979). The extent of a Revisions, EPA Memorandum from John Calcagni, mandatory Class I area includes subsequent changes in section 169A of the CAA apply only to Director, Air Quality Management Division, in boundaries, such as park expansions. See 42 ‘‘mandatory Class I Federal areas.’’ Each mandatory OAQPS, to Air Division Directors, EPA Regional U.S.C. 7472(a). Although states and tribes may Class I area is the responsibility of a ‘‘Federal Land Offices I–X, September 7, 1992, (1992 Calcagni designate as Class I additional areas which they Manager.’’ See 42 U.S.C. 7602(i). When the term Memorandum) located at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/ consider to have visibility as an important value, ‘‘Class I area’’ is used in this action, it means a caaa/t1/memoranda/siproc.pdf. the requirements of the visibility program set forth ‘‘mandatory Class I Federal area.’’

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:33 Feb 24, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\27FEP1.SGM 27FEP1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 38 / Monday, February 27, 2012 / Proposed Rules 11455

of Columbia, and the Virgin Islands.5 40 III. What are the requirements for the To track changes in visibility over CFR 51.308(b) requires states to submit regional haze SIPs? time at each of the 156 Class I areas covered by the visibility program (40 the first implementation plan A. The CAA and the RHR addressing regional haze visibility CFR 81.401–437), and as part of the impairment no later than December 17, Regional haze SIPs must assure process for determining reasonable 2007. reasonable progress toward the national progress, states must calculate the goal of achieving natural visibility degree of existing visibility impairment C. Roles of Agencies in Addressing conditions in Class I areas. Section at each Class I area at the time of each Regional Haze 169A of the CAA and EPA’s regional haze SIP submittal and periodically review progress every five Successful implementation of the implementing regulations require states years, i.e., midway through each 10-year regional haze program will require long- to establish long-term strategies for making reasonable progress toward implementation period. To do this, the term regional coordination among meeting this goal. Implementation plans RHR requires states to determine the states, tribal governments and various must also give specific attention to degree of impairment (in deciviews) for Federal agencies. As noted above, certain stationary sources that were in the average of the 20 percent least pollution affecting the air quality in existence on August 7, 1977, but were impaired (‘‘best’’) and 20 percent most Class I areas can be transported over not in operation before August 7, 1962, impaired (‘‘worst’’) visibility days over long distances, even hundreds of and require these sources, where a specified time period at each of their kilometers. Therefore, to effectively appropriate, to install BART controls for Class I areas. In addition, states must address the problem of visibility the purpose of eliminating or reducing also develop an estimate of natural impairment in Class I areas, states need visibility impairment. The specific visibility conditions for the purpose of to develop strategies in coordination regional haze SIP requirements are comparing progress toward the national with one another, taking into account discussed in further detail below. goal. Natural visibility is determined by the effect of emissions from one estimating the natural concentrations of jurisdiction on the air quality in B. Determination of Baseline, Natural, pollutants that cause visibility and Current Visibility Conditions another. impairment and then calculating total light extinction based on those Because the pollutants that lead to The RHR establishes the deciview as estimates. EPA has provided guidance regional haze can originate from sources the principal metric or unit for to states regarding how to calculate located across broad geographic areas, expressing visibility. This visibility metric expresses uniform changes in baseline, natural, and current visibility EPA has encouraged the states and conditions in documents titled, EPA’s tribes across the United States to haziness in terms of common increments across the entire range of Guidance for Estimating Natural address visibility impairment from a Visibility Conditions Under the Regional regional perspective. Five regional visibility conditions, from pristine to extremely hazy conditions. Visibility Haze Rule, September 2003, (EPA–454/ planning organizations (RPOs) were expressed in deciviews is determined by B–03–005 located at http://www.epa. developed to address regional haze and _ using air quality measurements to gov/ttncaaa1/t1/memoranda/rh related issues. The RPOs first evaluated _ estimate light extinction and then envcurhr gd.pdf), (hereinafter referred technical information to better transforming the value of light to as ‘‘EPA’s 2003 Natural Visibility understand how their states and tribes extinction using a logarithm function. Guidance’’), and Guidance for Tracking impact Class I areas across the country, The deciview is a more useful measure Progress Under the Regional Haze Rule, and then pursued the development of for tracking progress in improving September 2003, (EPA–454/B–03–004 regional strategies to reduce emissions visibility than light extinction itself located at http://www.epa.gov/ttncaaa1/ _ _ of particulate matter (PM) and other because each deciview change is an t1/memoranda/rh tpurhr gd.pdf), pollutants leading to regional haze. equal incremental change in visibility (hereinafter referred to as ‘‘EPA’s 2003 The Visibility Improvement State and perceived by the human eye. Most Tracking Progress Guidance’’). Tribal Association of the Southeast people can detect a change in visibility For the first regional haze SIPs that (VISTAS) RPO is a collaborative effort of at one deciview.6 were due by December 17, 2007, state governments, tribal governments, The deciview is used in expressing ‘‘baseline visibility conditions’’ were the and various Federal agencies RPGs (which are interim visibility goals starting points for assessing ‘‘current’’ established to initiate and coordinate towards meeting the national visibility visibility impairment. Baseline visibility conditions represent the degree of activities associated with the goal), defining baseline, current, and visibility impairment for the 20 percent management of regional haze, visibility natural conditions, and tracking changes least impaired days and 20 percent most and other air quality issues in the in visibility. The regional haze SIPs must contain measures that ensure impaired days for each calendar year southeastern United States. Member from 2000 to 2004. Using monitoring state and tribal governments include: ‘‘reasonable progress’’ toward the national goal of preventing and data for 2000 through 2004, states are Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, required to calculate the average degree Mississippi, North Carolina, South remedying visibility impairment in Class I areas caused by anthropogenic of visibility impairment for each Class I Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia, West air pollution by reducing anthropogenic area, based on the average of annual Virginia, and the Eastern Band of the emissions that cause regional haze. The values over the five-year period. The Cherokee Indians. national goal is a return to natural comparison of initial baseline visibility conditions, i.e., anthropogenic sources conditions to natural visibility conditions indicates the amount of 5 of air pollution would no longer impair Albuquerque/Bernalillo County in New Mexico improvement necessary to attain natural must also submit a regional haze SIP to completely visibility in Class I areas. satisfy the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D) of visibility, while the future comparison the CAA for the entire State of New Mexico under 6 The preamble to the RHR provides additional of baseline conditions to the then the New Mexico Air Quality Control Act (section details about the deciview. See 64 FR 35714, 35725 current conditions will indicate the 74–2–4). (July 1, 1999). amount of progress made. In general, the

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:33 Feb 24, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00042 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\27FEP1.SGM 27FEP1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS 11456 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 38 / Monday, February 27, 2012 / Proposed Rules

2000–2004 baseline period is also consult with potentially VOC or NH3 compounds impair considered the time from which ‘‘contributing states,’’ i.e., other nearby visibility in Class I areas. improvement in visibility is measured. states with emissions sources that may Under the BART Guidelines, states be affecting visibility impairment at the may select an exemption threshold C. Determination of Reasonable Progress Class I state’s areas. See 40 CFR value for their BART modeling, below Goals (RPGs) 51.308(d)(1)(iv). which a BART-eligible source would The vehicle for ensuring continuing not be expected to cause or contribute progress toward achieving the natural D. Best Available Retrofit Technology to visibility impairment in any Class I visibility goal is the submission of a (BART) area. The state must document this series of regional haze SIPs from the Section 169A of the CAA directs exemption threshold value in the SIP states that establish two RPGs (i.e., two states to evaluate the use of retrofit and must state the basis for its selection distinct goals, one for the ‘‘best’’ and controls at certain larger, often of that value. Any source with one for the ‘‘worst’’ days) for every Class uncontrolled, older stationary sources in emissions that model above the I area for each (approximately) 10-year order to address visibility impacts from threshold value would be subject to a implementation period. The RHR does these sources. Specifically, section BART determination review. The BART not mandate specific milestones or rates 169A(b)(2)(A) of the CAA requires states Guidelines acknowledge varying of progress, but instead calls for states to revise their SIPs to contain such circumstances affecting different Class I to establish goals that provide for measures as may be necessary to make areas. States should consider the ‘‘reasonable progress’’ toward achieving reasonable progress towards the natural number of emissions sources affecting natural (i.e., ‘‘background’’) visibility visibility goal, including a requirement the Class I areas at issue and the conditions. In setting RPGs, states must that certain categories of existing major magnitude of the individual sources’ provide for an improvement in visibility stationary sources 7 built between 1962 impacts. Any exemption threshold set for the most impaired days over the and 1977 procure, install, and operate by the state should not be higher than (approximately) 10-year period of the the ‘‘Best Available Retrofit 0.5 deciview. SIP, and ensure no degradation in Technology’’ as determined by the state. In their SIPs, states must identify visibility for the least impaired days Under the RHR, states are directed to potential BART sources, described as over the same period. conduct BART determinations for such ‘‘BART-eligible sources’’ in the RHR, States have significant discretion in ‘‘BART-eligible’’ sources that may be and document their BART control establishing RPGs, but are required to determination analyses. In making anticipated to cause or contribute to any consider the following factors BART determinations, section visibility impairment in a Class I area. established in section 169A of the CAA 169A(g)(2) of the CAA requires that Rather than requiring source-specific and in EPA’s RHR at 40 CFR states consider the following factors: (1) BART controls, states also have the 51.308(d)(1)(i)(A): (1) The costs of The costs of compliance, (2) the energy flexibility to adopt an emissions trading compliance; (2) the time necessary for and non-air quality environmental program or other alternative program as compliance; (3) the energy and non-air impacts of compliance, (3) any existing long as the alternative provides greater quality environmental impacts of pollution control technology in use at reasonable progress towards improving compliance; and (4) the remaining the source, (4) the remaining useful life visibility than BART. useful life of any potentially affected of the source, and (5) the degree of sources. States must demonstrate in On July 6, 2005, EPA published the improvement in visibility which may their SIPs how these factors are Guidelines for BART Determinations reasonably be anticipated to result from considered when selecting the RPGs for Under the Regional Haze Rule at the use of such technology. States are the best and worst days for each Appendix Y to 40 CFR part 51 free to determine the weight and applicable Class I area. States have (hereinafter referred to as the ‘‘BART significance to be assigned to each considerable flexibility in how they take Guidelines’’) to assist states in factor. these factors into consideration, as determining which of their sources A regional haze SIP must include noted in EPA’s Guidance for Setting should be subject to the BART source-specific BART emissions limits Reasonable Progress Goals Under the requirements and in determining and compliance schedules for each Regional Haze Program (‘‘EPA’s appropriate emissions limits for each source subject to BART. Once a state has Reasonable Progress Guidance’’), July 1, applicable source. In making a BART made its BART determination, the 2007, memorandum from William L. determination for a fossil fuel-fired BART controls must be installed and in Wehrum, Acting Assistant electric generating plant with a total operation as expeditiously as Administrator for Air and Radiation, to generating capacity in excess of 750 practicable, but no later than five years EPA Regional Administrators, EPA megawatts (MW), a state must use the after the date of EPA approval of the Regions 1–10 (pp. 4–2, 5–1). In setting approach set forth in the BART regional haze SIP. See CAA section the RPGs, states must also consider the Guidelines. A state is encouraged, but 169(g)(4)); see 40 CFR 51.308(e)(1)(iv). rate of progress needed to reach natural not required, to follow the BART In addition to what is required by the visibility conditions by 2064 (referred to Guidelines in making BART RHR, general SIP requirements mandate as the ‘‘uniform rate of progress’’ or the determinations for other types of that the SIP must also include all ‘‘glidepath’’) and the emissions sources. regulatory requirements related to reduction measures needed to achieve States must address all visibility- monitoring, recordkeeping, and that rate of progress over the 10-year impairing pollutants emitted by a source reporting for the BART controls on the period of the SIP. Uniform progress in the BART determination process. The source. towards achievement of natural most significant visibility impairing As noted above, the RHR allows states conditions by the year 2064 represents pollutants are SO2, NOX, and PM. EPA to implement an alternative program in a rate of progress which states are to use has stated that states should use their lieu of BART so long as the alternative for analytical comparison to the amount best judgment in determining whether program can be demonstrated to achieve of progress they expect to achieve. In greater reasonable progress toward the setting RPGs, each state with one or 7 The set of ‘‘major stationary sources’’ potentially national visibility goal than would more Class I areas (‘‘Class I state’’) must subject to BART is listed in CAA section 169A(g)(7). BART. Under regulations issued in 2005

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:33 Feb 24, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00043 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\27FEP1.SGM 27FEP1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 38 / Monday, February 27, 2012 / Proposed Rules 11457

revising the regional haze program, EPA SIP submittal to meet applicable RPGs. accordance with 40 CFR 51.308(b) and made just such a demonstration for The LTS must include ‘‘enforceable (c). On or before this date, the state must CAIR. See 70 FR 39104 (July 6, 2005). emissions limitations, compliance revise its plan to provide for review and EPA’s regulations provide that states schedules, and other measures as revision of a coordinated LTS for participating in the CAIR cap-and trade necessary to achieve the reasonable addressing RAVI and regional haze, and program under 40 CFR part 96 pursuant progress goals’’ for all Class I areas the state must submit the first such to an EPA-approved CAIR SIP or which within, or affected by emissions from, coordinated LTS with its first regional remain subject to the CAIR Federal the state. See 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3). haze SIP. Future coordinated LTSs, and Implementation Plan in 40 CFR part 97 When a state’s emissions are periodic progress reports evaluating need not require affected BART-eligible reasonably anticipated to cause or progress towards RPGs, must be electrical generating (EGUs) to install, contribute to visibility impairment in a submitted consistent with the schedule operate, and maintain BART for Class I area located in another state, the for SIP submission and periodic emissions of SO2 and NOX. See 40 CFR RHR requires the impacted state to progress reports set forth in 40 CFR 51.308(e)(4). Because CAIR did not coordinate with the contributing states 51.308(f) and 51.308(g), respectively. address direct emissions of PM, states in order to develop coordinated The periodic review of a state’s LTS were still required to conduct a BART emissions management strategies. See must report on both regional haze and analysis for PM emissions from EGUs 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(i). In such cases, RAVI impairment and must be subject to BART for that pollutant. the contributing state must demonstrate submitted to EPA as a SIP revision. Challenges to CAIR, however, resulted that it has included, in its SIP, all G. Monitoring Strategy and Other in the remand of the rule to EPA. See measures necessary to obtain its share of Implementation Plan Requirements North Carolina v. EPA, 550 F.3d 1175 the emissions reductions needed to (DC Cir. 2008). meet the RPGs for the Class I area. The Section 51.308(d)(4) of the RHR EPA issued a new rule in 2011 to RPOs have provided forums for includes the requirement for a address the interstate transport of NOX significant interstate consultation, but monitoring strategy for measuring, and SO2 in the eastern United States. additional consultations between states characterizing, and reporting of regional See 76 FR 48208 (August 8, 2011) (‘‘the may be required to sufficiently address haze visibility impairment that is Transport Rule,’’ also known as the interstate visibility issues. This is representative of all mandatory Class I Cross-State Air Pollution Rule). On especially true where two states belong areas within the state. The strategy must December 30, 2011, EPA proposed to to different RPOs. be coordinated with the monitoring find that the trading programs in the States should consider all types of strategy required in section 51.305 for Transport Rule would achieve greater anthropogenic sources of visibility RAVI. Compliance with this reasonable progress towards the impairment in developing their LTS, requirement may be met through national goal than would BART in the including stationary, minor, mobile, and ‘‘participation’’ in the IMPROVE states in which the Transport Rule area sources. At a minimum, states must network, i.e., review and use of applies. See 76 FR 82219. Based on this describe how each of the following monitoring data from the network. The proposed finding, EPA also proposed to seven factors listed below are taken into monitoring strategy is due with the first revise the RHR to allow states to account in developing their LTS: (1) regional haze SIP, and it must be substitute participation in the trading Emissions reductions due to ongoing air reviewed every five years. The programs under the Transport Rule for pollution control programs, including monitoring strategy must also provide source-specific BART. EPA has not yet measures to address RAVI; (2) measures for additional monitoring sites if the taken final action on that rule. Also on to mitigate the impacts of construction IMPROVE network is not sufficient to December 30, 2011, the DC Circuit activities; (3) emissions limitations and determine whether RPGs will be met. issued an order addressing the status of schedules for compliance to achieve the The SIP must also provide for the the Transport Rule and CAIR in RPG; (4) source retirement and following: response to motions filed by numerous replacement schedules; (5) smoke • Procedures for using monitoring parties seeking a stay of the Transport management techniques for agricultural data and other information in a state Rule pending judicial review. In that and forestry management purposes with mandatory Class I areas to order, the D.C. Circuit stayed the including plans as currently exist determine the contribution of emissions Transport Rule pending the court’s within the state for these purposes; (6) from within the state to regional haze resolutions of the petitions for review of enforceability of emissions limitations visibility impairment at Class I areas that rule in EME Homer Generation, L.P. and control measures; and (7) the both within and outside the state; v. EPA (No. 11–1302 and consolidated anticipated net effect on visibility due to • Procedures for using monitoring cases). The court also indicated that projected changes in point, area, and data and other information in a state EPA is expected to continue to mobile source emissions over the period with no mandatory Class I areas to administer CAIR in the interim until the addressed by the LTS. See 40 CFR determine the contribution of emissions court rules on the petitions for review 51.308(d)(3)(v). from within the state to regional haze of the Transport Rule. visibility impairment at Class I areas in F. Coordinating Regional Haze and other states; E. Long-Term Strategy (LTS) Reasonably Attributable Visibility • Reporting of all visibility Consistent with the requirement in Impairment (RAVI) LTS monitoring data to the Administrator at section 169A(b) of the CAA that states As part of the RHR, EPA revised 40 least annually for each Class I area in include in their regional haze SIP a 10 CFR 51.306(c) regarding the LTS for the state, and where possible, in to 15 year strategy for making RAVI to require that the RAVI plan must electronic format; reasonable progress, section 51.308(d)(3) provide for a periodic review and SIP • Developing a statewide inventory of of the RHR requires that states include revision not less frequently than every emissions of pollutants that are a LTS in their regional haze SIPs. The three years until the date of submission reasonably anticipated to cause or LTS is the compilation of all control of the state’s first plan addressing contribute to visibility impairment in measures a state will use during the regional haze visibility impairment, any Class I area. The inventory must implementation period of the specific which was due December 17, 2007, in include emissions for a baseline year,

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:33 Feb 24, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00044 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\27FEP1.SGM 27FEP1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS 11458 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 38 / Monday, February 27, 2012 / Proposed Rules

emissions for the most recent year for A. Affected Class I Areas estimate the values that characterize the which data are available, and estimates Georgia has three Class I areas within natural visibility conditions of the Class of future projected emissions. A state its borders: Cohutta Wilderness Area, I areas. One alternative approach is to must also make a commitment to update Okefenokee Wilderness Area, and Wolf develop and justify the use of the inventory periodically; and Island Wilderness Area. Georgia is alternative estimates of natural • Other elements, including concentrations of fine particle responsible for developing a regional reporting, recordkeeping, and other components. Another alternative is to haze SIP that addresses these Class I measures necessary to assess and report use the ‘‘new IMPROVE equation’’ that areas and for consulting with other on visibility. was adopted for use by the IMPROVE states that impact Georgia’s Class I The RHR requires control strategies to Steering Committee in December 2005.8 areas. cover an initial implementation period The purpose of this refinement to the The Georgia regional haze SIP extending to the year 2018, with a ‘‘old IMPROVE equation’’ is to provide establishes RPGs for visibility comprehensive reassessment and more accurate estimates of the various improvement at each of these Class I revision of those strategies, as factors that affect the calculation of light areas and a LTS to achieve those RPGs appropriate, every 10 years thereafter. extinction. Georgia opted to use the within the first regional haze Periodic SIP revisions must meet the default estimates for the natural core requirements of section 51.308(d) implementation period ending in 2018. concentrations combined with the ‘‘new with the exception of BART. The In developing the LTS for each area, IMPROVE equation’’ for all of its areas. requirement to evaluate sources for Georgia considered both emissions Using this approach, natural visibility BART applies only to the first regional sources inside and outside of Georgia conditions using the new IMPROVE haze SIP. Facilities subject to BART that may cause or contribute to visibility equation were calculated separately for must continue to comply with the BART impairment in Georgia’s Class I areas. each Class I area by VISTAS. provisions of section 51.308(e), as noted The State also identified and considered The new IMPROVE equation takes above. Periodic SIP revisions will assure emissions sources within Georgia that into account the most recent review of that the statutory requirement of may cause or contribute to visibility the science 9 and it accounts for the reasonable progress will continue to be impairment in Class I areas in effect of particle size distribution on met. neighboring states as required by 40 light extinction efficiency of sulfate, CFR 51.308(d)(3). The VISTAS RPO nitrate, and organic carbon. It also H. Consultation With States and Federal worked with the State in developing the Land Managers (FLMs) adjusts the mass multiplier for organic technical analyses used to make these carbon (particulate organic matter) by The RHR requires that states consult determinations, including state-by-state increasing it from 1.4 to 1.8. New terms with FLMs before adopting and contributions to visibility impairment in are added to the equation to account for submitting their SIPs. See 40 CFR specific Class I areas, which included light extinction by sea salt and light 51.308(i). States must provide FLMs an the three areas in Georgia and those absorption by gaseous nitrogen dioxide. opportunity for consultation, in person areas affected by emissions from Site-specific values are used for and at least 60 days prior to holding any Georgia. Rayleigh scattering (scattering of light public hearing on the SIP. This B. Determination of Baseline, Natural, due to atmospheric gases) to account for consultation must include the and Current Visibility Conditions the site-specific effects of elevation and opportunity for the FLMs to discuss temperature. Separate relative humidity their assessment of impairment of As required by the RHR and in visibility in any Class I area and to offer accordance with EPA’s 2003 Natural 8 The IMPROVE program is a cooperative recommendations on the development Visibility Guidance, Georgia calculated measurement effort governed by a steering of the RPGs and on the development baseline/current and natural visibility committee composed of representatives from Federal agencies (including representatives from and implementation of strategies to conditions for each of its Class I areas, EPA and the FLMs) and RPOs. The IMPROVE address visibility impairment. Further, a as summarized below (and as further monitoring program was established in 1985 to aid state must include in its SIP a described in sections III.B.1 and III.B.2 the creation of Federal and state implementation of EPA’s TSD to this Federal Register plans for the protection of visibility in Class I areas. description of how it addressed any One of the objectives of IMPROVE is to identify comments provided by the FLMs. action). chemical species and emissions sources responsible Finally, a SIP must provide procedures 1. Estimating Natural Visibility for existing anthropogenic visibility impairment. for continuing consultation between the The IMPROVE program has also been a key Conditions participant in visibility-related research, including state and FLMs regarding the state’s the advancement of monitoring instrumentation, visibility protection program, including Natural background visibility, as analysis techniques, visibility modeling, policy development and review of SIP defined in EPA’s 2003 Natural Visibility formulation and source attribution field studies. revisions, five-year progress reports, and Guidance, is estimated by calculating 9 The science behind the revised IMPROVE the expected light extinction using equation is summarized in numerous published the implementation of other programs papers. See, e.g., Hand, J.L., and Malm, W.C., 2006, having the potential to contribute to default estimates of natural Review of the IMPROVE Equation for Estimating impairment of visibility in Class I areas. concentrations of fine particle Ambient Light Extinction Coefficients—Final components adjusted by site-specific Report. March 2006. Prepared for Interagency IV. What is EPA’s analysis of Georgia’s estimates of humidity. This calculation Monitoring of Protected Visual Environments regional haze submittal? (IMPROVE), Colorado State University, Cooperative uses the IMPROVE equation, which is a Institute for Research in the Atmosphere, Fort On February 11, 2010, GA EPD formula for estimating light extinction Collins, Colorado. http://vista.cira.colostate.edu/ submitted revisions to the Georgia SIP from the estimated natural improve/publications/GrayLit/016_IMPROVEeq to address regional haze in the State’s concentrations of fine particle Review/IMPROVEeqReview.htm; and Pitchford, Marc., 2006, Natural Haze Levels II: Application of Class I areas as required by EPA’s RHR. components (or from components the New IMPROVE Algorithm to Natural Species The State supplemented this February measured by the IMPROVE monitors). Concentrations Estimates. Final Report of the 2010 submittal on November 19, 2010, As documented in EPA’s 2003 Natural Natural Haze Levels II Committee to the RPO with title V permit amendments that Visibility Guidance, EPA allows states Monitoring/Data Analysis Workgroup. September 2006 http://vista.cira.colostate.edu/improve/ contain emissions limitations for three to use ‘‘refined’’ or alternative Publications/GrayLit/029_NaturalCondII/natural facilities. approaches to 2003 EPA guidance to hazelevelsIIreport.ppt.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:33 Feb 24, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00045 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\27FEP1.SGM 27FEP1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 38 / Monday, February 27, 2012 / Proposed Rules 11459

enhancement factors are used for small 2004 data from the IMPROVE monitor at substitution procedures.11 There was and large size distributions of the Okefenokee Wilderness Area for the too little data in 2000 to perform data ammonium sulfate and ammonium Wolf Island Wilderness Area. The filling. nitrate and for sea salt. The terms for the IMPROVE Steering Committee considers Appendix B.1 of the Georgia regional remaining contributors, elemental the IMPROVE monitor at the haze SIP lists the 20 percent best and carbon (light-absorbing carbon), fine Okefenokee Wilderness Area to be worst days for the baseline period of soil, and coarse mass terms, do not representative of visibility at Wolf 2000–2004 for the Okefenokee and change between the original and new Island. Okefenokee is the nearest Class Cohutta areas. This data is also provided IMPROVE equations. I area to Wolf Island, and they possess at the following Web site: http:// 2. Estimating Baseline Conditions similar characteristics, such as www.metro4-sesarm.org/vistas/ meteorology and topography. _ GA EPD estimated baseline visibility SesarmBext 20BW.htm. conditions at the Georgia Class I areas As explained in section III.B, baseline 3. Summary of Baseline and Natural using available monitoring data from visibility conditions are the same as Conditions two IMPROVE monitoring sites, one in current conditions for the first regional the Okefenokee Wilderness Area and haze SIP. A five-year average of the 2000 For the Georgia Class I areas, baseline the other in the Cohutta Wilderness to 2004 monitoring data was calculated visibility conditions on the 20 percent Area. The Wolf Island Wilderness Area for each of the 20 percent worst and 20 worst days range between does not contain an IMPROVE monitor. percent best visibility days at each approximately 27 and 30.5 deciviews. In cases where onsite monitoring is not Georgia Class I area. IMPROVE data Natural visibility in these areas is available, 40 CFR 51.308(d)(2)(i) records for Okefenokee for the period predicted to be between approximately requires states to use the most 2000 to 2004 meet the EPA 10.5 and 11.5 deciviews on the 20 representative monitoring available for requirements for data completeness.10 percent worst days. The natural and the 2000–2004 period to establish IMPROVE data for Cohutta did not meet baseline conditions for Georgia’s Class I baseline visibility conditions, in completeness criteria in the years 2000, areas for both the 20 percent worst and consultation with EPA. Georgia used, 2001, and 2003. Data records for 2001 best days are presented in Table 1 and EPA concurs, with the use of 2000– and 2003 were filled using data below.

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

Average for 20 Average for 20 percent worst percent best Class I area days days (dv 12) (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 areas. Georgia constructed the graph for percent best days over the same period, the worst days (i.e., the glidepath) in in accordance with 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1). In setting the RPGs, Georgia accordance with EPA’s 2003 Tracking For the Cohutta Class I area, the considered the uniform rate of progress Progress Guidance by plotting a straight overall visibility improvement needed to reach natural visibility graphical line from the baseline level of necessary to reach natural conditions is conditions by 2064 (‘‘glidepath’’) and visibility impairment for 2000–2004 to the difference between baseline the emissions reduction measures the level of visibility conditions visibility of 30.25 deciviews for the 20 needed to achieve that rate of progress representing no anthropogenic percent worst days and natural over the period of the SIP to meet the impairment in 2064 for its three areas. conditions of 10.78 deciviews, i.e., requirements of 40 CFR For the best days, the graph includes a 19.47 deciviews. Over the 60-year 51.308(d)(1)(i)(B). As explained in horizontal, straight line spanning from period from 2004 to 2064, this would EPA’s Reasonable Progress Guidance baseline conditions in 2004 out to 2018 require an average improvement of document, the uniform rate of progress to depict no degradation in visibility 0.325 deciviews per year to reach is not a presumptive target, and RPGs over the implementation period of the natural conditions. Hence, for the 14- may be greater than, less than, or SIP. Georgia’s SIP shows that the State’s year period from 2004 to 2018, in order equivalent to the glidepath. RPGs for its areas provide for to achieve visibility improvements at The State’s implementation plan improvement in visibility for the 20 least equivalent to the uniform rate of presents two sets of graphs, one for the percent worst days over the period of progress for the 20 percent worst days 20 percent best days, and one for the 20 the implementation plan and ensure no at the Cohutta Wilderness Area, Georgia percent worst days, for its three Class I degradation in visibility for the 20 would need to project at least 4.55

10 EPA’s 2003 Tracking Progress Guidance, page 11 Ibid. 12 The term, ‘‘dv,’’ is the abbreviation for 2–8. ‘‘deciview.’’

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:33 Feb 24, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00046 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\27FEP1.SGM 27FEP1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS 11460 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 38 / Monday, February 27, 2012 / Proposed Rules

deciviews (approximately) over the first RPO, through an evaluation of the controls under BART or reasonable implementation period (i.e., 0.325 following components: (1) Identification progress. deciviews × 14 years = 4.55 deciviews) of the emissions units within Georgia VISTAS developed emissions for five of visibility improvement from the 30.25 and in surrounding states that likely inventory source classifications: deciviews baseline in 2004, resulting in have the largest impacts currently on stationary point and area sources, off- visibility levels at or below visibility at the State’s three Class I road and on-road mobile sources, and approximately 25.7 deciviews in 2018. areas; (2) estimation of emissions biogenic sources. Stationary point As discussed below in section IV.C.7, reductions for 2018 based on all sources are those sources that emit ‘‘Reasonable Progress Goals,’’ Georgia controls required or expected under greater than a specified tonnage per projects a 7.45 deciview improvement to Federal and state regulations for the year, depending on the pollutant, with visibility in the Cohutta Wilderness 2004–2018 period (including BART); (3) data provided at the facility level. Area from the 30.25 deciview baseline comparison of projected visibility Stationary area sources are those to 22.8 deciviews in 2018 for the 20 improvement with the uniform rate of sources whose individual emissions are percent most impaired days, and a 2.02 progress for the State’s Class I areas; and relatively small, but due to the large deciview improvement to 11.75 (4) application of the four statutory number of these sources, the collective deciviews from the baseline visibility of factors in the reasonable progress emissions from the source category 13.77 deciviews for the 20 percent least analysis for the identified emissions could be significant. VISTAS estimated impaired days. units to determine if additional emissions on a countywide level for the For the Okefenokee and Wolf Island reasonable controls were required. inventory categories of: (a) Stationary Class I areas, the overall visibility In a separate action proposing limited area sources; (b) off-road (or non-road) improvement necessary to reach natural disapproval of the regional haze SIPs of mobile sources (i.e., equipment that can conditions is the difference between a number of states, EPA noted that these move but does not use roadways); and baseline visibility of 27.13 deciviews for states relied on the trading programs of (c) biogenic sources (which are natural the 20 percent worst days and natural CAIR to satisfy the BART requirement sources of emissions, such as trees). On- conditions of 11.21 deciviews, i.e., and the requirement for a LTS sufficient road mobile source emissions are 15.92 deciviews. Over the 60-year to achieve the state-adopted RPGs. See estimated by vehicle type and road type, period from 2004 to 2064, this would 76 FR 82219 (December 30, 2011). In and are summed to the countywide require an average improvement of that action, EPA proposed a limited level. 0.265 deciviews per year to reach disapproval of Georgia’s regional haze natural conditions. Hence, for the 14- SIP submittal insofar as the SIP relied There are many Federal and state year period from 2004 to 2018, in order on CAIR. For that reason, EPA is not control programs being implemented to achieve visibility improvements at taking action on that aspect of Georgia’s that VISTAS and Georgia anticipate will least equivalent to the uniform rate of regional haze SIP in this rulemaking. reduce emissions between the end of the progress for the 20 percent worst days Comments on the December 30, 2011, baseline period and 2018. Emissions at the Okefenokee and Wolf Island proposed determination are accepted at reductions from these control programs Wilderness Areas, Georgia would need Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2011– are projected to achieve substantial to project at least 3.71 deciviews 0729. The comment period for EPA’s visibility improvement by 2018 in the (approximately) over the first December 30, 2011, proposed Georgia Class I areas. The control implementation period (i.e., 0.265 rulemaking is scheduled to end on programs relied upon by Georgia deciviews × 14 years = 3.71 deciviews) February 28, 2012. include: CAIR; Federal 2007 heavy duty of visibility improvement from the 27.13 diesel (2007) engine standards for on- 1. Emissions Inventory for 2018 With deciviews baseline in 2004, resulting in road trucks and buses; Federal Tier 2 Federal and State Control Requirements visibility levels at or below 23.42 tailpipe controls for on-road vehicles; deciviews in 2018. As discussed below The emissions inventory used in the Federal large spark ignition and in section IV.C.7, ‘‘Reasonable Progress regional haze technical analyses was recreational vehicle controls; EPA’s Goals,’’ Georgia projects a 3.31 deciview developed by VISTAS with assistance non-road diesel rules; Georgia Rule 391– improvement to visibility for the from Georgia. The 2018 emissions 3–1–.02(2)(yy), ‘‘Emissions of Nitrogen Okefenokee and Wolf Island Class I inventory was developed by projecting Oxides from Major Sources’’ requiring areas from the 27.13 deciview baseline 2002 emissions and applying reductions NOX reasonably available control to 23.82 deciviews in 2018 for the 20 expected from Federal and state technology for subject sources in the percent most impaired days, and a 1.31 regulations affecting the emissions of Atlanta 1-hour ozone non-attainment deciview improvement to 13.92 VOC and the visibility-impairing area; Georgia Rule 391–3–1–.02(2)(sss), deciviews from the baseline visibility of pollutants NOX, PM, and SO2. The ‘‘Multipollutant Control for Electric 15.23 deciviews for the 20 percent least BART Guidelines direct states to Utility Steam Generating Units;’’ and impaired days. exercise judgment in deciding whether NOX and/or VOC reductions from the VOC and NH3 impair visibility in their control rules in 1-hour ozone SIPs for C. Long-Term Strategy/Strategies Class I area(s). As discussed further in Atlanta, Birmingham, and Northern As described in section III.E of this section IV.C.3, VISTAS performed Kentucky. Controls from various Federal action, the LTS is a compilation of state- modeling sensitivity analyses, which Maximum Achievable Control specific control measures relied on by demonstrated that anthropogenic Technology (MACT) rules were also the state for achieving its RPGs. emissions of VOC and NH3 do not utilized in the development of the 2018 Georgia’s LTS for the first significantly impair visibility in the emissions inventory projections. These implementation period addresses the VISTAS region. Thus, while emissions MACT rules include the industrial emissions reductions from Federal, inventories were also developed for NH3 boiler/process heater MACT (referred to state, and local controls that take effect and VOC, and applicable Federal VOC as ‘‘Industrial Boiler MACT’’), the in the State from the end of the baseline reductions were incorporated into combustion turbine and reciprocating period starting in 2004 until 2018. The Georgia’s regional haze analyses, internal combustion engines MACTs, Georgia LTS was developed by the Georgia did not further evaluate NH3 and the VOC 2-, 4-, 7-, and 10-year State, in coordination with the VISTAS and VOC emissions sources for potential MACT standards.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:33 Feb 24, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00047 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\27FEP1.SGM 27FEP1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 38 / Monday, February 27, 2012 / Proposed Rules 11461

Effective July 30, 2007, the D.C. redo its modeling analysis when the Boiler MACT emissions limits would Circuit mandated the vacatur and rule was re-issued. Even though affect the adequacy of the existing remand of the Industrial Boiler MACT Georgia’s modeling is based on the Georgia regional haze SIP. If there is a Rule.13 This MACT was vacated since it vacated Industrial Boiler MACT limits, need to address discrepancies between was directly affected by the vacatur and the State’s modeling conclusions are projected emissions reductions from the remand of the Commercial and unlikely to be affected because the vacated Industrial Boiler MACT and the Industrial Solid Waste Incinerator expected reductions due to the vacated Industrial Boiler MACT issued March Definition Rule. EPA proposed a new rule were relatively small compared to 21, 2011 (76 FR 15608), EPA expects Industrial Boiler MACT rule to address the State’s total SO2, PM2.5, and coarse Georgia to do so in the State’s five-year the vacatur on June 4, 2010 (75 FR particulate matter (PM ) emissions in 10 progress report. 32006) and issued a final rule on March 2018 (i.e., 0.1 to 0.7 percent, depending 21, 2011 (76 FR 15608). The VISTAS on the pollutant, of the projected 2018 Tables 2 and 3, below, summarize the modeling included emissions SO2, PM2.5, and PM10 inventory). Thus, 2002 baseline and 2018 estimated reductions from the vacated Industrial EPA does not expect that differences emissions inventories for Georgia.14 Boiler MACT rule, and Georgia did not between the vacated and final Industrial

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 fire, and biogenic emissions sources for States, portions of Canada and Mexico, Determine Visibility Improvement for photochemical grid models. and portions of the Atlantic and Pacific Uniform Rate of Progress • Air Quality Model: The EPA’s Oceans along the east and west coasts. Models-3/Community Multiscale Air Selection of a representative period of VISTAS performed modeling for the Quality (CMAQ) modeling system is a meteorology is crucial for evaluating regional haze LTS for the 10 photochemical grid model capable of baseline air quality conditions and southeastern states, including Georgia. addressing ozone, PM, visibility, and projecting future changes in air quality The modeling analysis is a complex acid deposition at a regional scale. The due to changes in emissions of technical evaluation that began with photochemical model selected for this visibility-impairing pollutants. VISTAS selection of the modeling system. study was CMAQ version 4.5. It was conducted an in-depth analysis which VISTAS used the following modeling modified through VISTAS with a resulted in the selection of the entire system: module for Secondary Organics year of 2002 (January 1–December 31) as • Meteorological Model: The Aerosols in an open and transparent the best period of meteorology available Pennsylvania State University/National manner that was also subjected to for conducting the CMAQ modeling. Center for Atmospheric Research outside peer review. The VISTAS states modeling was Mesoscale Meteorological Model is a CMAQ modeling of regional haze in developed consistent with EPA’s nonhydrostatic, prognostic the VISTAS region for 2002 and 2018 Guidance on the Use of Models and meteorological model routinely used for was carried out on a grid of 12x12 Other Analyses for Demonstrating urban- and regional-scale kilometer cells that covers the 10 Attainment of Air Quality Goals for photochemical, PM2.5, and regional haze VISTAS states (Alabama, Florida, Ozone, PM2.5, and Regional Haze, regulatory modeling studies. Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, North located at http://www.epa.gov/ • Emissions Model: The Sparse Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, scram001/guidance/guide/final-03-pm- Matrix Operator Kernel Emissions Virginia, West Virginia) and states rh-guidance.pdf, EPA–454/B–07–002, modeling system is an emissions adjacent to them. This grid is nested April 2007, and EPA document, modeling system that generates hourly within a larger national CMAQ Emissions Inventory Guidance for gridded speciated emissions inputs of modeling grid of 36x36 kilometer cells Implementation of Ozone and mobile, non-road mobile, area, point, that covers the continental United Particulate Matter National Ambient Air

13 See NRDC v. EPA, 489 F.3d 1250 (D.C. Cir. 14 Tables 2 and 3 exclude biogenic emissions data 2007). provided in the February 2010 Georgia regional haze SIP submittal.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:33 Feb 24, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00048 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\27FEP1.SGM 27FEP1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS 11462 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 38 / Monday, February 27, 2012 / Proposed Rules

Quality Standards (NAAQS) and different pollutants, source sectors, and days at the inland Class I areas in Regional Haze Regulations, located at geographic areas, VISTAS developed VISTAS, the benefits of reducing NOX http://www.epa.gov/ttnchie1/eidocs/ emissions sensitivity model runs using and NH3 emissions at these sites are eiguid/index.html, EPA–454/R–05–001, CMAQ to evaluate visibility and air small. August 2005, updated November 2005 quality impacts from various groups of The VISTAS sensitivity analyses (‘‘EPA’s Modeling Guidance’’). emissions and pollutant scenarios in the show that VOC emissions from biogenic VISTAS examined the model Class I areas on the 20 percent worst sources such as vegetation also performance of the regional modeling visibility days. contribute to visibility impairment. for the areas of interest before Regarding which pollutants are most However, control of these biogenic determining whether the CMAQ model significantly impacting visibility in the sources of VOC would be extremely results were suitable for use in the VISTAS region, VISTAS’ contribution difficult, if not impossible. The regional haze assessment of the LTS and assessment, based on IMPROVE anthropogenic sources of VOC for use in the modeling assessment. The monitoring data, demonstrated that emissions are minor compared to the modeling assessment predicts future ammonium sulfate is the major biogenic sources. Therefore, controlling levels of emissions and visibility contributor to PM2.5 mass and visibility anthropogenic sources of VOC impairment used to support the LTS impairment at Class I areas in the emissions would have little, if any, and to compare predicted, modeled VISTAS and neighboring states. On the visibility benefits at the Class I areas in visibility levels with those on the 20 percent worst visibility days in the VISTAS region, including those in uniform rate of progress. In keeping 2000–2004, ammonium sulfate Georgia. The sensitivity analyses also with the objective of the CMAQ accounted for 75 to 87 percent of the show that reducing primary carbon from modeling platform, air quality model calculated light extinction at the inland point sources, ground level sources, or performance was evaluated using Class I areas in VISTAS, and 69 to 74 fires is projected to have small to no graphical and statistical assessments percent of the calculated light extinction visibility benefit at the VISTAS Class I based on measured ozone, fine particles, for all but one of the coastal Class I areas areas. and acid deposition from various in the VISTAS states. In particular, for Georgia considered the factors listed monitoring networks and databases for the Okefenokee and Cohutta Wilderness in 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(v) and in section the 2002 base year. VISTAS used a Areas, sulfate particles resulting from III.E of this action to develop its LTS as diverse set of statistical parameters from SO2 emissions contribute roughly 69 described below. Georgia, in the EPA’s Modeling Guidance to stress and 84 percent, respectively, to the conjunction with VISTAS, and examine the model and modeling calculated light extinction on the demonstrated in its SIP that elemental inputs. Once VISTAS determined the haziest days. In contrast, ammonium carbon (a product of highway and non- model performance to be acceptable, nitrate contributed five percent or less road diesel engines, agricultural VISTAS used the model to assess the of the calculated light extinction at burning, prescribed fires, and wildfires) 2018 RPGs using the current and future VISTAS Class I areas on the 20 percent and fine soils (a product of construction year air quality modeling predictions, worst visibility days. Particulate organic activities and activities that generate and compared the RPGs to the uniform matter (organic carbon) accounted for 20 fugitive dust), are relatively minor rate of progress. percent or less of the light extinction on contributors to visibility impairment at In accordance with 40 CFR the 20 percent worst visibility days at the Class I areas in Georgia. 51.308(d)(3), the State of Georgia the VISTAS Class I areas. Additionally, the State, in conjunction provided the appropriate supporting VISTAS grouped its 18 Class I areas with VISTAS, demonstrated that the documentation for all required analyses into two types, either ‘‘coastal’’ or benefits of reducing point source used to determine the State’s LTS. The ‘‘inland’’ (sometimes referred to as ammonia emissions are small. With technical analyses and modeling used to ‘‘mountain’’) sites, based on common/ regard to area source ammonia develop the glidepath and to support similar characteristics (e.g., terrain, emissions, while reducing ammonia the LTS are consistent with EPA’s RHR geography, meteorology), to better emissions would be relatively more and interim and final EPA Modeling represent variations in model sensitivity beneficial for Georgia’s two coastal Class Guidance. EPA proposes to accept the and performance within the VISTAS I areas than the Cohutta area, these VISTAS technical modeling to support region and to describe the common emissions are primarily from the LTS and to determine visibility factors influencing visibility conditions agricultural activity, specifically improvement for the uniform rate of in the two types of Class I areas. The fertilizing operations and animal progress because the modeling system Cohutta Class I area is considered an farming. The State explains in its SIP was chosen and simulated according to ‘‘inland’’ area and the Okefenokee and that because there are no economically EPA Modeling Guidance. EPA proposes Wolf Island Class I areas are both feasible options for controlling these to agree with the VISTAS model ‘‘coastal’’ areas. types of area sources of ammonia performance procedures and results, Results from VISTAS’ emissions emissions, and GA EPD does not have and that the CMAQ is an appropriate sensitivity analyses indicate that sulfate regulatory authority to control these tool for the regional haze assessments particles resulting from SO2 emissions sources, Georgia did not further evaluate for the Georgia LTS and regional haze are the dominant contributor to this source category for control. SIP. visibility impairment on the 20 percent Georgia considered agricultural and worst days at all Class I areas in forestry smoke management techniques 3. Relative Contributions to Visibility VISTAS, including the three Georgia to address visibility impacts from Impairment: Pollutants, Source areas. Georgia concluded that reducing elemental carbon. On July 11, 2008, GA Categories, and Geographic Areas SO2 emissions from EGU and non-EGU EPD entered into a memorandum of An important step toward identifying point sources in the VISTAS states understanding with the Georgia Forestry reasonable progress measures is to would have the greatest visibility and Georgia Department of Natural identify the key pollutants contributing benefits for the Georgia Class I areas. Resources Wildlife Resources Division to visibility impairment at each Class I Because ammonium nitrate is a small adopting a smoke management program area. To understand the relative benefit contributor to PM2.5 mass and visibility that utilizes basic smoke management of further reducing emissions from impairment on the 20 percent worst practices and addresses the issues laid

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:33 Feb 24, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00049 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\27FEP1.SGM 27FEP1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 38 / Monday, February 27, 2012 / Proposed Rules 11463

out in the EPA’s 1998 Interim Air of this action). EPA proposes to agree of its Class I areas. Recognizing that Quality Policy on Wildland and with the State’s analyses and there was neither sufficient time nor Prescribed Fires available at: http:// conclusions used to determine the adequate resources available to evaluate www.epa.gov/ttncaaa1/t1/memoranda/ pollutants and source categories that all emissions units within a given area firefnl.pdf. With regard to fine soils, the most contribute to visibility impairment of influence (AOI) around each of the State considered those activities that in the Georgia Class I areas, and Class I areas that Georgia’s sources generate fugitive dust, including proposes to find the State’s approach to impact, the State established a threshold construction activities. Georgia’s Rules focus on developing a LTS that includes to determine which emissions units for Air Quality Control include largely additional measures for point would be evaluated for reasonable requirements for precautions to prevent sources of SO2 emissions to be progress control. In applying this fugitive dust from becoming airborne appropriate. methodology, GA EPD first calculated and to limit the opacity of fugitive SO2 sources for which it is the fractional contribution to visibility emissions to less than 20 percent. The demonstrated that no additional impairment from all emissions units requirements of Georgia Rule 391–3–1– controls are reasonable in this current within the SO2 AOI for each of its Class .02(n), ‘‘Fugitive Dust,’’ include implementation period will not be I areas, and those surrounding areas in preventive measures for construction exempted from future assessments for other states potentially impacted by activities. controls in subsequent implementation emissions from emissions units in EPA preliminarily concurs with the periods or, when appropriate, from the Georgia. The State then identified those State’s technical demonstration showing five-year periodic SIP reviews. In future emissions units with a contribution of that elemental carbon, fine soils, and implementation periods, additional one half (0.5) percent or more to the ammonia are not significant controls on these SO2 sources evaluated visibility impairment at that particular contributors to visibility in the State’s in the first implementation period may Class I area, and evaluated each of these Class I areas, and therefore, proposes to be determined to be reasonable, based units for control measures for find that Georgia has adequately on a reasonable progress control reasonable progress using the following satisfied 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(v). EPA’s evaluation, for continued progress four ‘‘reasonable progress factors’’ TSD to this Federal Register action and toward natural conditions for the 20 required under 40 CFR Georgia’s SIP provide more details on percent worst days and to avoid further 51.308(d)(1)(i)(A): (i) Cost of the State’s consideration of these factors degradation of the 20 percent best days. compliance; (ii) time necessary for for Georgia’s LTS. Similarly, in subsequent compliance; (iii) energy and non-air The emissions sensitivity analyses implementation periods, the State may quality environmental impacts of conducted by VISTAS predict that use different criteria for identifying compliance; and (iv) remaining useful reductions in SO2 emissions from EGU sources for evaluation and may consider life of the emissions unit. and non-EGU industrial point sources other pollutants as visibility conditions Georgia’s SO2 AOI methodology will result in the greatest improvements change over time. in visibility in the Class I areas in the captured greater than 70 percent of the VISTAS region, more than any other 4. Procedure for Identifying Sources To total point source SO2 contribution to visibility-impairing pollutant. Specific Evaluate for Reasonable Progress visibility impairment in two of Georgia’s to Georgia, the VISTAS sensitivity Controls in Georgia and Surrounding three Class I areas and required an analysis projects visibility benefits in Areas evaluation of more than 30 units. At the the Georgia Class I areas and Class I As discussed in section IV.C.3 of this remaining area, Cohutta Wilderness areas outside the State impacted by action, through comprehensive Area, the 0.5-percent threshold represents 69 percent of the total SO Georgia sources from SO2 reductions evaluations by VISTAS and the 2 from EGUs in the VISTAS states. Southern Appalachian Mountains contribution to visibility impairment and required an evaluation of 38 units. Additional, smaller benefits are Initiative (SAMI),15 the VISTAS states Capturing a significantly greater projected from SO2 emissions concluded that sulfate particles percentage of the total contribution reductions from non-utility industrial resulting from SO emissions account 2 would involve an evaluation of many point sources. SO2 emissions for the greatest portion of the regional more emissions units that have contributions to visibility impairment haze affecting the Class I areas in substantially less impact. EPA believes from other RPO regions are VISTAS states, including those in the approach developed by VISTAS and comparatively small in contrast to the Georgia. Utility and non-utility boilers implemented for the Class I areas in VISTAS states’ contributions, and thus, are the main sources of SO emissions 2 Georgia is a reasonable methodology to controlling sources outside of the within the southeastern United States. prioritize the most significant VISTAS region is predicted to provide VISTAS developed a methodology for contributors to regional haze and to less significant improvements in Georgia that enables the State to focus identify sources to assess for reasonable visibility in the Class I areas in VISTAS. its reasonable progress analysis on those progress control in the State’s Class I Taking the VISTAS sensitivity geographic regions and source area. The approach is consistent with analyses results into consideration, categories that impact visibility at each Georgia concluded that reducing SO2 EPA’s Reasonable Progress Guidance. emissions from EGU and non-EGU point 15 Prior to VISTAS, the southern states cooperated The technical approach of VISTAS and sources in certain VISTAS states would in a voluntary regional partnership ‘‘to identify and Georgia was objective and based on have the greatest visibility benefits for recommend reasonable measures to remedy existing several analyses including the the Georgia Class I areas. The State and prevent future adverse effects from human- evaluation of a large universe of induced air pollution on the air quality related chose to focus solely on evaluating values of the Southern Appalachian Mountains.’’ emissions units within and surrounding certain SO2 sources contributing to States cooperated with FLMs, EPA, industry, the State of Georgia and all of the 18 visibility impairment to the State’s Class environmental organizations, and academia to VISTAS Class I areas. It also included I areas for additional emissions complete a technical assessment of the impacts of an analysis of the VISTAS emissions acid deposition, ozone, and fine particles on reductions for reasonable progress in sensitive resources in the Southern Appalachians. units affecting nearby Class I areas this first implementation period The SAMI Final Report was delivered in August surrounding the VISTAS states that are (described in sections IV.C.4 and IV.C.5 2002. located in other RPOs’ Class I areas.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:33 Feb 24, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00050 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\27FEP1.SGM 27FEP1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS 11464 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 38 / Monday, February 27, 2012 / Proposed Rules

5. Application of the Four CAA Factors glidepath (Okefenokee and Wolf Island at three facilities requested and received in the Reasonable Progress Analysis Wilderness Areas), GA EPD did emissions limits to reduce the projected consider additional controls. sulfate visibility impairment from each Under Georgia’s state rule 391–3–1– GA EPD initially identified 24 emissions unit to less than 0.5 percent. .02(13), ‘‘Clean Air Interstate Rule SO2 additional non-EGU emissions units at Finally, one of the emissions units is Annual Trading Program,’’ SO2 13 facilities in Georgia (see Table 4) subject to BART review under the RHR. emissions from Georgia EGUs will be which meet the State’s minimum As discussed in EPA’s Reasonable capped at 149,140 tons in 2015, a 70- threshold for a reasonable progress Progress Guidance, since the BART percent reduction from 2002 actual control evaluation (i.e., because they analysis is based, in part, on an emissions. GA EPD concluded that were modeled to fall within the SO2 assessment of many of the same factors additional EGU control for SO2 during AOI of any Class I area and have a 0.5 that must be addressed in establishing this time period is not reasonable for the percent or greater contribution to the the RPG, EPA believes it is reasonable EGU sources that contribute greater than sulfate visibility impairment in at least to conclude that any control 0.5 percent to visibility impairment at one Class I area).16 GA EPD later requirements imposed in the BART Class I areas that are clearly projected to determined, based on updated data, that determination also satisfy the RPG- meet or exceed the uniform rate of of these 24 non-EGU units, seven units related requirements for source review progress in 2018. However, for five at four facilities would not contribute in the first implementation period.17 EGUs at three facilities owned by 0.5 percent or greater of the total sulfate Therefore, reasonable progress control Georgia Power (see Table 4) that meet visibility impairment at any Class I area reviews were conducted on the the State’s minimum threshold for in 2018 and thus, these seven units were remaining 10 non-EGU emissions units reasonable progress evaluation at Class not subject to a reasonable progress at five facilities and five EGUs at three I areas not clearly at or below the control evaluation. In addition, six units 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) EPD’s analyses are summarized below, Power Boiler 4 at the Brunswick Subject to Reasonable Progress Analysis followed by EPA’s assessment. Cellulose facility meets Georgia’s 1. Georgia Pacific—Brunswick Cellulose minimum threshold for reasonable The RHR requires that states consider progress control evaluation. The unit the following factors and demonstrate (a). Power Boiler 4 (F1) contributes to the total sulfate visibility how these factors were taken into Georgia Pacific’s Brunswick Cellulose impairment at two Class I areas (i.e., consideration in selecting the RPGs: facility is located in Glynn County near approximately 12.6 percent at Wolf costs of compliance; time necessary for the Georgia coast. Power Boiler No. 4 is Island and 3.9 percent at Okefenokee). compliance; energy and non-air quality an 800 million British thermal units per The State noted in its SIP that these environmental impacts of compliance; hour (MMBtu/hr) boiler that burns contributions are the highest level of and remaining useful life of any primarily No. 6 fuel oil and wood waste, visibility impairment contribution to potentially-affected sources. As stated including bark. The boiler is also any Class I area caused by any single previously, GA EPD performed permitted to burn tire-derived fuel emissions unit that GA EPD analyzed. reasonable progress control analyses for (TDF) and wastewater treatment sludge. The 2018 projected SO2 emissions 15 emissions units. The results of GA The sulfur content of the fuel oil is three developed by VISTAS are 1,642 tpy. percent or less. However, the boiler had already

16 See also EPA’s TSD, section III.C.2, fractional 17 EPA’s Reasonable Progress Guidance, pages contribution analysis tables for each Class I area, 4.2–4.3. excerpted from the Georgia SIP, Appendix H.2.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:33 Feb 24, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00051 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\27FEP1.SGM 27FEP1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 38 / Monday, February 27, 2012 / Proposed Rules 11465

reduced emissions to approximately permit for the power boiler of 568 tpy before 2013. All three of the scrubber 1,099 tpy due to a 2002 modification SO2 (368 + 200 = 568 tpy) for reasonable options (i.e., wet FGD, adding spray achieving higher efficiency. progress with a compliance date of towers and caustic to the existing The reasonable progress control 2012. The revised permit is included in scrubbers, and adding caustic to the analysis reviewed wet flue gas Appendix M of the Georgia regional existing venturi scrubbers) would desulfurization (FGD), in-duct sorbent haze submittal. generate approximately 15,000 tpy of injection, and a limitation on fuel oil solid waste. The company did not usage coupled with lower sulfur content (b). Recovery Boiler R407 (M24) identify any significant energy impacts fuel oil (2.2 percent and 1.0 percent Recovery Boiler R407 (M24) associated with the scrubber options. sulfur fuel oil). Of these control contributes approximately 1.3 percent to The remaining useful life of the unit measures, the fuel oil changes could the total sulfate visibility impairment at extends past 2018 and past the control take place prior to 2012 and the wet the Wolf Island Wilderness Area. The equipment amortization period. FGD and in-duct sorbent injection could 2018 projected SO2 emissions are 193 Out of all the control options be installed before 2013. The remaining tpy. Georgia Pacific’s reasonable considered, adding caustic to the useful life of the unit extends past 2018 progress control analysis found existing venturi scrubber and installing and past the control equipment combustion control and wet FGD to be in-duct sorbent injection were amortization period. The wet FGD the only technically feasible control considered reasonably cost effective. would have an impact on water usage options. The company stated that The costs were $1,675/ton SO2 and and wastewater discharge, and in-duct emissions of SO2 of 38 parts per million $849.2 MM/Mm-1 at the Saint Marks sorbent injection would result in (ppm), as measured in a 2006 stack test, Class I area for adding caustic to the additional solid waste. The company are too low of a load for effective scrubber, and $1,663/ton SO2 and did not identify any significant energy operation of a FGD. Therefore, the $843.2 MM/Mm-1 at the Saint Marks impacts for any of the options. company ruled out this control area for in-duct sorbent injection. These Of the control options considered, technology. figures were considered cost effective both in-duct sorbent injection and a Combustion control, the other even with a relatively low visibility switch to 1.0 percent sulfur fuel oil technically feasible control option, is impact on only one Class I area because coupled with a five million gallon-per- already included in the boiler design. the Saint Marks area is not clearly at or year oil usage limit were considered Because this emissions unit only below the uniform rate of progress. reasonably cost effective. The costs are contributes to visibility impairment at Since the company submitted control $3,562 per ton of SO2 removed ($/ton one Class I area and has a relatively low options for three different levels of SO2) and $20.7 million per inverse 2018 projected emissions level, the State caustic use (resulting in 79 percent, 68 megameter (MM/Mm-1) at Wolf Island determined that no additional controls percent, and 37 percent SO2 reduction), for in-duct sorbent injection, and are required for reasonable progress for GA EPD analyzed the information to $3,228/ton SO2 and $18.8 MM/Mm-1 at the Recovery Boiler R407 at Georgia determine which level of caustic use Wolf Island for 1.0 percent sulfur fuel Pacific—Brunswick Cellulose. was considered reasonable. In oil. These controls were considered cost comparison, in-duct sorbent injection effective due to the relatively high 2. Georgia Pacific—Cedar Springs achieves approximately 70 percent SO2 visibility impact on two Class I areas (a). Power Boiler U500 (‘‘Power Boiler reduction, which is within the range of and the fact that neither of these Class 1’’) and Power Boiler U501 (‘‘Power control efficiencies for caustic I areas are projected to be clearly at or Boiler 2’’) scrubbing. GA EPD concluded that a 70 below the glidepath. Both in-duct percent SO2 reduction was reasonable sorbent injection and 1.0 percent sulfur Power Boilers 1 and 2 at the Georgia for this unit. As part of Georgia Pacific’s fuel oil achieve approximately the same Pacific—Cedar Springs facility are two BART exemption modeling, the nearly identical power boilers. Each of amount of SO2 emissions reductions company proposed SO2 emissions limits (769 tpy for sorbent injection and 731 these units contributes approximately to avoid being subject to BART of 135 tpy for 1.0 percent sulfur fuel oil) from 1.1 percent to the total sulfate visibility pounds of SO2 per hour (lb SO2/hr) for the current emissions level of 1,099 tpy impairment at the Saint Marks Class I each power boiler, along with additional

SO2. Implementation of the more cost area in Florida. The 2018 projected SO2 SO2 limits on Recovery Boiler R402 effective of these two options would emissions are 1,976 tpy for each boiler. (‘‘Recovery Boiler 3’’) as discussed reduce SO2 emissions to 368 tons of SO2 The reasonable progress control below. The State agreed with this limit per 12-consecutive months (i.e., 1,099 analyses for these units reviewed six of 135 lb SO2/hr, which would result in tpy ¥ 731 tpy = 368 tpy SO2). options: (1) Wet FGD, (2) addition of maximum annual emissions of 591 tpy Supplemental information provided spray towers and caustic to the existing of SO2 (a 70 percent reduction from by the facility indicated that the two venturi scrubbers, (3) adding caustic to current emissions), and determined that controls deemed to be reasonable would the existing venturi scrubbers (resulting this limit satisfies reasonable progress. control emissions from oil combustion in a 79 percent SO2 reduction), (4) in- The actual annual reduction is expected but would not affect SO2 emissions from duct sorbent injection, (5) coal washing, to be even higher since the power combustion of wood waste and TDF. and (6) coal switching. In addition to boilers are not anticipated to emit SO2 The facility requested an allowance for these control measures, Georgia Pacific at the maximum allowable level for an an additional 200 tons of emissions submitted two variations of option 3 as entire year. A copy of the revised title based on calculations of historical part of their BART exemption modeling V permit is included in Appendix M of emissions from wood waste and TDF. request that included the addition of the Georgia regional haze SIP submittal. This request was also supported by the lower amounts of caustic to their facility’s assertion that the sulfur existing scrubbers (resulting in (b). Recovery Boiler 3 content of locally available TDF may be approximately a 68 percent and 37 This unit contributes approximately above what has been burned percent SO2 reduction for these two 0.8 percent to the sulfate visibility historically. GA EPD concurred with the variations). All of the control options impairment at the Saint Marks Class I facility’s request and established an SO2 could be installed prior to 2012 except area. The 2018 projected SO2 emissions emissions limit in the facility’s title V the wet FGD, which could be installed are 1,726 tpy. However, the State notes

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:33 Feb 24, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00052 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\27FEP1.SGM 27FEP1 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 other control measures could not be a 45 percent reduction in heat input and SO2 emissions were significantly lower installed until after 2012, although SO2 emissions from the VISTAS than this 2018 projected SO2 emissions estimated control dates were not projections. This was explained by level at 462 and 741 tpy SO2, provided. Wet FGD controls would Georgia Power as the result of additional respectively. The facility accepted a result in increased water use and capacity coming on-line elsewhere limit of 350 ppm SO2 on this unit when wastewater discharges. No significant between 2010 and 2017. The reduction firing black liquor solids to avoid being energy impacts were identified by the in heat input for Plant Kraft is expected subject to BART. company. Remaining useful life of the to occur around 2015. GA EPD utilized The reasonable progress control emissions units extended past 2018 and these revised heat inputs in conducting analyses reviewed three additional past the control equipment amortization the reasonable progress control options: (1) Switching from No. 6 periods. Increased limestone injection analyses, and GA EPD plans to verify residual fuel oil (1.8 percent sulfur) to would result in increased solid waste the heat input reduction during No. 2 distillate fuel oil (0.5 percent generation. Georgia Pacific conducted development of the next regional haze sulfur); (2) switching to lower sulfur No. trial operations with increased SIP (due in 2018). 6 residual fuel oil (1.0 percent sulfur); limestone injection rates and found that The following control measures were and (3) the installation of a new SO2 removal could only be increased by analyzed for the four statutory factors concentrator and new multi-level air an additional two percent (from 87 for all three units: Wet FGD, coal system. The company did not provide percent to 89 percent for B001 and from switching (i.e., using a coal with a lower any indications that any of the control 90 percent to 92 percent for B002 and sulfur content), and coal washing (i.e., options could not be installed prior to B003). Revised cost estimates were also mechanically removing pyritic sulfur 2012. No negative energy impacts or derived from the trial operations. from powdered coal by a flotation non-air quality environmental impacts Of the control options considered, process, which does not separate were identified by the company. none were considered reasonable given organic sulfur from the coal). Wet FGD Remaining useful life of the unit their low control efficiencies and a could not be installed until 2016 extends past 2018 and past the control visibility impact of less than 0.01 Mm- because of required control device equipment amortization periods. 1 on a single Class I area that would installations scheduled up until 2015 in Of the control options considered, result from their implementation. Georgia Power’s system. The company none were considered reasonable Therefore, no additional controls were did not address the implementation because their implementation would required for reasonable progress. time for the other control options, so GA have a visibility impact of less than 0.01 EPD assumed the controls could be 4. Georgia Power—Plant Kraft, SGs 1, 2, inverse megameter (Mm-1) on a single implemented by January 1, 2012. All and 3 Class I area. Therefore, no additional three control options would require controls were required for reasonable Emissions units SG 1, 2, and 3 at additional energy usage. Wet FGD and progress for Recovery Boiler 3 at the Georgia Power—Plant Kraft are three coal washing would result in increased Georgia Pacific—Cedar Springs facility. coal-fired steam generating units (i.e., water usage and wastewater discharges boilers) rated at 50, 54, and 104 MW, as well as additional solid waste 3. Georgia Pacific—Savannah River respectively. Units 1 and 2 each Mill, Boilers B001, B002, and B003 generation. The remaining useful life of contribute to the total sulfate visibility the units extends past 2018 and past the Boilers B001, B002, and B003 at the impairment at the Wolf Island Class I control equipment amortization periods. Georgia Pacific—Savannah River Mill area by approximately 0.5 percent. Unit The cost effectiveness of wet FGD and facility are three relatively similar 3 was initially determined to contribute coal switching were $3,216 to $8,161/ boilers, with B002 and B003 being to the total sulfate visibility impairment ton SO2 and $56.9 MM to $144.5 MM/ almost identical. The emissions units at three Class I areas (approximately 3.3 Mm-1 for wet FGD and $4,041 to exceed Georgia’s minimum threshold percent at Wolf Island, 0.9 percent at $4,306/ton SO2 and $71.5 MM/Mm-1 for for reasonable progress evaluation at Okefenokee, and 0.8 percent at Cape coal switching. Coal washing cost one Class I area (approximately 1.1 Romain). However, with projected effectiveness was $1,839 to $1,847/ton percent, 0.9 percent, and 0.8 percent of reductions in SO2 emissions by 2018, SO2 and $32.5 to $32.7 MM/Mm-1; the the total sulfate visibility impairment at the visibility impacts on Okefenokee control efficiency is six percent. the Wolf Island Wilderness Area for and Cape Romain Class I areas from Regarding non-air environmental B001, B002, and B003, respectively). Units 1, 2, and 3 are expected to drop impacts, the company indicated that The 2018 projected SO2 emissions for below Georgia’s minimum threshold for coal washing could possibly reduce B001, B002, and B003 are 1,659 tpy, reasonable progress evaluation, and the boiler efficiency, would use up to 7,500 1,195 tpy, and 1,190 tpy, respectively. visibility impact at Wolf Island should gallons (at Unit 3) per day of water, All three of these boilers are relatively drop below two percent. The 2018 would result in acidic wastewater well controlled, re-circulating fluidized projected SO2 emissions for Units 1, 2, requiring treatment, and would result in bed boilers with limestone injection in and 3 were initially estimated by coal refuse in the amount of the combustion chamber. B001 VISTAS at 691 tpy, 704 tpy, and 4,474 approximately five percent of the total currently achieves approximately 87 tpy, respectively. As part of the coal consumption. Emissions reductions percent SO2 removal and Boilers B002 supporting documentation for the from these control options are projected and B003 achieve approximately 90 reasonable progress control analyses, to achieve very little visibility percent SO2 removal. Georgia Power provided projected heat improvement at the Wolf Island The reasonable progress control input through 2018 for these units, Wilderness Area. analyses reviewed wet FGD, circulating which indicates that SO2 emissions for Based on the control efficiency of coal fluidized bed scrubber, switching from Units 1, 2, and 3 will be 632 tpy, 889 washing, the negative non-air petroleum coke to coal, increased tpy, and 2,455 tpy, respectively. While environmental impacts, and the limestone injection, and rotating the heat inputs provided by Georgia visibility impact of less than 0.01 Mm- opposed fire air. Of all the proposed Power for Units 1 and 2 are similar to 1, the State determined that this control changes, only increased limestone the VISTAS 2018 projections, Georgia option is not reasonable. The State injection could occur prior to 2012. All Power’s projection for Unit 3 represents eliminated coal switching and FGD from

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:33 Feb 24, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00053 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\27FEP1.SGM 27FEP1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 38 / Monday, February 27, 2012 / Proposed Rules 11467

consideration due to the cost MM/Mm-1 for wet FGD, $4,306/ton SO2 periods. The cost effectiveness for wet effectiveness considerations. Based on and $71.5 MM/Mm-1 for coal switching, FGD was $9,119/ton SO2 and $148.5 the above considerations, no additional and $5,334/ton SO2 and $91.9 MM/Mm- MM/Mm-1, and the cost effectiveness controls were required for any of the 1 for coal washing. Based on these for coal switching was $2,347/ton SO2 Georgia Power—Plant Kraft units. factors, GA EPD required no additional and $38.2 MM/Mm-1; the control controls for SG 1 at Georgia Power’s efficiency was at 43 percent. Based on 5. Georgia Power—Plant McIntosh, SG 1 Plant McIntosh. these factors, including the projected Emissions unit SG 1 at Georgia significant utilization drop within the 6. Georgia Power—Plant Mitchell, SG 3 Power—Plant McIntosh is a coal-fired next few years, Georgia required no steam generating unit rated at 178 MW. SG 3 at Georgia Power’s Plant additional controls for SG 3 at Georgia The 2018 projected SO2 emissions were Mitchell is a coal-fired steam-generating Power—Plant Mitchell. initially estimated by VISTAS at 7,015 unit rated at 163 MW and is the only tpy. As part of the supporting remaining operational boiler at Plant 7. International Paper—Savannah Mill, Power Boiler 13 documentation for the reasonable Mitchell. The 2018 projected SO2 progress control analyses, Georgia emissions were initially estimated by International Paper’s Savannah Mill Power provided projected heat input VISTAS at 4,930 tpy. As part of the Power Boiler 13 is a 1,280 MMBtu/hr through 2018 for this unit. Those supporting documentation for the coal, oil, and wood waste-fired boiler. projections indicate that SO2 emissions reasonable progress control analyses, The unit also combusts both low- will drop to 1,860 tpy by 2018. Georgia Georgia Power provided projected heat volume high-concentration (LVHC) and Power’s projection represents a 73 input through 2018 for this unit. Those high-volume low-concentration (HVLC) percent reduction in heat input and SO2 projections indicate that SO2 emissions non-condensable gases from the pulping emissions. This was explained by will drop to 1,189 tpy by 2018. The process as well as stripper off-gas (SOG) Georgia Power as a result of additional State initially determined this unit to from the stripper used to control capacity coming on line elsewhere impact the total sulfate visibility hazardous air pollutant (HAP) emissions between 2010 and 2017. The State impairment at two Class I areas at from wastewater streams. The 2018 initially determined that this unit approximately 0.8 percent at the projected SO2 emissions are 8,578 tpy impacts visibility at five Class I areas Okefenokee Wilderness Area and with approximately 1,944 tpy of this (4.1 percent at Wolf Island, 1.2 percent approximately 2.7 percent at the Saint amount coming from the combustion of at Okefenokee, 0.6 percent at Saint Marks Class I area in Florida. However, LVHC, HVLC, and SOG. The State Marks, 1.5 percent at Cape Romain, and with the projected reduction in SO2 identified this unit as significantly 0.7 percent at Swanquarter). However, emissions by 2018, the visibility impact contributing to sulfate visibility with the projected reduction in SO2 at Okefenokee is expected to drop below impairment at five Class I areas emissions by 2018, the visibility Georgia’s 0.5 percent reasonable (approximately 6.4 percent at Wolf impacts on all of these areas except progress evaluation threshold and the Island, 1.7 percent at Okefenokee, 0.7 Wolf Island are expected to drop below impact on Saint Marks is predicted to percent at the Saint Marks area in Georgia’s 0.5 percent evaluation drop to below one percent. Georgia Florida, 1.6 percent at the Cape Romain threshold, and the impact at Wolf Island Power’s projection represents a 76 area in South Carolina, and 0.9 percent is expected to drop to approximately percent reduction in heat input and SO2 at the Swanquarter area in North one percent. The reduction in heat input emissions. This was explained by Carolina). The State noted in its SIP that for Plant McIntosh is to occur between Georgia Power as a result of additional this is the highest number of Class I around 2011 and 2016. GA EPD utilized capacity coming online elsewhere else areas significantly impacted by any this revised SO2 emission rate in starting in 2010. The reduction in heat single emissions unit of all those conducting the reasonable progress input for Plant Mitchell is to occur reviewed by Georgia. control analyses. GA EPD plans to verify between around 2008 and 2010. GA EPD The reasonable progress control the heat input reduction during utilized this revised SO2 emissions rate analysis reviewed the following control development of the next regional haze in conducting the reasonable progress options: (1) Wet FGD (packed tower), (2) SIP. control analyses. GA EPD plans to verify FGD (wet limestone spray tower), (3) Georgia Power analyzed the following the heat input reduction during the semi-dry lime spray tower, (4) fuel control measures: Wet FGD, coal regional haze periodic progress review switching to natural gas, (5) dry sorbent switching, and coal washing. Wet FGD described in section IV.G of this action. injection, and (6) a stand-alone could not be installed until 2016 Georgia Power analyzed wet FGD and regenerative thermal oxidizer (RTO) because required control device coal switching as possible control with SO2 scrubbing for the control of installations are scheduled up until measures at SG 3. Wet FGD could not LVHC, HVLC, and SOG. The RTO 2015 in Georgia Power’s system. The be installed until 2016 because required control option was presented as three company did not address the time control device installations are different options for LVHC, HVLC, and necessary for compliance for the other scheduled up until 2015 in Georgia SOG combustion. International Paper control options so GA EPD assumed the Power’s system. The company did not also suggested an SO2 reduction of 2,000 controls could be implemented by address the time necessary for tpy (a reduction in the SO2 emissions January 1, 2012. All three control compliance for coal switching so GA limit from 8,758 tpy to 6,758 tpy) as a options would require additional energy EPD assumed this control could be control option that would provide usage. Wet FGD and coal washing implemented by January 1, 2012. Both maximum flexibility for compliance. would result in increased water usage control options would require Except for the 2,000 tpy SO2 reduction and wastewater discharges as well as additional energy usage. Georgia Power alternative, all of these control options additional solid waste generation. The did not indicate any additional water could be implemented by 2012. remaining useful life of the units use, wastewater discharge, or solid International Paper requested a 2016 extends past 2018 and past the control waste generation issues for any of the compliance date for the 2,000 tpy SO2 equipment amortization periods. The control options. The remaining useful reduction alternative in order for the cost effectiveness of all the control life of the units extends past 2018 and company to take into consideration any operations is $7,131/ton SO2 and $118.5 past the control equipment amortization reductions that will occur as a result of

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:33 Feb 24, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00054 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\27FEP1.SGM 27FEP1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS 11468 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 38 / Monday, February 27, 2012 / Proposed Rules

the Industrial Boiler MACT and the impact on dissolved oxygen load to the enhanced lime) and limestone forced uncertainty surrounding the final Savannah River. Fuel switching to oxidation; (b) dry FGD (lime absorbent); requirements of that standard. natural gas ($9,506/ton SO2), and dry (c) fuel switching; and (d) dry sorbent The remaining useful life of the unit sorbent injection ($5,223/ton SO2) were injection. All of these control options extends past 2018 and past the control determined not to be reasonable because could be implemented by 2012. The equipment amortization period. The wet of cost effectiveness. remaining useful life of the power boiler FGD and all three RTO sub-options Another cost effective control option extends past 2018 and past the control increased water usage and wastewater that GA EPD evaluated is an emissions equipment amortization period. discharge. GA EPD evaluated the limit of 6,758 tpy SO2 proposed by the The wet FGD options had an impact potential water usage and wastewater company. The 6,758 tpy SO2 limit was on water usage. GA EPD notes that the discharges associated with these determined by reducing the projected mill had sufficient capacity within their controls. One additional consideration 2018 SO2 emissions level of 8,758 tpy currently permitted water withdrawal was to ensure that there would be no SO2 by 2,000 tons. GA EPD reviewed permit to adequately handle the additional dissolved oxygen load on the recent SO2 emissions data and increased water use associated with wet Savannah River due to a problem with determined that the projected 8,758 tpy FGD. All of the control options resulted the dissolved oxygen load in the SO2 level is reasonable. No specific in additional solid waste generation, Savannah River. Because of strict emissions reduction methodologies and there were energy impacts limitations on any additional dissolved were associated with this control associated with all of the control oxygen load to the river, any projects option. However, certain control options. These energy costs were that could possibly increase dissolved methodologies are under consideration. factored into the overall control cost oxygen load were not considered A compliance date of 2016 was effectiveness. reasonable at this time. Based on the proposed in order to take into The State determined that none of the type of chemicals that would be consideration any controls that will be control options considered for Power associated with effluent from a wet FGD required under EPA’s Industrial Boiler Boiler 4 are reasonable at this time. A (packed tower option) and the semi-dry MACT currently under development key factor in determining what was lime spray tower, GA EPD eliminated (discussed in section IV.C.1). A 2016 considered ‘‘reasonable’’ for reasonable these options from further consideration compliance date should provide progress requirements for this source is because they could potentially increase sufficient time for the MACT to be that the affected Class I areas impacted dissolved oxygen load. FGD (wet proposed and promulgated, provide the by this unit are predicted to meet the limestone spray tower), semi-dry lime three years required for compliance uniform rate of progress in 2018 with spray tower, and dry sorbent injection with the standard, and provide time to controls that are already required. This also resulted in additional solid waste determine an appropriate method for determination may be revisited at the generation. There were energy impacts complying with the 6,758 tpy SO2 periodic SIP progress review or when associated with all but the fuel emissions limit for Power Boiler 13 determining future RPGs for subsequent switching option. These energy costs following compliance with this MACT implementation periods. were factored into the overall control standard. 9. EPA Assessment cost effectiveness. Of the control options considered, GA Regarding the company’s cost EPD determined that the 2,000 tpy SO2 As noted in EPA’s Reasonable effectiveness estimates, GA EPD’s reduction alternative, which results in Progress Guidance, the states have wide review indicated that the cost estimates an emissions limit of 6,758 tpy SO2, was latitude to determine appropriate for a packed tower wet FGD and wet reasonably cost effective. This limit will additional control requirements for FGD limestone spray tower were higher include SO2 emissions resulting from ensuring reasonable progress, and there than expected based on the following the combustion of LVHC, HVLC, and are many ways for a state to approach factors: The costs per actual cubic feet SOG, whether they are combusted in identification of additional reasonable per minute are about four times higher Power Boiler 13 or some other measures. States must consider the four than other units of comparable size, the combustion device. In order to provide statutory factors, at a minimum, in company’s estimate is three to eight flexibility for the facility, an emissions determining reasonable progress, but times higher than results from EPA cost limit of 6,578 tons SO2/12-consecutive states have flexibility in how to take estimation software, and International months is required for Power Boiler 13 these factors into consideration. Paper used a conservative retrofit factor as a requirement for reasonable progress GA EPD applied the methodology with a cost estimation model not with a compliance date of 2016. A copy developed by VISTAS for identifying recommended by EPA. In a letter to of the revised title V permit was appropriate sources to be considered for International Paper dated December 27, included in Appendix M of the Georgia additional controls under reasonable 2007, GA EPD requested site-specific regional haze submittal. progress for the implementation period cost analyses for these control options. addressed by this SIP, which ends in In that letter, GA EPD stated that if site- 8. Temple-Inland Rome Linerboard, 2018. Using this methodology, GA EPD specific estimates were not provided, Power Boiler 4 first identified those emissions and control option recommendations would Temple-Inland Rome Linerboard’s emissions units most likely to have an be made with the understanding that the Power Boiler 4 is a 565 MMBtu/hr coal- impact on visibility in the State’s and cost estimates may be overstated. In and oil-fired boiler. The State identified neighboring Class I areas. Units with response, International Paper chose not this unit as significantly contributing to emissions of SO2 with a relative to provide site-specific cost estimates as the total sulfate visibility impairment at contribution to total sulfate visibility requested. GA EPD completed its two Class I areas (4.4 percent at Cohutta impairment of at least 0.5 percent evaluations and determined that the and 1.0 percent at Joyce Kilmer/ contribution at any Class I area were cost effectiveness of the FGD—wet Slickrock Wilderness Area in North then subject to a reasonable progress limestone spray tower ($4,391/ton SO2) Carolina/Tennessee). control analysis, except for utilities was not cost effective in this case. Wet The company’s reasonable progress subject to Georgia’s state rule 391–3–1– FGD—packed tower was not considered control analysis reviewed: (a) Two wet .02(13), ‘‘Clean Air Interstate Rule SO2 reasonable because of the possible FGD configurations (magnesium Annual Trading Program,’’ that only

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:33 Feb 24, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00055 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\27FEP1.SGM 27FEP1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 38 / Monday, February 27, 2012 / Proposed Rules 11469

impacted visibility at Class I areas Georgia state rule 391–3–1–.02(13). progress. As discussed in EPA’s projected to be below the uniform rate Under Georgia’s rule, SO2 emissions Reasonable Progress Guidance, since the of progress line. from Georgia EGUs will be capped at BART analysis is based, in part, on an Having reviewed GA EPD’s 149,140 tons in 2015, a 70 percent assessment of many of the same factors methodology and analyses presented in reduction from 2002 actual emissions. that must be addressed in establishing the SIP materials prepared by GA EPD, In addition, a 70 percent reduction of the RPG, EPA believes it is reasonable EPA is proposing to approve Georgia’s SO2 emissions is expected during this to conclude that any control reasonable progress determinations. time period across all CAIR-affected requirements imposed in the BART EPA preliminarily agrees with the EGUs in 28 eastern states due to CAIR. determination also satisfy the RPG- State’s approach of identifying the key Since EGUs will be reducing their SO2 related requirements for source review pollutants contributing to visibility emissions by approximately 70 percent in the first implementation period.18 impairment at its Class I areas, and through these programs and based on Thus, EPA proposes to agree with the proposes to consider the State’s detailed analyses in EPA’s May 2, 2005, State’s conclusions that the BART methodology to identify sources of SO2 CAIR, GA EPD concluded that control evaluations satisfy reasonable most likely to have an impact on additional EGU control during this time progress for the first implementation visibility on any Class I area to be an period is not reasonable for sources that period for Interstate Paper—Power appropriate methodology for narrowing significantly contribute to visibility Boiler F1. the scope of the State’s analysis. In impairment at Class I areas that are 3. Other Emissions Units Not Subject to general, EPA also proposes to find clearly projected to meet or exceed the Preparing a Reasonable Progress Control Georgia’s evaluation of the four uniform rate of progress in 2018. Analysis statutory factors for reasonable progress However, for sources that significantly to be reasonable and believes that the contribute to visibility impairment at GA EPD requested reasonable Georgia regional haze SIP ensures Class I areas not clearly meeting the progress control analyses from all reasonable progress. EPA also proposes uniform rate of progress (Okefenokee facilities identified as potentially that, given the emissions reductions and Wolf Island), GA EPD considered contributing at least 0.5 percent of the resulting from CAIR, Georgia’s BART additional controls at CAIR-affected total sulfate visibility impairment at a determinations, the measures in nearby units. The Cohutta Class I area is Class I area. In response to this request, states, and the visibility improvements expected, based on modeling, to clearly additional information regarding projected for the affected Class I areas, meet/exceed the glidepath in 2018. GA projected 2018 actual emissions was these emissions reductions are in excess EPD has therefore concluded that CAIR received from a number of sources. As of that needed to be on the glidepath for constitutes reasonable measures for a result of this revised information, the Cohutta Wilderness Area, and are Georgia EGUs that significantly impact seven units at four facilities (Miller close to the glidepaths for the Wolf visibility in Cohutta during this first Brewing, Boilers B001, B002; Mount Island and Okefenokee Wilderness assessment period (between baseline Vernon Mills, Boilers E U 03, E U 04; Areas. and 2018). Thus, GA EPD concluded Savannah Sugar Refinery, Boiler U161; In addition, EPA proposes to find that that no additional controls beyond CAIR and Mohawk Industries, Boilers BL06, Georgia fully evaluated all control are reasonable for the remaining four BL07) were removed from consideration technologies available at the time of its identified Georgia Power facilities for additional controls based on an analysis and applicable to these (Plants Bowen, Hammond, Scherer, and analysis that the emissions units would facilities. EPA also proposes to find that Yates) for SO2 for the first not contribute 0.5 percent or greater of Georgia consistently applied its criteria implementation period ending in 2018. the total sulfate visibility impairment at for reasonable compliance costs, and Because the Okefenokee, Wolf Island, any Class I area in 2018. where it diverged, the State included and Saint Marks Class I areas are not Due to resource limitations and/or justification for the other factors expected to clearly meet or exceed the uncertainty regarding future operations, influencing the control determination. glidepath in 2018, controls required the following three facilities with six under CAIR have not been deemed to emissions units requested emissions B. Facilities With Emissions Unit(s) Not constitute reasonable measures for limits on their affected units in lieu of Subject to Reasonable Progress Analysis Georgia EGUs that significantly impact performing reasonable progress control 1. EGUs Subject to CAIR visibility in these Class I areas (Georgia analyses: (1) Rayonier Performance Power’s Plants Mitchell, Kraft and Fibers, Power Boilers 2 and 3, Recovery In concert with VISTAS, GA EPD MacIntosh). Furnaces 1 and 4; (2) Southern States applied its reasonable progress 2. Non-EGUs Subject to BART Phosphate and Fertilizer, Sulfuric Acid methodology and identified 20 Georgia Plant 2; and (3) Packaging Corporation Power Company emissions units at One of the emissions units considered of America, C E Boiler. The required seven facilities that contributed greater for reasonable progress control, emissions limits reduced the sulfate than 0.5 percent of the total sulfate Interstate Paper’s Power Boiler F1, is contributions of these units below 0.5 visibility impairment at a Class I area: subject to BART and subsequently was percent of the total sulfate visibility (1) Plant Bowen SG 01, SG 02, SG 03, evaluated for BART controls. GA EPD impact on any affected Class I areas. SG 04; (2) Plant Hammond SG 04; (3) concluded that BART for the power Plant Mitchell SG 03; (4) Plant Scherer boiler at Interstate Paper is a 6. BART SG 01, SG 02, SG 03, SG 04; (5) Plant requirement to burn natural gas only, BART is an element of Georgia’s LTS Yates SG 02, SG 03, SG 04, SG 05, SG other than during curtailment periods for the first implementation period. The 06, SG 07; (6) Plant Kraft SG 01, SG 02, (i.e., during reduction or discontinuance BART evaluation process consists of SG 03; and (7) Plant McIntosh SG 01. of supply in natural gas). GA EPD three components: (a) An identification Georgia, as part of its long-term believes that, for this implementation of all the BART-eligible sources, (b) an reasonable progress analysis to consider period, the application of BART assessment of whether the BART- potential sources contributing to constitutes reasonable progress for this visibility impairment, examined other unit, and thus, is not requiring any 18 EPA’s Reasonable Progress Guidance, pages CAA requirements such as CAIR and additional controls for reasonable 4.2–4.3.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:33 Feb 24, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00056 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\27FEP1.SGM 27FEP1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS 11470 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 38 / Monday, February 27, 2012 / Proposed Rules

eligible sources are subject to BART and and submit dispersion modeling to methodology and the State and Region (c) a determination of the BART assess the extent of their contribution to 4 letters are located in Appendices H.9a, controls. These components, as visibility impairment at Class I areas in H.9b, and H.9c, respectively, of the addressed by GA EPD, and the State’s surrounding states. Georgia regional haze SIP submittal and findings, are discussed as follows. can be accessed at www.regulations.gov 1. Modeling Methodology using Docket ID No. EPA–R04–OAR– A. BART-Eligible Sources The BART Guidelines allow states to 2010–0936. The first phase of a BART evaluation use the CALPUFF 19 modeling system 2. Contribution Threshold is to identify all the BART-eligible (CALPUFF) or another appropriate sources within the state’s boundaries. model to predict the visibility impacts For states using modeling to GA EPD identified the BART-eligible from a single source on a Class I area, determine the applicability of BART to sources in Georgia by utilizing the three and therefore, to determine whether an single sources, the BART Guidelines eligibility criteria in the BART individual source is anticipated to cause note that the first step is to set a Guidelines (70 FR 39158) and EPA’s or contribute to impairment of visibility contribution threshold to assess whether regulations (40 CFR 51.301): (1) One or in Class I areas, i.e., ‘‘is subject to the impact of a single source is more emissions units at the facility fit BART.’’ The Guidelines state that EPA sufficient to cause or contribute to within one of the 26 categories listed in believes that CALPUFF is the best visibility impairment at a Class I area. the BART Guidelines; (2) the emissions regulatory modeling application The BART Guidelines state that ‘‘[a] units were not in operation prior to currently available for predicting a single source that is responsible for a 1.0 August 7, 1962, and were in existence single source’s contribution to visibility deciview change or more should be on August 7, 1977; and (3) these units impairment (70 FR 39162). Georgia, in considered to ‘cause’ visibility have the potential to emit 250 tons or coordination with VISTAS, used the impairment.’’ The BART Guidelines more per year of any visibility-impairing CALPUFF modeling system to also state that ‘‘the appropriate pollutant. determine whether individual sources threshold for determining whether a The BART Guidelines also direct in the State are subject to BART. source ‘contributes to visibility states to address SO2, NOX, and direct The BART Guidelines also impairment’ may reasonably differ PM (including both PM10 and PM2.5) recommend that states develop a across states,’’ but, ‘‘[a]s a general emissions as visibility-impairment modeling protocol for making matter, any threshold that you use for pollutants and to exercise judgment in individual source attributions and determining whether a source determining whether VOC or ammonia suggest that states may want to consult ‘contributes’ to visibility impairment emissions from a source impair with EPA and their RPO to address any should not be higher than 0.5 visibility in a Class I area. See 70 FR issues prior to modeling. The VISTAS deciviews.’’ The Guidelines affirm that 39160. VISTAS modeling demonstrated states, including Georgia, developed a states are free to use a lower threshold that VOC from anthropogenic sources ‘‘Protocol for the Application of if they conclude that the location of a and ammonia from point sources, CALPUFF for BART Analyses.’’ large number of BART-eligible sources except for potentially one ammonia Stakeholders, including EPA, FLMs, in proximity of a Class I area justifies source, are not significant visibility- industrial sources, trade groups, and this approach. impairing pollutants in Georgia, as Georgia used a contribution threshold other interested parties, actively discussed in section IV.C.3 of this of 0.5 deciview for determining which participated in the development and action. Based on the VISTAS modeling, sources are subject to BART and review of the VISTAS protocol. GA EPD determined that ammonia concluded that the threshold of 0.5 VISTAS developed a post-processing emissions from the State’s point sources deciview was appropriate in this approach to use the new IMPROVE are not anticipated to cause or situation. Georgia determined that, equation with the CALPUFF model contribute significantly to any considering the results of the visibility results so that the BART analyses could impairment of visibility in Class I areas impacts modeling conducted, a 0.5 consider the old and new IMPROVE and should be exempt for BART deciview threshold was appropriate and equations. GA EPD sent a letter and purposes. The only ammonia source in a lower threshold was not warranted for supplemental email to EPA justifying Georgia that was identified by VISTAS the following reasons. There are a the need for this post-processing as a possible contributor to visibility limited number of BART-eligible approach, and the EPA Region 4 impairment, PCS Nitrogen, adequately sources in close proximity to each of the Regional Administrator sent the State a addressed its contribution in its BART State’s Class I areas, and the overall letter of approval dated September 11, exemption modeling analysis. impact of the BART-eligible sources on 2008. Georgia’s justification included a visibility in nearby Class I areas is B. BART-Subject Sources method to process the CALPUFF output relatively minimal. In addition, the The second phase of the BART and a rationale on the benefits of using results of the visibility impacts evaluation is to identify those BART- the new IMPROVE equation. The State’s modeling demonstrated that the eligible sources that may reasonably be description of the new post-processing majority of the individual BART-eligible anticipated to cause or contribute to sources had visibility impacts well 19 Note that EPA’s reference to CALPUFF visibility impairment at any Class I area, encompasses the entire CALPUFF modeling system, below 0.5 deciview. As stated in the i.e., those sources that are subject to which includes the CALMET, CALPUFF, and BART Guidelines, where a state BART. The BART Guidelines allow CALPOST models and other pre and post concludes that a large number of these states to consider exempting some processors. The different versions of CALPUFF BART-eligible sources within proximity have corresponding versions of CALMET, BART-eligible sources from further CALPOST, etc. which may not be compatible with of a Class I area justify a lower BART review because they may not previous versions (e.g., the output from a newer threshold, it may warrant establishing a reasonably be anticipated to cause or version of CALMET may not be compatible with an lower contribution threshold. See 70 FR contribute to any visibility impairment older version of CALPUFF). The different versions 39161–39162 (July 6, 2005). EPA of the CALPUFF modeling system are available in a Class I area. Consistent with the from the model developer on the following Web proposes to concur with Georgia that the BART Guidelines, Georgia required each site: http://www.src.com/verio/download/ overall impacts of these sources are not of its BART-eligible sources to develop download.htm. sufficient to warrant a lower

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:33 Feb 24, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00057 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\27FEP1.SGM 27FEP1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 38 / Monday, February 27, 2012 / Proposed Rules 11471

contribution threshold and that a 0.5 TABLE 5—GEORGIA BART-ELIGIBLE In accordance with the BART deciview threshold was appropriate in AND SUBJECT-TO-BART SOURCES— Guidelines, to determine the level of this instance. Continued control that represents BART for each source, the State first reviewed existing 3. Identification of Sources Subject to Facilities With Unit(s) Not Subject to BART controls on these units to assess BART whether these constituted the best EGU CAIR and BART Modeling (PM only) Georgia identified 24 facilities with 20 controls currently available, then Exempt Sources identified what other technically BART-eligible sources. All of Georgia’s Georgia Power—Plant Branch 24 BART-eligible sources were required Georgia Power—Plant Hammond feasible controls are available, and by the State to submit exemption- Georgia Power—Plant McDonough finally, evaluated the technically modeling demonstrations. Georgia Georgia Power—Plant Mitchell feasible controls using the five BART found that two of its BART-eligible Georgia Power—Plant Scherer statutory factors. The State’s evaluations sources (Interstate Paper and Georgia Georgia Power—Plant Wansley and conclusions, and EPA’s assessment, Georgia Power—Plant Yates are summarized below. Power—Plant Bowen) had modeled Georgia Power—Plant Kraft visibility impacts of more than the 0.5 Georgia Power—Plant McIntosh 1. Georgia Power—Plant Bowen deciview threshold for BART Non-EGUs Exempt with Additional Model Georgia Power—Plant Bowen has four exemption. Therefore, these two Based Emission Limits BART-eligible emissions units that facilities are subject to BART and Georgia Pacific—Cedar Springs comprise the BART-eligible source. submitted State permit applications Non-EGUs Exempt using Model Plant Cri- These units are coal fired EGUs, including their proposed BART teria numbers 1, 2, 3, and 4. Each of the determinations. Lafarge Building Materials (Blue Circle Ce- ment—Atlanta Plant) EGU’s PM emissions are already Of the 22 exempted BART-eligible International Paper—Savannah controlled by electrostatic precipitators sources, two (Lafarge Building Materials Non-EGU BART Modeling Exempt (ESPs) and wet FGD. The SO2 scrubbers and International Paper—Savannah) Chemical Products Corporation were installed on Plant Bowen between were exempted because they met EPA’s DSM Chemicals, North America 2008 and 2010. Modeling results International Paper—Augusta model plant exemption criteria in the estimate that visibility impacts from BART Guidelines (70 FR 39162–39163), Georgia Pacific—Brunswick Cellulose Owens Corning Plant Bowen will exceed 0.5 deciview and one, Georgia Pacific—Cedar PCA—Valdosta (Tenneco Packaging, Inc.) for at least one Class I area even with Springs, was able to demonstrate PCS Nitrogen the PM emissions reductions that occur exemption from BART by accepting SO2 Prayon, Inc. from scrubbing. Georgia Power emissions limits on Power Boilers 1 and Rayonier (Rayonier ITT, Inc.) identified the following four potential 2 (135 lb SO2/hr each) and on Recovery Tronox (Kerr-McGee/Kemira) additional control technologies: (a) High Boiler 3 (350 ppm). These limits result voltage power conditioners (juice cans); in a 0.499 deciview impact at the Saint Prior to the CAIR remand, the State’s (b) particle agglomerators; (c) the Marks Class I area and a 0.306 deciview reliance on CAIR to satisfy BART for combination of juice cans and particle impact at the Okefenokee Class I area. NOX and SO2 for affected CAIR EGUs agglomerators; and (d) a wet ESP. The The remaining 19 sources demonstrated was fully approvable and in accordance company evaluated the cost that they are not subject to BART by with 40 CFR 51.308(e)(4). However, the effectiveness, visibility impacts, and modeling less than a 0.5 deciview BART assessments for CAIR EGUs for energy and non-air environmental visibility impact at the affected Class I NOX and SO2 and other provisions in impacts of these control options. areas. For the non-EGU BART-eligible this SIP revision are based on CAIR. In GA EPD determined that no sources, this modeling involved a separate action, EPA has proposed a additional control was reasonable for emissions of NOX, SO2, and PM10 as limited disapproval of the Georgia BART for this facility. Wet ESPs are the applicable to individual facilities. regional haze SIP because of only control option that resulted in a Ten of Georgia’s BART-eligible deficiencies in the State’s regional haze modeled visibility improvement greater sources are facilities with EGUs. These SIP submittal arising from the remand than 0.01 deciviews. Wet ESPs were units are subject to CAIR. Because by the D.C. Circuit to EPA of CAIR. See predicted to improve visibility by Georgia relied on CAIR to satisfy BART 76 FR 82219. Consequently, EPA is not approximately 0.14 to 0.16 deciviews for SO and NO for its EGUs in CAIR, taking action in this proposed for each unit at a cost effectiveness of 2 X rulemaking to address the State’s in accordance with 40 CFR 51.308(e)(4), $37,107 to $47,909/ton SO2. In addition, Georgia’s EGUs were allowed to submit reliance on CAIR to meet certain the wet ESP would consume additional BART exemption modeling regional haze requirements. electricity and have non-air demonstrations for PM emissions only. C. BART Determinations environmental impacts. The combination juice can/particle All EGUs other than Georgia Power— Two BART-eligible sources (Interstate Plant Bowen demonstrated that their agglomerator option modeled a visibility Paper and Georgia Power—Plant benefit of 0.01 deciview for each unit at PM10 emissions do not contribute to Bowen) had modeled visibility impacts visibility impairment in any Class I area. a cost effectiveness of $12,222 to of more than 0.5 deciview and are $21,914/ton SO . Table 5 identifies the 24 BART-eligible therefore subject to BART. 2 sources located in Georgia. Consequently, they each submitted to 2. Interstate Paper—Power Boiler (F1), the State permit applications that Recovery Boiler (F3), and Lime Kiln (F4) TABLE 5—GEORGIA BART-ELIGIBLE included their proposed BART Interstate Paper, located in Riceboro, AND SUBJECT-TO-BART SOURCES determinations. Georgia, is a paper facility owned and operated by Interstate Resources Facilities With Unit(s) Subject to BART 20 EGUs were only evaluated for PM emissions. Incorporated. Interstate Paper is located Georgia relied on CAIR to satisfy BART for SO2 and within 100 kilometers of the Wolf Island Georgia Power—Plant Bowen NOX for its EGUs in CAIR, in accordance with 40 Interstate Paper, LLC CFR 51.308(e)(4). Thus, SO2 and NOX were not and Okefenokee Wilderness Class I analyzed. areas. Three of Interstate Paper’s units

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:50 Feb 24, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00058 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\27FEP1.SGM 27FEP1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS 11472 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 38 / Monday, February 27, 2012 / Proposed Rules

are BART-eligible: Power Boiler (F1), (b). Recovery Boiler (F3) the Interstate Paper and Georgia Recovery Boiler (F3), and Lime Kiln Recovery Boiler (F3) has a low odor, Power—Plant Bowen facilities because (F4). indirect contact evaporator design. The the analyses were conducted in a There are no known energy and non- boiler fulfills the essential functions of manner that is consistent with EPA’s air quality environmental impacts evaporating the residual moisture from BART Guidelines and EPA’s Air related to BART determined controls for the black liquor solids, burning the Pollution Control Cost Manual. In addition, EPA believes that the Interstate paper, LLC. The remaining organic constituents, producing steam, conclusions reflect a reasonable useful life of the source is at least 10 and producing sodium carbonate and application of EPA’s guidance to these years. sodium sulfides. Black liquor with more sources. (a). Power Boiler (F1) than 68 percent solids is fired into the recovery boiler where the organics from 4. Enforceability of BART Limits Power Boiler (F1) at Interstate Paper the black liquor are burned off in a The required operational restrictions was installed in 1968 and has a reducing atmosphere, generating steam, limiting the power boiler at the maximum heat input of 400 MMBtu/hr. molten sodium carbonate, and sodium Interstate Paper facility to natural gas It fires natural gas and No. 6 fuel oil. sulfides. Air pollutants emitted from the except during curtailment periods to The power boiler, along with the lime recovery boiler include all three BART meet BART were added as permit kiln, is used as a backup control device relevant pollutants at the following conditions to the facility’s title V for LVHC non-condensable gases (NCGs) rates: 2.46 tpy SO2, 349.92 tpy NOX, and operating permit. Georgia EPD included generated in the pulp mill. Air 0.5 tpy PM. Emissions of the recovery a copy of the permit in the SIP (see pollutants emitted from the power boiler currently pass through a venturi Appendix M as revised in GA EPD’s boiler include all three BART relevant scrubber. technical supplement dated November pollutants at the following rates: 300.49 GA EPD evaluated additional controls 19, 2010). tpy SO2, 409.24 tpy NOX, and 19 tpy for particulates, NOX, and SO2. No GA EPD also issued an operating PM. control technology was identified as permit with BART exemption limits for being technically and economically GA EPD evaluated additional controls Georgia Pacific—Cedar Springs. Power feasible; therefore, GA EPD concluded Boilers 1 and No. 2 have limits of 135 for NOX, SO2, and particulates. For that BART for this unit is no additional lbs SO2/hr each. Recovery Boiler No. 3 NOX, selective catalytic reduction controls. has an emissions limit of 350 ppm SO2 (SCR), low NOX burners, and low NOX burner with flue gas recirculation were (c). Lime Kiln (F4) on a dry basis corrected to eight percent oxygen as a 24-hour average when firing identified as economically feasible The lime kiln dries and processes controls. However, they were not black liquor solids. These limits were lime mud from the causticizing system added to the facility’s title V operating considered further for BART because of by burning fuel oil with a sulfur content a visibility improvement of less than permit. A copy of the revised title V no greater than 2.5 percent. The lime permit was included in Appendix M of 0.01 Mm-1 from NOX controls on this kiln is permitted to burn natural gas, unit. An ESP and a fabric filter were the Georgia regional haze submittal. No. 6 fuel oil, or limited quantities of Recordkeeping, monitoring, and identified as technically feasible used oil. It is equipped with a venturi testing requirements were included to controls for PM emissions reduction, scrubber to control PM emissions. The demonstrate compliance with the BART but capital and operating costs caused lime kiln also serves as a back-up limits. These requirements are them to be economically infeasible for combustion device for LVHC NGCs consistent with GA EPD’s Procedures BART. The resulting costs per ton of PM generated in the pulp mill. Air for Testing and Monitoring Sources of reduction ranged from $19,364 to pollutants emitted from the lime kiln Air Pollutants, and must meet the $79,470/ton. include all three BART relevant requirements of Compliance Assurance For SO2, fuel switching to natural gas pollutants at the following rates: 9.50 Monitoring (40 CFR Part 64) or Periodic and a wet scrubber were found tpy SO2, 149.16 tpy NOX, and 127.56 Monitoring (40 CFR 70.6(3)(i)(B)), as technically feasible. The cost per ton of tpy PM. Emissions of the lime kiln appropriate. SO2 emissions reductions of each currently pass through a venturi alternative is well within the range that scrubber. 7. RPGs GA EPD considers economically GA EPD evaluated additional controls The RHR at 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1) feasible. Hence, both control options for particulates, NOX, and SO2. No requires states to establish RPGs for were further considered for BART control technologies were identified as each Class I area within the state analysis. Conversion to natural gas has being technically and economically (expressed in deciviews) that provide higher control efficiency at lower cost feasible for particulates or SO2. For for reasonable progress towards than a wet scrubber. A fuel switch to NOX, the low-NOX burner control achieving natural visibility. VISTAS natural gas has a PM and SO2 removal option and two selective non-catalytic modeled visibility improvements under efficiency of more than 99 percent. The reduction (SNCR) control options were existing Federal and state regulations for cost that the facility will incur for such considered to be economically feasible. the period 2004–2018 and additional a fuel switch is also relatively less than However, they were not considered control measures which the VISTAS the addition of control equipment and, further as retrofit controls because of the states planned to implement in the first along with reduction in PM and SO2 visibility improvement of less than 0.01 implementation period. At the time of emissions, NOX emission reductions Mm-1 from NOX controls on this unit. VISTAS modeling, some of the other will also be achieved. Therefore, GA GA EPD concluded that BART for states with sources potentially EPD concluded that BART for the power particulates, NOX, and SO2 for this unit impacting visibility at the Georgia Class boiler at Interstate Paper is a is no additional controls. I areas had not yet made final control requirement to burn natural gas only, determinations for BART and/or other than during curtailment periods 3. EPA Assessment reasonable progress, and thus, these (i.e., during reduction or discontinuance EPA proposes to approve Georgia’s controls were not included in the of supply in natural gas). analyses and conclusions for BART for modeling submitted by Georgia. Any

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:33 Feb 24, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00059 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\27FEP1.SGM 27FEP1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 38 / Monday, February 27, 2012 / Proposed Rules 11473

controls resulting from those slightly slower than the uniform rate of Also, the RPGs for the 20 percent best determinations will provide additional progress by approximately 0.40 days for all three Class I areas in the emissions reductions and resulting deciview for the most impaired days State provide greater visibility visibility improvement, which give over the period of the implementation improvement by 2018 than current best further assurances that Georgia will plan. day conditions. The regional haze achieve its RPGs. This modeling As shown in Table 6 below, Georgia’s provisions specify that a state may not demonstrates that the 2018 base control RPG for the 20 percent worst days adopt a RPG that represents less scenario provides for an improvement (22.80 deciviews in 2018) at the Cohutta visibility improvement than is expected Wilderness Area provides greater in visibility better than the uniform rate to result from other CAA requirements visibility improvement from the of progress for the Cohutta Class I area during the implementation period. 40 baseline of 30.25 deciviews by 2018 for the most impaired days over the than the uniform rate of progress (25.71 CFR 51.308(d)(1)(vi). Therefore, the period of the implementation plan and, deciviews in 2018). For Okefenokee and CAIR states with Class I areas, like for all three of Georgia’s areas, ensures Wolf Island, the RPGs for the 20 percent Georgia, took into account emissions no degradation in visibility for the least worst days (23.82 deciviews in 2018) reductions anticipated from CAIR in impaired days over the same period. For provide slightly less visibility determining their 2018 RPGs.21 The the Okefenokee and Wolf Island improvement from the baseline of 27.13 modeling supporting the analysis of Wilderness Areas, the modeling predicts deciviews by 2018 than the uniform rate these RPGs is consistent with EPA an improvement in visibility that is of progress (23.42 deciviews in 2018). guidance at the time.

TABLE 6—GEORGIA 2018 RPGS [In deciviews]

2018 RPG—20% Uniform rate of 2018 RPG—20% Baseline worst days progress at Baseline best days Class I area visibility—20% (improvement 2018—20% visibility—20% (improvement worst days from baseline) worst days best days from baseline)

Cohutta Wilderness Area ...... 30.25 22.80 25.71 13.77 11.75 (7.45) (2.02) Okefenokee Wilderness Area ...... 27.13 23.82 23.42 15.23 13.92 (3.31) (1.31) Wolf Island Wilderness Area ...... 27.13 23.82 23.42 15.23 13.92 (3.31) (1.31)

The RPGs for the Class I areas in established a requirement for a monitoring provisions with those for Georgia are based on modeled midcourse review and, if necessary, regional haze, as explained in sections projections of future conditions that correction of the states’ regional haze III.F and III.G of this action. Under were developed using the best available plans. See 40 CFR 52.308(g). In EPA’s RAVI regulations, the RAVI information at the time the analysis was particular, the RHR calls for a five-year portion of a state SIP must address any done. These projections can be expected progress review after submittal of the integral vistas identified by the FLMs to change as additional information initial regional haze plan. The purpose pursuant to 40 CFR 51.304. An integral regarding future conditions becomes of this progress review is to assess the vista is defined in 40 CFR 51.301 as a available. For example, new sources effectiveness of emissions management ‘‘view perceived from within the may be built, existing sources may shut strategies in meeting the RPG and to mandatory Class I Federal area of a down or modify production in response provide an assessment of whether specific landmark or panorama located to changed economic circumstances, current implementation strategies are outside the boundary of the mandatory and facilities may change their sufficient for the state or affected states Class I Federal area.’’ Visibility in any emissions characteristics as they install to meet their RPGs. If a state concludes, mandatory Class I area includes any control equipment to comply with new based on its assessment, that the RPGs integral vista associated with that area. rules. It would be both impractical and for a Class I area will not be met, the The FLMs did not identify any integral resource-intensive to require a state to RHR requires the state to take vistas in Georgia. In addition, the Class continually revise its RPGs every time appropriate action. See 40 CFR I areas in Georgia are neither an event affecting these future 52.308(h). The nature of the appropriate projections changed. action will depend on the basis for the experiencing RAVI nor are any of its EPA recognized the problems of a state’s conclusion that the current sources affected by the RAVI provisions. rigid requirement to meet a long-term strategies are insufficient to meet the Thus, the Georgia regional haze SIP goal based on modeled projections of RPGs. Georgia specifically committed to submittal does not explicitly address the future visibility conditions and follow this process in the LTS portion two requirements regarding addressed the uncertainties associated of its submittal. coordination of the regional haze with with RPGs in several ways. EPA made the RAVI LTS and monitoring clear in the RHR that the RPG is not a D. Coordination of RAVI and Regional provisions. However, Georgia mandatory standard which must be Haze Requirements previously made a commitment to achieved by a particular date. See 64 FR EPA’s visibility regulations direct address RAVI should the FLMs certify at 35733. At the same time, EPA states to coordinate their RAVI LTS and visibility impairment from an

21 Many of the CAIR states without Class I areas contribution to visibility impairment in other states’ Certain surrounding non-CAIR states also relied on similarly relied on CAIR emission reductions Class I areas, which the impacted Class I area emissions reductions due to CAIR in nearby states within the state to address some or all of their state(s) used to set the RPGs for their Class I area(s). to develop their regional haze SIP submittals.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:33 Feb 24, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00060 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\27FEP1.SGM 27FEP1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS 11474 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 38 / Monday, February 27, 2012 / Proposed Rules

individual source.22 EPA finds that this upon in the State’s regional haze F. Consultation With States and FLMs regional haze submittal appropriately submittal. In the submittal, Georgia 1. Consultation With Other States supplements and augments Georgia’s states its intention to rely on the RAVI visibility provisions to address IMPROVE network for complying with In December 2006 and May 2007, the regional haze by updating the the regional haze monitoring State Air Directors from the VISTAS monitoring and LTS provisions as requirement in EPA’s RHR for the states held formal interstate summarized below in this section. current and future regional haze consultation meetings. The purpose of In its January 25, 2010, submittal, GA implementation periods. these meetings was to discuss the EPD updated its visibility monitoring Data produced by the IMPROVE methodology proposed by VISTAS for program and developed a LTS to monitoring network will be used nearly identifying sources to evaluate for address regional haze. Also in this continuously for preparing the five-year reasonable progress. The states invited submittal, GA EPD affirmed its progress reports and the 10-year SIP FLM and EPA representatives to commitment to complete items required revisions, each of which relies on participate and to provide additional in the future under EPA’s RHR. analysis of the preceding five years of feedback. The Directors discussed the Specifically, GA EPD made a data. The Visibility Information results of analyses showing commitment to review and revise its Exchange Web System (VIEWS) Web contributions to visibility impairment regional haze implementation plan and site has been maintained by VISTAS from states to each of the Class I areas submit a plan revision to EPA by July and the other RPOs to provide ready in the VISTAS region. 31, 2018, and every 10 years thereafter. access to the IMPROVE data and data GA EPD has evaluated the impact of Georgia sources on Class I areas in See 40 CFR 51.308(f). In accordance analysis tools. Georgia is encouraging neighboring states. The state in which a with the requirements listed in 40 CFR VISTAS and the other RPOs to maintain Class I area is located is responsible for 51.308(g) of EPA’s regional haze VIEWS or a similar data management determining which sources, both inside regulations and 40 CFR 51.306(c) of the system to facilitate analysis of the and outside of that state, to evaluate for RAVI LTS regulations, GA EPD IMPROVE data. reasonable progress controls. Because at committed to submit a report to EPA on In addition to the IMPROVE progress towards the RPGs for each the time of Georgia’s SIP development measurements, Georgia also operates a many of these states had not yet defined mandatory Class I area located within comprehensive PM2.5 network of filter- Georgia and for each mandatory Class I their criteria for identifying sources to based Federal reference method evaluate for reasonable progress, area located outside Georgia that may be monitors, continuous mass monitors, affected by emissions from within Georgia applied its AOI methodology to filter-based speciated monitors, and the identify sources in the State that have Georgia. The progress report is required continuous speciated monitors listed emissions units with impacts large to be in the form of a SIP revision and below. GA EPD will use Southeastern enough to potentially warrant further is due every five years following the Aerosol Research and Characterization evaluation and analysis. The State initial submittal of the regional haze (SEARCH) data from the monitoring identified eight emissions units in SIP. Consistent with EPA’s monitoring sites listed below to further the Georgia with a contribution of 0.5 regulations for RAVI and regional haze, understanding of both PM2.5 and percent or more to the visibility Georgia will rely on the IMPROVE visibility formation and trends in impairment at the following seven Class network for compliance purposes, in Georgia. The SEARCH monitors provide I areas in five neighboring states: Sipsey addition to any RAVI monitoring that the following data related to the nature Wilderness Area (AL), Saint Marks may be needed in the future. See 40 CFR of ambient PM2.5: Wilderness Area (FL), Shining Rock 51.305, 40 CFR 51.308(d)(4). Also, the • 24-hr PM2.5 filter samples, analyzed Wilderness Area (NC), Swanquarter Georgia new source review rules, for mass, ions (sulfate, nitrate, Wilderness Area (NC), Great Smoky previously approved in the State’s SIP, ammonium), organic carbon, elemental Mountains National Park (NC/TN), continue to provide a framework for (black) carbon, and elements as Joyce Kilmer-Slickrock Wilderness Area review and coordination with the FLMs measured by X-ray fluorescence (XRF); (NC/TN), and Cape Romain Wilderness on new sources which may have an • 24-hr PM coarse mass, ions, and Area (SC). Based on an evaluation of the adverse impact on visibility in either XRF elements; four reasonable progress statutory form (i.e., RAVI and/or regional haze) in • 24-hr gaseous ammonia as collected factors, Georgia determined that there any Class I area. with an annular denuder; are no additional control measures for • E. Monitoring Strategy and Other Continuous (minute to hourly) these Georgia emissions units that Implementation Plan Requirements PM2.5 mass, organic carbon, elemental would be reasonable to implement to carbon, ammonium, nitrate, and sulfate; mitigate visibility impacts in Class I The primary monitoring network for light scattering and light absorption; regional haze in Georgia is the areas in these neighboring states. GA • Continuous gaseous ozone, nitric EPD consulted with these states in the IMPROVE network. As discussed in oxide, nitrogen dioxide, total oxidized section IV.B.2 of this action, there are VISTAS region regarding its reasonable nitrogen, nitric acid, carbon monoxide, progress control evaluations showing no currently two IMPROVE monitoring and SO ; and sites in Georgia, one for Cohutta and the 2 cost-effective controls available for • Continuous 10-meter other monitor for Okefenokee. The those emissions units in Georgia meteorological parameters: wind speed, Okefenokee monitor is also used to contributing at least 0.5 percent to wind direction, precipitation, represent visibility conditions at Wolf visibility impairment at Class I areas in temperature, barometric pressure, Island. those states. No adverse comments were relative humidity and solar radiation. IMPROVE monitoring data from received from the other VISTAS states. 2000–2004 serves as the baseline for the In addition, the Clean Air Status and The documentation for these formal regional haze program, and is relied Trends Network (‘‘CASTNet’’) provides consultations is provided in Appendix J atmospheric data on the dry deposition of Georgia’s SIP. 22 Georgia submitted its visibility SIP revisions component of total acid deposition, Regarding the impact of sources addressing RAVI on August 31, 1987, which EPA ground-level ozone, and other forms of outside of the State on Class I areas in approved on July 12, 1988, (53 FR 26253). atmospheric pollution. Georgia, GA EPD sent letters to Florida,

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:33 Feb 24, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00061 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\27FEP1.SGM 27FEP1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 38 / Monday, February 27, 2012 / Proposed Rules 11475

South Carolina, and Tennessee the U.S. Departments of the Interior and supplemented or modified, and if after pertaining to emissions units within Agriculture to develop technical appropriate consultation Georgia agrees, these states that it believes contribute analyses that support the regional haze today’s action may be revisited or 0.5 percent or more to visibility SIPs for the VISTAS states. The additional information and/or changes impairment in the Georgia Class I areas. proposed regional haze plan for Georgia will be addressed in the five-year At that time, these neighboring states was out for public comment and FLM progress report SIP revision. were still in the process of evaluating review from July to August 2009 and an V. What action is EPA taking? BART and reasonable progress for their earlier draft plan was shared for FLM sources. Any controls resulting from and EPA discussions between December EPA is proposing a limited approval those determinations will provide 2008 and February 2009. The FLMs did of a revision to the Georgia SIP additional emissions reductions and not submit any significant adverse submitted by the State of Georgia on resulting visibility improvement, which comments regarding either the State’s February 11, 2010, and supplemented gives further assurances that Georgia December 2008 draft or the July 2009 on November 19, 2010, as meeting some will achieve its RPGs. Therefore, to be proposed regional haze SIP. The FLMs of the applicable regional haze conservative, Georgia opted not to rely requested that the State include a requirements as set forth in sections on any additional emissions reductions discussion regarding the Georgia 169A and 169B of the CAA and in 40 from sources located outside the State’s sources’ visibility impacts to out-of-state CFR 51.300–308, as described boundaries beyond those already Class I areas in the draft SIP as well as previously in this action. identified in the State’s regional haze a discussion on consideration of VI. Statutory and Executive Order SIP submittal and as discussed in measures to address construction Reviews section IV.C.1 (Federal and state activity. Additionally, the FLMs offered controls in place by 2018) of this action. some clarifications to the text and A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory In 2007, Georgia received a letter sent requested inclusion of the BART Planning and Review by the Mid-Atlantic/Northeast Visibility exemption modeling reports for eight The Office of Management and Budget Union (MANE–VU) RPO on behalf of BART-eligible sources. Georgia (OMB) has exempted this regulatory the States of Maine, New Jersey, New addressed the FLMs’ comments, action from Executive Order 12866, Hampshire, and Vermont, inviting including the requested BART modeling entitled ‘‘Regulatory Planning and Georgia to participate in upcoming state exemption reports and discussion Review.’’ consultation calls and meetings. This regarding out-of-state Class I area letter also requested a control strategy to impacts, and also provided written B. Paperwork Reduction Act provide a 28-percent reduction in SO2 responses explaining its changes. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act, emissions from sources other than EGUs To address the requirement for 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., OMB must that would be equivalent to MANE– continuing consultation procedures approve all ‘‘collections of information’’ VU’s proposed low sulfur fuel oil with the FLMs under 40 CFR by EPA. The Act defines ‘‘collection of strategy. Georgia also received 51.308(i)(4), Georgia stated in its SIP information’’ as a requirement for individual letters in 2007 from the that GA EPD will offer the FLMs an answers to * * * identical reporting or MANE–VU States of Maine and opportunity for consultation on a yearly recordkeeping requirements imposed on Vermont stating that based on MANE– basis, including the opportunity to ten or more persons * * *. 44 U.S.C. VU’s analysis of 2002 emissions data, discuss the implementation process and 3502(3)(A). The Paperwork Reduction Georgia contributed to visibility the most recent IMPROVE monitoring Act does not apply to this action. impairment to Class I areas in those data and VIEWS data. Records of annual C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) states. The letters invited Georgia to consultations and progress report participate in future consultation consultations will be maintained in The RFA generally requires an agency discussions. Georgia sent letters to Georgia EPD’s regional haze files. to conduct a regulatory flexibility Maine and Vermont stating that GA EPD analysis of any rule subject to notice G. Periodic SIP Revisions and Five-Year was currently in the process of requiring and comment rulemaking requirements Progress Reports 95-percent SO2 control on the seven unless the agency certifies that the rule largest coal-fired power plants in As also summarized in section IV.D of will not have a significant economic Georgia, and that these controls were this action, consistent with 40 CFR impact on a substantial number of small not fully accounted for in the VISTAS 51.308(g), GA EPD affirmed its entities. Small entities include small modeling for 2009 and SO2 AOI commitment to submitting a progress businesses, small not-for-profit analyses for 2018. Georgia affirms it will report in the form of a SIP revision to enterprises, and small governmental continue to work through VISTAS to EPA every five years following this jurisdictions. continue discussions with MANE–VU initial submittal of the Georgia regional This rule will not have a significant regarding this issue. haze SIP. The report will evaluate the impact on a substantial number of small GA EPD evaluated both EGU and non- progress made towards the RPGs for entities because SIP approvals under EGU sources to determine what controls each mandatory Class I area located section 110 and subchapter I, part D of are reasonable in this first within Georgia and for each mandatory the CAA do not create any new implementation period. EPA proposes Class I area located outside Georgia that requirements but simply approve to find that Georgia has adequately may be affected by emissions from requirements that the State is already addressed the consultation requirements within Georgia. Georgia also offered imposing. Therefore, because the in the RHR and appropriately recommendations for several technical Federal SIP approval does not create documented its consultation with other improvements that, as funding allows, any new requirements, I certify that this states in its SIP submittal. can support the State’s next LTS. These action will not have a significant recommendations are discussed in economic impact on a substantial 2. Consultation With the FLMs detail in the Georgia submittal in number of small entities. Through the VISTAS RPO, Georgia Appendix K. Moreover, due to the nature of the and the nine other member states If another state’s regional haze SIP Federal-state relationship under the worked extensively with the FLMs from identifies that Georgia’s SIP needs to be CAA, preparation of flexibility analysis

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:33 Feb 24, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00062 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\27FEP1.SGM 27FEP1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS 11476 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 38 / Monday, February 27, 2012 / Proposed Rules

would constitute Federal inquiry into government provides the funds and reasonably feasible alternatives the economic reasonableness of state necessary to pay the direct compliance considered by the Agency. action. The CAA forbids EPA to base its costs incurred by state and local This rule is not subject to Executive actions concerning SIPs on such governments, or EPA consults with state Order 13045 because it does not involve grounds. Union Electric Co., v. EPA, 427 and local officials early in the process decisions intended to mitigate U.S. 246, 255–66 (1976); 42 U.S.C. of developing the proposed regulation. environmental health or safety risks. 7410(a)(2). EPA also may not issue a regulation that H. Executive Order 13211, Actions That D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act has Federalism implications and that Significantly Affect Energy Supply, (UMRA) preempts state law unless the Agency Distribution, or Use consults with state and local officials Under sections 202 of the UMRA of early in the process of developing the This rule is not subject to Executive 1995 (‘‘Unfunded Mandates Act’’), proposed regulation. Order 13211, ‘‘Actions Concerning signed into law on March 22, 1995, EPA This rule will not have substantial Regulations That Significantly Affect must prepare a budgetary impact direct effects on the states, on the Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use’’ (66 statement to accompany any proposed relationship between the national FR 28355, May 22, 2001) because it is or final rule that includes a Federal government and the states, or on the not a significant regulatory action under mandate that may result in estimated distribution of power and Executive Order 12866. costs to State, local, or tribal responsibilities among the various I. National Technology Transfer and governments in the aggregate; or to the levels of government, as specified in Advancement Act private sector, of $100 million or more. Executive Order 13132, because it Under section 205, EPA must select the Section 12 of the National Technology merely approves a state rule most cost-effective and least Transfer and Advancement Act implementing a Federal standard, and burdensome alternative that achieves (NTTAA) of 1995 requires Federal does not alter the relationship or the the objectives of the rule and is agencies to evaluate existing technical distribution of power and consistent with statutory requirements. standards when developing a new Section 203 requires EPA to establish a responsibilities established in the CAA. regulation. To comply with NTTAA, plan for informing and advising any Thus, the requirements of section 6 of EPA must consider and use ‘‘voluntary small governments that may be the Executive Order do not apply to this consensus standards’’ (VCS) if available significantly or uniquely impacted by rule. and applicable when developing the rule. F. Executive Order 13175, Coordination programs and policies unless doing so EPA has determined that today’s With Indian Tribal Governments would be inconsistent with applicable proposal does not include a Federal law or otherwise impractical. mandate that may result in estimated Executive Order 13175, entitled EPA believes that VCS are costs of $100 million or more to either ‘‘Consultation and Coordination with inapplicable to this action. Today’s state, local, or tribal governments in the Indian Tribal Governments’’ (65 FR action does not require the public to aggregate, or to the private sector. This 67249, November 9, 2000), requires EPA perform activities conducive to the use Federal action proposes to approve pre- to develop an accountable process to of VCS. existing requirements under State or ensure ‘‘meaningful and timely input by List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 local law, and imposes no new tribal officials in the development of requirements. Accordingly, no regulatory policies that have tribal Environmental protection, Air additional costs to State, local, or tribal implications.’’ This proposed rule does pollution control, Intergovernmental governments, or to the private sector, not have tribal implications, as specified relations, Nitrogen oxides, Particulate result from this action. in Executive Order 13175. It will not matter, Reporting and recordkeeping have substantial direct effects on tribal requirements, Sulfur dioxide, Volatile E. Executive Order 13132, Federalism governments. Thus, Executive Order organic compounds. Federalism (64 FR 43255, August 10, 13175 does not apply to this rule. EPA Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. 1999) revokes and replaces Executive specifically solicits additional comment Orders 12612 (Federalism) and 12875 on this proposed rule from tribal Dated: February 15, 2012. (Enhancing the Intergovernmental officials. A. Stanley Meiburg, Partnership). Executive Order 13132 Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4. G. Executive Order 13045, Protection of requires EPA to develop an accountable [FR Doc. 2012–4516 Filed 2–24–12; 8:45 am] Children From Environmental Health process to ensure ‘‘meaningful and BILLING CODE 6560–50–P Risks and Safety Risks timely input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory Protection of Children from policies that have Federalism Environmental Health Risks and Safety ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION implications.’’ ‘‘Policies that have Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), AGENCY federalism implications’’ is defined in applies to any rule that: (1) is 40 CFR Part 63 the Executive Order to include determined to be ‘‘economically regulations that have ‘‘substantial direct significant’’ as defined under Executive [EPA–R09–OAR–2012–0117; FRL–9635–8] effects on the states, on the relationship Order 12866, and (2) concerns an between the national government and environmental health or safety risk that Delegation of National Emission the states, or on the distribution of EPA has reason to believe may have a Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants power and responsibilities among the disproportionate effect on children. If for Source Categories; Nevada various levels of government.’’ Under the regulatory action meets both criteria, AGENCY: Environmental Protection Executive Order 13132, EPA may not the Agency must evaluate the Agency (EPA). issue a regulation that has Federalism environmental health or safety effects of ACTION: Proposed rule. implications, that imposes substantial the planned rule on children, and direct compliance costs, and that is not explain why the planned regulation is SUMMARY: Pursuant to section 112(l) of required by statute, unless the Federal preferable to other potentially effective the 1990 Clean Air Act, EPA granted

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:33 Feb 24, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00063 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\27FEP1.SGM 27FEP1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS