We received a petition to revise our regulations at 1 CFR part 51 on February 13, 2012. The petition is set out below. It specifically requests that we amend our regulations to define “reasonably available” and to include several requirements related to the statutory obligation that material incorporated by reference (IBR) be reasonably available. The petition does not specifically request that we define “class of persons affected”; however, it assumes that this term encompasses anyone who is interested in reviewing the material agencies want to IBR into their regulations. The petitioners did include specific regulatory changes, as an example of what our regulations could look like. They are not asking for adoption of this exact language, however, so we are not including that text here.

We are requesting comments on the following issues:

1. Does “reasonably available”

a. Mean that the material should be available:

i. For free and

ii. To anyone online?

b. Create a digital divide by excluding people without Internet access?

2. Does “class of persons affected” need to be defined? If so, how should it be defined?

3. Should agencies bear the cost of making the material available for free online?

4. How would this impact agencies budget and infrastructure, for example?

5. How would OFR review of proposed rules for IBR impact agency rulemaking and policy, given the additional time and possibility of denial of an IBR approval request at the final rule stage of the rulemaking?

6. Should OFR have the authority to deny IBR approval requests if the material is not available online for free?

7. The Administrative Conference of the United States recently issued a Recommendation on IBR. 77 FR 2257 (January 17, 2012). In light of this recommendation, should we update our guidance on this topic instead of amending our regulations?

8. Given that the petition raises policy rather than procedural issues, would the Office of Management and Budget be better placed to determine reasonable availability?

9. How would an extended IBR review period at both the proposed rule and final rule stages impact agencies?

We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed under theADDRESSESsection. Include “Docket No. FAA-2012-0183; Directorate Identifier 2011-NM-131-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this proposed AD because of those comments.

We will post all comments we receive, without change, tohttp://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we receive about this proposed AD.

We received reports from the manufacturer that COS boxes could fall from their supports under forward load levels less than the 9G forward load requirements as defined by section 25.561 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 25.561). This condition, if not corrected, could result in detachment of COS boxes at forward load levels less than 9G during an emergency landing, which would cause injury to passengers and/or crew and could impede subsequent rapid evacuation.

We reviewed Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737-25-1641, Revision 1, dated August 8, 2011. The service information describes procedures for modifying center overhead stowage boxes. The modification includes installing new brackets, stiffeners, and hardware (bolts, washers, and nuts) as needed.

We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all the relevant information and determined the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop in other products of this same type design.

This proposed AD would require accomplishing the actions specified in the service information described previously.

We estimate that this proposed AD affects 526 airplanes of U.S. registry.

We estimate the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:

According to the manufacturer, some of the costs of this proposed AD may be covered under warranty, thereby reducing the cost impact on affected individuals. We do not control warranty coverage for affected individuals. As a result, we have included all costs in our cost estimate.

Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.

We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.

We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed regulation:

(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,

(2) Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),

(3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and

(4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

Comments Invited

We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under theADDRESSESsection. Include “Docket No. FAA-2012-0102; Directorate Identifier 2012-NM-004-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this proposed AD because of those comments.

We will post all comments we receive, without change, tohttp://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we receive about this proposed AD.

On March 2, 2011, we issued AD 2011-04-09, Amendment 39-16630 (76 FR 12556, March 8, 2011), for certain transport category airplanes. That AD requires either activating all chemical oxygen generators (COGs) in the lavatories until the generator oxygen supply is expended, or removing the oxygen generator(s); and, for each chemical oxygen generator, after the generator is expended (or removed), removing or restowing the oxygen masks and closing the mask dispenser door. That AD resulted from reports that the current design of these oxygen generators presents a hazard that could jeopardize flight safety. We issued that AD to eliminate this hazard.

When we issued AD 2011-04-09, Amendment 39-16630 (76 FR 12556, March 8, 2011), we also issued Special Federal Aviation Regulation (SFAR) 111 (76 FR 12550, March 8, 2011) to address the fact that, with inoperative COGs, affected airplanes would not be in compliance with certain airworthiness standards that require supplemental oxygen to be available in all lavatories. That SFAR permitted airplanes affected by AD 2011-04-09 to be delivered, modified, and returned to service even though they were not in compliance with the affected regulations.

The FAA considered SFAR 111 (76 FR 12550, March 8, 2011) and AD 2011-04-09, Amendment 39-16630 (76 FR 12556, March 8, 2011), to be interim measures until they could be superseded by additional rulemaking activity. The FAA analyzed the risk of removing supplemental oxygen from lavatories for the time required to develop a system that addresses the risk identified by the underlying AD, and concluded that the risk was low. However, this assessment was based on a finite exposure time; we never intended to allow airplanes to fly indefinitely without a supplemental oxygen supply in the lavatories. The preamble to AD 2011-04-09 explained that that AD would be in effect until superseded by further rulemaking, and SFAR 111 discussed a 2- to 4-year period to restore oxygen to lavatories, once the identified vulnerability was adequately addressed by the new rulemaking.

To address the vulnerability, the FAA chartered an Aviation Rulemaking Committee (ARC) to recommend new standards for COG installations that would eliminate the identified vulnerability, and permit acceptable installation of COGs in lavatories. The ARC completed its work, and we now have sufficient information to approve new COG installations. FAA Policy Statement PS-ANM-25-04, issued December 21, 2011 (http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgPolicy.nsf/0/06EE1CEFE9804A2F8625796E005C017F?OpenDocument&Highlight=ps-anm-25-04), summarizes the ARC recommendations and provides guidance to applicants that want to begin restoring oxygen to lavatories in advance of rulemaking. This policy will be used in making approvals of COG installations that will be used to comply with this proposed AD. The FAA may also propose new airworthiness standards for the safe installations of COGs using the ARC recommendations.

As stated in the preamble to AD 2011-04-09, Amendment 39-16630 (76 FR 12556, March 8, 2011), our original intention was to adopt new type certification and operational rules for installing lavatory oxygen systems. In reviewing the ARC's recommendations, however, we recognized the need to terminate the requirements of that AD to adequately address the identified unsafe condition. This is consistent with our normal AD process in which we typically issue superseding ADs mandating modifications that terminate interim actions imposed by earlier superseded ADs. This proposed AD would serve as superseding action to AD 2011-04-09 and provide terminating action to the unsafe condition identified by that AD. The lack of oxygen in lavatories, as noted above, is noncompliant with airworthiness and operational standards. This proposal requires a terminating action that addresses the identified unsafe condition in a manner that maintains compliance with the existing standards.

Design approval holders have not released service information at this time. However, we anticipate that relevant service information for the terminating action will be available in time for operators to comply with this proposed AD. Depending on the technical approach taken, we propose to use different approval processes as discussed below.

Because of the issues addressed by AD 2011-04-09, Amendment 39-16630 (76 FR 12556, March 8, 2011), COG installations will require new considerations in order to be found acceptable methods of compliance with this proposed AD. The approval for COG installations will therefore be in a manner approved by the FAA as discussed below.

Chemical oxygen generators are one type of system used to provide supplemental oxygen. While the majority of transport category airplanes use this system in lavatories, there are other systems as well. If another system type is used to meet this AD, the original unsafe condition is not a concern. In that case, the means of compliance is straightforward, and we have determined that the approval method could be more flexible than is usually the case for an AD. For example, delegated organizations cannot normally make compliance findings for ADs; service information associated with ADs must be adhered to exactly, or else an alternative method of compliance (AMOC) must be granted. For this proposed AD, if the type of system is other than a COG, then we havedetermined that these restrictions could be relaxed. Therefore, paragraph (k)(2) of this proposed AD contains provisions to permit existing approval processes to be used, as long as the means of compliance is other than a COG. This provision takes precedence over current limitations in operators' authority to use their organizational delegations when showing compliance with an AD. In addition, if an operator uses service information that is approved for such installations, deviations from the service information can be addressed using the operator's normal procedures without requiring an AMOC.

Paragraph (k) of this proposed AD refers to the FAA oversight office responsible for approval of modifications used to show compliance. This will typically be the aircraft certification office having geographic oversight of the applicant. In the case of service instructions from foreign design approval holders, this would be the Transport Standards Staff. We anticipate that modifications to meet this proposal will require either supplemental type certification or amended type certificate approval.

We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all the relevant information and determined the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop in other products of the same type design.

This proposed AD would retain the requirements of AD 2011-04-09, Amendment 39-16630 (76 FR 12556, March 8, 2011). This proposed AD would also require installing a supplemental oxygen system in affected lavatories, which would terminate the existing requirements.

We estimate that this proposed AD affects 5,500 airplanes of U.S. registry. We estimate the following costs to comply with the actions specified in this proposed AD.

Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, Section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.

We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701, “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.

We have determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

For the reasons discussed above, I certify that the proposed regulation:

(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,

(2) Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),

(3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and

(4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under theADDRESSESsection. Include “Docket No. FAA-2012-0071; Directorate Identifier 2012-NE-05-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this proposed AD based on those comments.

We will post all comments we receive, without change, tohttp://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact with FAA personnel concerning this proposed AD. Using the search function of the Web site, anyone can find and read the comments in any of our dockets, including, if provided, the name of the individual who sent the comment (or signed the comment on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review the DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in theFederal Registerpublished on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78).

Transport Canada, which is the aviation authority for Canada, has issued Canada AD CF-2011-40, dated October 26, 2011 (referred to after this as “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The MCAI states:

P&WC has issued Service Bulletin No. A16255R2, dated March 1, 2011. The actions described in this service information are intended to correct the unsafe condition identified in the MCAI.

These APUs have been approved by Canada, and are approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with Canada, they have notified us of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all information provided by Canada, and determined the unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other APUs of the same type design. This proposed AD would require modification of the APU rear gas generator case, exhaust duct support, and turbine exhaust duct flanges.

Based on the service information, we estimate that this proposed AD would affect about 135 APUs installed on airplanes of U.S. registry. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Required parts would cost about $39,899 per APU. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of the proposed AD on U.S. operators to be $5,386,365.

Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.

We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.

We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed regulation:

1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;

2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and

3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this proposed AD and placed it in the AD docket.

Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

Public Participation and Request for Comments

We encourage you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting comments and related materials. All comments received will be posted without change tohttp://www.regulations.govand will include any personal information you have provided.

If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this rulemaking (USCG-2012-0001), indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or recommendation. You may submit your comments and material online (viahttp://www.regulations.gov) or by fax, mail, or hand delivery, but please use only one of these means. If you submit a comment online viawww.regulations.gov,it will be considered received by the Coast Guard when you successfully transmit the comment. If you fax, hand deliver, or mail your comment, it will be considered as having been received by the Coast Guard when it is received at the Docket Management Facility. We recommend that you include your name and a mailing address, an email address, or a telephone number in the body of your document so that we can contact you if we have questions regarding your submission.

To submit your comment online, go tohttp://www.regulations.gov,click on the “submit a comment” box, which will then become highlighted in blue. In the “Document Type” drop down menu select “Proposed Rule” and insert “USCG-2012-0001” in the “Keyword” box. Click “Search” then click on the balloon shape in the “Actions” column. If you submit your comments by mail or hand delivery, submit them in an unbound format, no larger than 81/2by 11 inches, suitable for copying and electronic filing. If you submit comments by mail and would like to know that they reached the Facility, please enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard or envelope. We will consider all comments and material receivedduring the comment period and may change the rule based on your comments.

To view comments, as well as documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go tohttp://www.regulations.gov,click on the “read comments” box, which will then become highlighted in blue. In the “Keyword” box insert “USCG-2012-0001” and click “Search.” Click the “Open Docket Folder” in the “Actions” column. You may also visit the Docket Management Facility in Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the Department of Transportation West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. We have an agreement with the Department of Transportation to use the Docket Management Facility.

Anyone can search the electronic form of comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review a Privacy Act notice regarding our public dockets in the January 17, 2008, issue of theFederal Register(73 FR 3316).

We do not now plan to hold a public meeting. But you may submit a request for one on or before March 12, 2012 using one of the four methods specified underADDRESSES. Please explain why you believe a public meeting would be beneficial. If we determine that one would aid this rulemaking, we will hold one at a time and place announced by a later notice in theFederal Register.

Each year, on the fourth Saturday in July, hundreds of recreational boaters meet in Sillery Bay at Dobbins Island, Maryland for a gathering called “The Bumper Bash.” The activity began in 2007. Due to the growing presence of boaters in recent years, the annual gathering has become increasingly congested. An estimated 700 recreational boats were anchored or moored alongside other boats (rafted). The crowds of persons on recreational vessels or other water craft create large lines of rafted boats filling in the beachfront area of Dobbins Island. The persons and vessels exceeded a safe limit. Accidental drownings, personnel injuries, boat fires, boat capsizings and sinkings, and boating collisions are safety concerns during such overcrowded events. Access on the water for emergency response to the beach area is critical. The Coast Guard has the authority to impose appropriate controls on activities that may pose a threat to persons, vessels and facilities under its jurisdiction. The Coast Guard proposes to establish a permanent safety zone that will be enforced annually on the fourth Saturday in July, during a gathering of persons on recreational vessels and other water craft held in the Magothy River, in Sillery Bay, Maryland. The proposed rule is needed to control movement within a waterway that is expected to be populated by persons and vessels seeking to attend The Bumper Bash activity.

The Coast Guard anticipates a large recreational boating fleet in the Magothy River, in Sillery Bay, during The Bumper Bash at Dobbins Island, Maryland annually on the fourth Saturday in July. Due to the need for vessel control during the activity, vessel traffic will be restricted to provide for the safety of persons and vessels within the regulated area.

The purpose of this rule is to promote maritime safety, and to protect the environment and mariners transiting the area from the potential hazards associated with a large gathering of recreational vessels and other watercraft along a confined beachfront area with swimmers and others present. This rule proposes to establish a safety zone in the Magothy River, in Sillery Bay, contained within lines connecting the following positions: From position latitude 39°04′40″ N, longitude 076°27′44″ W; thence to position latitude 39°04′48″ N, longitude 076°27′19″ W; thence to position latitude 39°04′59″ N, longitude 076°27′45″ W; thence to position latitude 39°04′59″ N, longitude 076°28′01″ W; thence to position latitude 39°04′41″ N, longitude 076°27′51″ W; thence to the point of origin at position latitude 39°04′40″ N, longitude 076°27′44″ W. All coordinates reference Datum NAD 1983. The rule will impact the movement of all persons and vessels in the regulated area, and will limit the density of vessels and other watercraft operating, remaining or anchoring within the regulated area at the discretion of the Captain of the Port Baltimore, to ensure an open water route remains accessible to law enforcement and emergency personnel during the effective period. Public vessels located within the regulated area will not contribute to the density determination.

We developed this proposed rule after considering numerous statutes and executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on 13 of these statutes or executive orders.

This rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, as supplemented by Executive Order 13563, Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that Executive Order 12866 or under section 1 of Executive Order 13563. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under those Orders. The effect of this regulation will not be significant due to the limited size and duration that the regulated area will be in effect and vessels transiting the Magothy River may proceed safely around the zone. In addition, notifications will be made to the maritime community via marine information broadcasts so mariners may adjust their plans accordingly.

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have considered whether this proposed rule would have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000.

The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This proposed rule may affect the following entities, some of which might be small entities: The owners or operators of vessels intending to operate, remain or anchor within the safety zone, from 8 a.m. until 10 p.m. on the fourth Saturday in July annually. This safety zone will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for the following reasons. Traffic would be allowed to pass within the safety zone with the permission of the Captain of the Port Baltimore. Vessels transiting the Magothy River may proceed safely around the zone. Also, the Coast Guard will issue maritime advisories widely available to users of the waterway before the effective period.

If you think that your business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule would have a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (seeADDRESSES) explaining why you think it qualifies and how and to what degree this rule would economically affect it.

Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this proposed rule so that they can better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact Coast Guard Sector Baltimore, Waterways Management Division, at telephone number (410) 576-2674. The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this proposed rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.

This proposed rule would call for no new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on State or local governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial direct cost of compliance on them. We have analyzed this proposed rule under that Order and have determined that it does not have implications for federalism.

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or more in any one year. Though this proposed rule would not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.

This proposed rule would not cause a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights.

This proposed rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.

We have analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not an economically significant rule and would not create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that might disproportionately affect children.

This proposed rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it would not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.

We have analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use. We have determined that it is not a “significant energy action” under that order because it is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. The Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has not designated it as a significant energy action. Therefore, it does not require a Statement of Energy Effects under Executive Order 13211.

The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress, through the Office of Management and Budget, with an explanation of why using these standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (e.g., specifications of materials, performance, design, or operation; test methods; sampling procedures; and related management systems practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies.

This proposed rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.

We have analyzed this proposed rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have made a preliminary determination that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. A preliminary environmental analysis checklist supporting this determination is available in the docket where indicated underADDRESSES. This proposed rule involves establishing a safety zone. We seek any comments or information that may lead to the discovery of a significant environmental impact from this proposed rule.

For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to amend 33 CFR part 165 as follows:

Public Participation and Request for Comments

We encourage you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting comments and related materials. All comments received will be posted, without change, tohttp://www.regulations.govand will include any personal information you have provided.

If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this rulemaking (USCG-2012-0045), indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or recommendation. You may submit your comments and material online (viahttp://www.regulations.gov) or by fax, mail, or hand delivery, but please use only one of these means. If you submit a comment online viawww.regulations.gov, it will be considered received by the Coast Guard when you successfully transmit the comment. If you fax, hand deliver, or mail your comment, it will be considered as having been received by the Coast Guard when it is received at the Docket Management Facility. We recommend that you include your name and a mailing address, an email address, or a telephone number in the body of your document so that we can contact you if we have questions regarding your submission.

To submit your comment online, go tohttp://www.regulations.gov, click on the “submit a comment” box, which will then become highlighted in blue. In the “Document Type” drop down menu select “Proposed Rule” and insert “USCG-2012-0045” in the “Keyword” box. Click “Search” then click on the balloon shape in the “Actions” column. If you submit your comments by mail or hand delivery, submit them in an unbound format, no larger than 81/2by 11 inches, suitable for copying and electronic filing. If you submit comments by mail and would like to know that they reached the Facility, please enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard or envelope. We will consider all comments and material received during the comment period and maychange the rule based on your comments.

To view comments, as well as documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go tohttp://www.regulations.gov, click on the “read comments” box, which will then become highlighted in blue. In the “Keyword” box insert “USCG-2012-0045” and click “Search.” Click the “Open Docket Folder” in the “Actions” column. You may also visit the Docket Management Facility in Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the Department of Transportation West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. We have an agreement with the Department of Transportation to use the Docket Management Facility.

Anyone can search the electronic form of comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review a Privacy Act notice regarding our public dockets in the January 17, 2008, issue of theFederal Register(73 FR 3316).

We do not now plan to hold a public meeting. But you may submit a request for one the using one of the four methods specified underADDRESSES. Please explain why you believe a public meeting would be beneficial. If we determine that one would aid this rulemaking, we will hold one at a time and place announced by a later notice in theFederal Register.

Currently, 33 CFR 165.929 lists seventy different locations in the Captain of the Port Lake Michigan zone at which safety zones have been permanently established. Each of these seventy safety zones corresponds to an annually recurring marine event. During an annual review of 33 CFR 165.929 it was found that the details of two of the annually recurring events have changed. It was also determined that five additional recurring marine events require the implementation of permanent safety zones. This proposed rule will revise the enforcement date and time of two events and add five reccurring events that require safety zones. In addition, this proposed rule will revise the organizational structure of 33 CFR 165.929 so that the events will be listed numerically rather than alphabetically. Listing the events numerically is meant to make it easier for the public to identify the annual events requiring safety zones in the Captain of the Port Lake Michigan zone.

This proposed rule will amend the regulations found in 33 CFR 165.929, Annual Events requiring safety zones in the Captain of the Port Lake Michigan zone. Specifically, this proposed rule will revise § 165.929 in its entirety. The revision will include the modification of the name and enforcement period of one safety zone, the enforcement period of one safety zone, and the addition of five new safety zones. Each of the existing and proposed safety zones are necessary to protect vessels and people from the hazards associated with various maritime events. Such hazards include obstructions to the navigable channels, explosive dangers associated with various maritime events. Although this proposed rule will remain in effect year round, the safety zones within it will be enforced only immediately before, during, and after each corresponding marine event.

The Captain of the Port Lake Michigan will use all appropriate means to notify the public when the zones in this proposal will be enforced. Consistent with 33 CFR 165.7(a), such means of may include, among other things, publication in theFederal Registerand Broadcast Notice to Mariners or Local Notice to Mariners. The Captain of the Port will issue a Broadcast Notice to Mariners notifying the public when enforcement of a safety zone in this section is cancelled.

Entry into, transiting, or anchoring within each of the below safety zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Lake Michigan, or his designated representative. The Captain of the Port or his designated representative may be contacted via VHF Channel 16.

We developed this proposed rule after considering numerous statutes and executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on 13 of these statutes or executive orders.

This rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, as supplemented by Executive Order 13563, Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that Executive Order 12866 or under section 1 of Executive Order 13563. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under those Orders. It is not “significant” under the regulatory policies and procedures of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). We conclude that this proposed rule is not a significant regulatory action because we anticipate that it will have minimal impact on the economy, will not interfere with other agencies, will not adversely alter the budget of any grant or loan recipients, and will not raise any novel legal or policy issues. The safety zones amended and established by this proposed rule will be relatively small and enforced for relatively short time. Also, each safety zone is designed to minimize its impact on navigable waters. Furthermore, each safety zone has been designed to allow vessels to transit unrestricted to portions of the waterways not affected by the safety zones. Thus, restrictions on vessel movements within that particular area are expected to be minimal. Under certain conditions, moreover, vessels may still transit through each safety zone when permitted by the Captain of the Port, Sector Lake Michigan. On the whole, the Coast Guard expects insignificant adverse impact to mariners from the activation of these safety zones.

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have considered whether this proposed rule would have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000.

The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

This proposed rule would affect the following entities, some of which might be small entities: The owners and operators of vessels intending to transit or anchor in any one of the below safety zones while the safety zone is being enforced. The below safety zones will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for the following reasons: each safety zone in this proposed rule will be in effect for only a few hours within any given 24 hour period. Each of the safety zones will be in effect only once peryear. Furthermore, these safety zones have been designed to allow traffic to pass safely around each zone. Moreover, vessels will be allowed to pass through each zone at the discretion of the Captain of the Port, Sector Lake Michigan, or his or her designated representative.

If you think that your business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this proposed rule would have a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (seeADDRESSES) explaining why you think it qualifies and how and to what degree this rule would economically affect it.

Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this proposed rule so that they can better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking. If this proposed rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact BM1 Adam Kraft, Prevention Department, Coast Guard Sector Lake Michigan, Milwaukee, WI at (414) 747-7154. The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this proposed rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.

This proposed rule calls for no new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on State or local governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial direct cost of compliance on them. We have analyzed this proposed rule under that Order and have determined that it does not have implications for federalism.

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or more in any one year. Though this proposed rule would not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this proposed rule elsewhere in this preamble.

This proposed rule will not affect the taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights.

This proposed rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.

We have analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This proposed rule is not an economically significant rule and would not create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that might disproportionately affect children.

This proposed rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.

We have analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use. We have determined that it is not a “significant energy action” under that order because it is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. The Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has not designated it as a significant energy action. Therefore, it does not require a Statement of Energy Effects under Executive Order 13211.

The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress, through the Office of Management and Budget, with an explanation of why using these standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (e.g., specifications of materials, performance, design, or operation; test methods; sampling procedures; and related management systems practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies.

This proposed rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.

We have analyzed this proposed rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have made a preliminary determination that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This proposed rule involves the establishing of security zones and therefore, is categorically excluded under paragraph 34(g) of the Instruction. A preliminary environmental analysis checklist supporting this preliminary determination is available in the docket where indicated underADDRESSES. We seek any comments or information that may lead to the discovery of a significant environmental impact from this proposed rule.

For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to amend 33 CFR Part 165 as follows:

We encourage you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting comments and related materials. All comments received will be posted without change tohttp://www.regulations.govand will include any personal information you have provided.

If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this rulemaking (USCG-2012-0101), indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or recommendation. You may submit your comments and material online (viahttp://www.regulations.gov) or by fax, mail, or hand delivery, but please use only one of these means. If you submit a comment online viawww.regulations.gov, it will be considered received by the Coast Guard when you successfully transmit the comment. If you fax, hand deliver, or mail your comment, it will be considered as having been received by the Coast Guard when it is received at the Docket Management Facility. We recommend that you include your name and a mailing address, an email address, or a telephone number in the body of your document so that we can contact you if we have questions regarding your submission.

To submit your comment online, go tohttp://www.regulations.gov,click on the “submit a comment” box, which will then become highlighted in blue. In the “Document Type” drop down menu select “Proposed Rule” and insert “USCG-2012-0101” in the “Keyword” box. Click “Search” then click on the balloon shape in the “Actions” column. If you submit your comments by mail or hand delivery, submit them in an unbound format, no larger than 81/2by 11 inches, suitable for copying and electronic filing. If you submit comments by mail and would like to know that they reached the Facility, please enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard or envelope. We will consider all comments and material received during the comment period and may change the rule based on your comments.

To view comments, as well as documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go tohttp://www.regulations.gov, click on the “read comments” box, which will then become highlighted in blue. In the “Keyword” box insert “USCG-2012-0101” and click “Search.” Click the “Open Docket Folder” in the “Actions” column. You may also visit the Docket Management Facility in Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the Department of Transportation West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. We have an agreement with the Department of Transportation to use the Docket Management Facility.

Anyone can search the electronic form of comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review a Privacy Act notice regarding our public dockets in the January 17, 2008, issue of theFederal Register(73 FR 3316).

We do not now plan to hold a public meeting. But you may submit a request for one using one of the four methods specified underADDRESSES. Please explain why you believe a public meeting would be beneficial. If we determine that one would aid this rulemaking, we will hold one at a time and place announced by a later notice in theFederal Register.

Historic Ships in Baltimore is planning to conduct a “turn-around” ceremony involving the sloop-of-war USS CONSTELLATION in Baltimore, Maryland on May 25, 2012. Planned events include a three-hour, round-trip tow of the USS CONSTELLATION in the Port of Baltimore, consisting of an onboard salute with navy patterncannon while the historic vessel is positioned off the Fort McHenry National Monument and Historic Site. Beginning at 3 p.m., the historic Sloop-of-War USS CONSTELLATION will be towed “dead ship,” which means that the vessel will be underway without the benefit of mechanical or sail propulsion. The return dead ship tow of the USS CONSTELLATION to its berth in the Inner Harbor is expected to occur immediately upon execution of a tug-assisted turn-around of the USS CONSTELLATION on the Patapsco River near Fort McHenry. The Coast Guard anticipates a large recreational boating fleet during this event, scheduled on a late Friday afternoon during the Memorial Day Holiday weekend in Baltimore, Maryland. Operators should expect significant vessel congestion along the planned route. In the event of inclement weather, the “turn-around” will be rescheduled for May 31, 2012.

To address safety concerns during the event, the Captain of the Port Baltimore proposes to establish a safety zone upon certain waters of the Patapsco River, Northwest Harbor and Inner Harbor. The proposed safety zone will help the Coast Guard provide a clear transit route for the participating vessels, and provide a safety buffer around the participating vessels while they are in transit. Due to the need to promote maritime safety and protect participants and the boating public in the Port of Baltimore immediately prior to, during, and after the scheduled event, a safety zone is prudent.

A permanent safety zone for this proposed rule, with an enforcement period from 2 p.m. through 7 p.m. local time annually on the Friday following Labor Day, has already been published and is detailed at Title 33 Code of Federal Regulations, Section 165.512. Due however to a change in scheduling for this calendar year, this event is planned for Friday, May 25, 2012. The historic sloop-of-war USS CONSTELLATION is scheduled to be towed “dead ship” from its berth at Pier 1 in Baltimore's Inner Harbor along a one-way, planned route of approximately four nautical miles, that includes specified waters of the Patapsco River, Northwest Harbor and Inner Harbor to a point on the Patapsco River near Fort McHenry National Monument and Historic Shrine, Baltimore, Maryland. After being turned-around, the USS CONSTELLATION will be returned to its original berth at Pier 1, Inner Harbor, Baltimore, Maryland. Due to the need to safeguard dead ship tow participants and prevent vessels or persons from approaching the USS CONSTELLATION along the intended route immediately prior to, during, and following the scheduled towing evolution, vessel traffic will be restricted on certain waters of the Patapsco River, Northwest Harbor and Inner Harbor.

The Captain of the Port Baltimore is proposing to establish a temporary moving safety zone around the USS CONSTELLATION dead ship tow participants from 2 p.m. through 7 p.m. on May 25, 2012, and, if necessary due to inclement weather, from 2 p.m. through 7 p.m. on May 31, 2012. The proposed regulated area includes all waters within 200 yards ahead of and 100 yards outboard or aft of the historic Sloop-of-War USS CONSTELLATION while operating in the Inner Harbor, the Northwest Harbor and the Patapsco River. Vessels underway at the time this safety zone is implemented will immediately proceed out of the zone. With the exception of USS CONSTELLATION “turn-around” participants, entry into this zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port or his designated representative. U.S. Coast Guard patrol vessels will be provided to prevent the movement of persons and vessels in the regulated area. The Captain of the Port Baltimore will issue Broadcast Notices to Mariners to publicize the safety zone and notify the public of changes in the status of the zone. Such notices will continue until the event is complete.

We developed this proposed rule after considering numerous statutes and executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on 13 of these statutes or executive orders.

This rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, as supplemented by Executive Order 13563, Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that Executive Order 12866 or under section 1 of Executive Order 13563. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under those Orders.

Although this safety zone restricts vessel traffic through the affected area, the effect of this regulation will not be significant due to the limited size and duration that the regulated area will be in effect. In addition, notifications will be made to the maritime community via marine information broadcasts so mariners may adjust their plans accordingly.

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have considered whether this proposed rule would have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000.

The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This proposed rule may affect the following entities, some of which might be small entities: the owners or operators of vessels intending to operate or transit through or within the safety zone during the enforcement period. The safety zone will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for the following reasons. The safety zone is of limited size and duration. Smaller vessels not constrained by their draft, which are more likely to be small entities, may transit around the safety zone. Maritime advisories will be widely available to the maritime community before the effective period.

If you think that your business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule would have a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (seeADDRESSES) explaining why you think it qualifies and how and to what degree this rule would economically affect it.

Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this proposed rule so that they can better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact Mr. Ronald L. Houck, Coast Guard Sector Baltimore, Waterways Management Division, at telephone number 410-576-2674 or email Ronald.L.Houck@uscg.mil. The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complainabout this proposed rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.

This proposed rule would call for no new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520.).

A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on State or local governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial direct cost of compliance on them. We have analyzed this proposed rule under that Order and have determined that it does not have implications for federalism.

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or more in any one year. Though this proposed rule would not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.

This proposed rule would not cause a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights.

This proposed rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.

We have analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not an economically significant rule and would not create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that might disproportionately affect children.

This proposed rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it would not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.

We have analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use. We have determined that it is not a “significant energy action” under that order because it is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. The Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has not designated it as a significant energy action. Therefore, it does not require a Statement of Energy Effects under Executive Order 13211.

The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress, through the Office of Management and Budget, with an explanation of why using these standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (e.g., specifications of materials, performance, design, or operation; test methods; sampling procedures; and related management systems practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies.

This proposed rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.

We have analyzed this proposed rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA)(42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have made a preliminary determination that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. A preliminary environmental analysis checklist supporting this determination is available in the docket where indicated underADDRESSES. This proposed rule involves establishing a temporary safety zone. We seek any comments or information that may lead to the discovery of a significant environmental impact from this proposed rule.

For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to amends 33 CFR part 165 as follows:

First, this rulemaking consolidates the Postal Service's rules and regulations regarding the seizure and forfeiture of property into three sections, 39 CFR 233.7, 233.8, and 233.9 from the previous four sections, 39 CFR 233.7, 233.8, 233.9, and 233.10. The proposed revision consolidates sections 233.8 and 233.9, and treats seizures involving personal use quantities of controlled substances and the expedited release of conveyances being forfeited for a drug-related offense in the same manner. It also incorporates prior section 233.10, Special Notice Provisions, into new paragraph 233.8(f). The new rules also create a new section 233.9 that addresses regulations governing remission or mitigation of administrative, civil, and criminal forfeitures, and incorporates the rules and regulations previously contained in paragraph 233.7(j).

Second, this rulemaking identifies the scope of authority available to the Postal Service to seize property for forfeiture, updates definitions, and provides procedures governing practical issues regarding the seizure, custody, inventory, appraisal, settlement, and release of property subject to forfeiture. See proposed paragraphs 233.7(a)-(g).

Third, the rule proposes conforming the seizure and forfeiture regulations of the Postal Service to address procedural changes necessitated by CAFRA. The rule also incorporates CAFRA's innocent owner defense into the remission regulations. Where CAFRA is silent or ambiguous on a subject relating to administrative forfeiture procedure, the proposed rule interprets CAFRA based on case law and agency expertise and experience.

Fourth, the rule proposes updating the regulations to conform with other authorities and current forfeiture practice. Thus, proposed paragraph 233.7(n) adds a provision to the regulations allowing for the pre-forfeiture disposition of seized property when the property is liable to perish or to waste or to be greatly reduced in value while being held for forfeiture; or when the expense of holding the property is or will be disproportionate to its value. Paragraph 233.7(l) clarifies that administrative and criminal judicial forfeiture proceedings are not mutually exclusive, and paragraph 233.7(r) affirms that the Postal Service is not liable for attorney fees in any administrative forfeiture proceeding. Paragraph 233.7(j)(1)(i)(B) updates the forfeiture regulations by adding the option of publishing notice for administrative forfeitures on an official Government Internet site instead of in a newspaper.

Fifth, the proposed rule amends the designated official provision at paragraph 233.9(a)(2)(A) governing petitions for remission or mitigation of forfeiture, clarifies the existing regulations pertaining to victims, and makes remission available to third parties who reimburse victims under an indemnification agreement.

The proposed rule supersedes prior sections 233.7, 233.8, 233.9, and 233.10 and replaces them with new sections 233.7, 233.8, and 233.9. Section 233.7 contains generally applicable provisions for seizures and forfeitures by the Postal Service. Section 233.8 contains expedited procedures for property seized by the Postal Service for violations involving personal use quantities of a controlled substance, including conveyances. Section 233.9 replaces the prior paragraph 233.7(j), and more clearly defines the rules relevant to remission and mitigation of forfeitures.

Section 2 of CAFRA enacted 18 U.S.C. 983, which includes the general rules for civil forfeiture proceedings. This rule proposes to implement certain procedural changes in the conduct of administrative forfeitures as required by 18 U.S.C. 983. These changes address procedures relating to notice of seizure,filing of claims, hardship requests, and releases of property.

Notice of seizure.Section 983(a)(1) establishes time deadlines and other procedures for the sending of personal written notices of seizures to parties with a potential interest in the property. These time deadlines and procedures are in addition to, and in some respects different from, procedures under the Customs laws. The Customs laws concerning forfeiture procedures (19 U.S.C. 1602-1618), which are incorporated by reference “insofar as applicable” in forfeiture statutes enforced by the Postal Service, require that “[w]ritten notice of seizure together with information on the applicable procedures shall be sent to each party who appears to have an interest in the seized property.”See19 U.S.C. 1607. CAFRA, as codified at 18 U.S.C. 983(a)(1), requires that notice be sent within 60 days of seizure, or within 90 days of a seizure by a state or local agency, or within 60 days of establishing the interested party's identity if it is not known at the time of seizure. CAFRA also provides that a supervisory official of the seizing agency may grant a single 30-day extension if certain conditions are satisfied and that extensions thereafter may only be granted by a court. Paragraph 233.7(j) of the proposed rule incorporates these notice-related provisions of CAFRA.

Filing of administrative claims.Section 983(a)(2) of title 18 of the United States Code modifies the procedure for filing a claim to seized property. The Customs statute, which was previously applicable to claims in Postal Service forfeitures, provides that, to contest an administrative forfeiture, a claimant has 20 days after the first published notice of seizure to file with the seizing agency both a claim and a cost bond for $5,000 or 10 percent of the property's value, whichever is less, but not less than $250.See19 U.S.C. 1608. Section 983(a)(2) eliminates the cost bond requirement for forfeitures covered by CAFRA and allows the filing of claims not later than the deadline set forth in a personal notice letter. The deadline must be at least 35 days after the date the letter was mailed. Persons not receiving a notice letter must file a claim within 30 days after the date of final publication of notice of seizure. Section 983(a)(2) also adds provisions specifying the information required for a valid claim. It reflects the amendments to 18 U.S.C. 983(a)(2)(C)(ii) in the Paul Coverdell National Forensic Sciences Improvement Act of 2000, Public Law 106-561, 114 Stat. 2787, which retroactively deleted CAFRA's original requirements that claimants provide with their claims documentary evidence supporting their interest in the seized property, and state that their claims are not frivolous. Consequently, pursuant to section 21 of CAFRA (establishing CAFRA's effective date), the amended section 983(a)(2)(C)(ii) applies to any forfeiture proceeding commenced on or after August 23, 2000. Paragraph 233.7(k) of the proposed rule incorporates these section 983(a)(2) changes to the claim procedures.

Release of seized property if forfeiture is not commenced.Paragraph 233.7(p) of the proposed rule provides procedures to implement 18 U.S.C. 983(a)(3). Section 983(a)(3) requires the release of seized property pursuant to regulations promulgated by the Attorney General and prohibits the United States from pursuing further action for civil forfeiture if the United States does not institute judicial forfeiture proceedings against the property within 90 days after an administrative claim has been filed and no extension of time has been obtained from a court.

Hardship request.Paragraph 233.7(m) of the proposed rule implements 18 U.S.C. 983(f), which provides procedures and criteria for the release of seized property (subject to certain exceptions) pending the completion of judicial forfeiture proceedings when a claimant's request for such release establishes that continued Government custody will cause substantial hardship that outweighs the risk that the property will not remain available for forfeiture.

Expedited release of property.Section 233.8 of the proposed rule incorporates and amends, to the extent required by CAFRA, the pre-existing regulations for expedited forfeiture proceedings for certain property. The prior regulations, 39 CFR 233.9, provided expedited procedures for conveyances seized for drug-related offenses and property seized for violations involving personal use quantities of a controlled substance. By repealing 21 U.S.C. 888 (expedited procedures for seized conveyances), CAFRA eliminated the statutory basis for the expedited procedure regulations pertaining to drug-related conveyance seizures. Accordingly, section 233.8 omits provisions applicable to drug-related conveyance seizures. The remaining provisions apply only where property is seized for administrative forfeiture involving controlled substances in personal use quantities.

Remissions and mitigations.For consistency with CAFRA's uniform innocent owner defense, 18 U.S.C. 983(d), the proposed rule incorporates the innocent owner provisions of sections 983(d)(2)(A) and 983(d)(3)(A) in a new 39 CFR 233.9.

Forfeitures affected by CAFRA and the proposed rule.CAFRA's changes apply to civil forfeiture proceedings commenced on or after August 23, 2000, with the exception of civil forfeitures under the following: the Tariff Act of 1930 or any other provision of law codified in title 19; the Internal Revenue Code of 1986; the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 301et seq.); the Trading with the Enemy Act (50 U.S.C. App. sec. 1et seq.) or the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701et seq.); or Section 1 of title VI of the Act of June 15, 1917 (22 U.S.C. 401).

Pre-forfeiture disposition.The provision providing for the pre-forfeiture disposition of seized property, paragraph 233.7(n), is needed to implement the authority of 19 U.S.C. 1612(b), one of the procedural Customs statutes incorporated by reference into the forfeiture statutes enforced by the Postal Service. Section 1612(b) authorizes pre-forfeiture disposal of seized property, pursuant to regulations, when the property is liable to perish or to waste or to be greatly reduced in value by keeping, or when the costs of maintaining the property pending forfeiture are disproportionate to the property's value. The proposed rule enables the Postal Service to use the authority of section 1612(b) in appropriate cases.

Internet publication.The proposed rule updates the forfeiture regulations by adding, at paragraph 233.7(j)(1)(i)(B), a provision for the publication of administrative forfeiture notices on the Internet instead of in newspapers. The statute governing the publication of notice in administrative forfeiture proceedings, 19 U.S.C. 1607, does not require a specific means of publication. Paragraph 233.7(j)(1)(i)(B) will provide the Postal Service with the choice to use the Internet as a more effective and less costly alternative to the newspaper publication provided for in paragraph 233.7(j)(1)(i)(A).

This grant of authority parallels a similar one in Rule G(4)(a)(iv)(C) of the Supplemental Rules for Admiralty or Maritime Claims and Asset Forfeiture Actions. Pursuant to Rule G(4)(a)(iv)(C), in all civil judicial forfeitures, the Government may now employ the option of giving public notice through the Internet rather than in a newspaper. Section 233.7(j)(1)(i)(B) will permit the Postal Service likewise to use theInternet to provide notice in administrative forfeitures, a cost savings that is particularly important as the volume of administrative forfeitures is much greater than judicial forfeitures. There is a strong statistical proof that Internet access is now available to the vast majority of United States residents. Internet access continues to grow, while newspaper circulation is declining; and in some markets, the option to publish in a traditional newspaper may not be available in the next few years.

This proposed rule includes modifications to the regulations governing the remission or mitigation of forfeiture at 39 CFR 233.9. Paragraph 233.9(2)(A), (B) identifies the Chief Counsel of the Postal Inspection Service, or attorneys or managers working under that person's supervision, as the pertinent designated official to whom authority to grant remission and mitigation has been delegated.

Second, the definition of “victim” in paragraph 233.9(b) is modified to make remission available to qualified third parties who reimburse a victim pursuant to an indemnification agreement. In addition, paragraph 233.9(h) is modified to specify the procedures applicable to persons seeking remission as victims.

CAFRA enacted additional due process protections for property owners in Federal civil forfeiture proceedings. Section 2(a) of CAFRA, codified at 18 U.S.C. 983, requires prompt notification of administrative forfeiture proceedings. As a general rule, in any administrative forfeiture proceeding under a civil forfeiture statute, the Government must send written notice of the seizure and the Government's intent to forfeit the property to all persons known to the Government who might have an interest in the property within 60 days of a seizure (or 90 days of a seizure made by state or local law enforcement authorities and transferred for Federal forfeiture).

CAFRA also changed the procedure for filing administrative claims. Section 983(a)(2)(B) dictates that when the agency both publishes and sends notice of the seizure and its intent to forfeit the property, an owner who receives notice by mail has 35 days from the date of mailing, and if the personal notice is sent but not received, an owner has 30 days from the date of final publication to file a claim with the agency. In addition, the notice provision in paragraph 233.7(j)(1)(i)(B) was updated to allow the agencies to publish administrative forfeiture notices on the Internet instead of in newspapers, consistent with the procedure for civil judicial forfeitures under Rule G(4)(a)(iv)(C).

The filing of a valid claim compels the agency to refer the matter to the U.S. Attorney. To preserve the option to seek civil judicial forfeiture, the U.S. Attorney must do one of the following within 90 days: (1) Commence a civil judicial forfeiture action against the seized property; (2) obtain an indictment alleging the property is subject to criminal forfeiture; (3) obtain a good cause extension of the deadline from the district court; or (4) return the property pending the filing of a complaint. If the Government fails to take any of these steps within the statutory deadline, it must promptly release the property and is barred from taking any further action to civilly forfeit the property in connection with the underlying offense.

Prior to CAFRA, claims in an administrative forfeiture required an accompanying bond of either $5,000 or 10 percent of the value of the seized property, whichever was lower. Section 983(a)(2) eliminated the bond requirement to give the property owner greater access to Federal court. However, to prevent frivolous claims, CAFRA requires the claimant to state the basis for that person's interest in the property in the claim under oath.

Under CAFRA, claimants also have a right to petition for immediate release of seized property on grounds of hardship with a 30-day deadline on judicial resolution of such petitions. Section 983(f)(7) provides that if the court grants a petition, it may also enter any order necessary to ensure that the value of the property is maintained during the pendency of the forfeiture action, including permitting inspection, photographing, and inventory of the property, fixing a bond pursuant to Rule E(5) of the Supplemental Rules for Admiralty or Maritime Claims and Asset Forfeiture Actions, or requiring the claimant to obtain or maintain insurance on the property. It also provides that the Government may place a lien or file alis pendenson the property.

It is important to note that CAFRA's deadlines apply only to civil forfeiture actions initiated by commencement of an administrative proceeding under section 983(a) and do not apply to actions commenced solely as civil judicial forfeitures. However, the vast majority of civil forfeitures are handled administratively.

CAFRA changed the procedures for the expedited release of property for conveyances and property seized for drug offenses to apply only where property is seized for administrative forfeiture involving personal use quantities of a controlled substance.

Although CAFRA enacted a provision granting attorney fees to substantially prevailing parties in civil judicial forfeitures, the regulations make it clear that the Postal Service is not liable for attorney fees or costs in administrative forfeiture proceedings, even if the matter is referred to the U.S. Attorney and the U.S. Attorney declines to initiate a judicial forfeiture on the property.

In addition to implementing these CAFRA reforms, the new regulations allow the Postal Service to sell property that is deteriorating rapidly in order to preserve the property's value pending resolution of the forfeiture. This disposition must be authorized by agency headquarters. The regulations also specify that the seizing agency must promptly deposit any seized U.S. currency over $5,000 into the Hold Account—Seizure and Forfeiture under the control of the Postal Inspection Service pending forfeiture. The only exception is for currency that must be retained because it has a significant, independent, tangible evidentiary purpose.

The new rule changes some of the procedures relating to crime victims. The definition of victim is modified to make remission available to qualified third parties who reimburse a victim pursuant to an insurance or other indemnification agreement.Seeproposed paragraph 233.9(b)(23). In addition, paragraph 233.9(h) is reorganized and a new paragraph (h)(1) is added to specify the filing procedures applicable to persons seeking remission as victims. This revision is necessary because the current petition filing procedures in paragraph 233.7(j) are applicable to owners and lienholders, but not to victims. Paragraph 233.9(h)(9) clarifies that the amount of compensation available to a particular victim may not exceed the victim's share of the net proceeds of the forfeiture associated with the activity that caused the victim's loss. In other words, a victim is not entitled to full compensation, but only the amount of compensation available from the forfeited property. Also, the new rule makes the statutory innocent owner provisions at 18 U.S.C. 983(d)(2)(A) and (d)(3)(A) applicable to all owner and lienholder petitions for remission.

Accordingly, for the reasons stated, the Postal Service proposes to amend 39 CFR Part 233 as follows:

Table of Contents I. What action is EPA proposing to take? II. What is the background for EPA's proposed action? A. The Regional Haze Problem B. Requirements of the CAA and EPA's Regional Haze Rule (RHR) C. Roles of Agencies in Addressing Regional Haze III. What are the requirements for the regional haze SIPs? A. The CAA and the RHR B. Determination of Baseline, Natural, and Current Visibility Conditions C. Determination of Reasonable Progress Goals (RPGs) D. Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) E. Long-Term Strategy (LTS) F. Coordinating Regional Haze and Reasonably Attributable Visibility Impairment (RAVI) LTS G. Monitoring Strategy and Other Implementation Plan Requirements H. Consultation With States and Federal Land Managers (FLMs) IV. What is EPA's analysis of Georgia's regional haze submittal? A. Affected Class I Areas B. Determination of Baseline, Natural and Current Visibility Conditions 1. Estimating Natural Visibility Conditions 2. Estimating Baseline Conditions 3. Summary of Baseline and Natural Conditions 4. Uniform Rate of Progress C. Long-Term Strategy/Strategies 1. Emissions Inventory for 2018 With Federal and State Control Requirements 2. Modeling To Support the LTS and Determine Visibility Improvement for Uniform Rate of Progress 3. Relative Contributions To Visibility Impairment: Pollutants, Source Categories, and Geographic Areas 4. Procedure for Identifying Sources To Evaluate for Reasonable Progress Controls in Georgia and Surrounding Areas 5. Application of the Four CAA Factors in the Reasonable Progress Analysis A. Facilities With Emissions Unit(s) Subject To Reasonable Progress Analysis B. Facilities With Emissions Unit(s) Not Subject To Reasonable Progress Analysis 6. BART A. BART-Eligible Sources B. BART-Subject Sources C. BART Determinations 7. RPGs D. Coordination of RAVI and Regional Haze Requirements E. Monitoring Strategy and Other Implementation Plan Requirements F. Consultation With States and FLMs 1. Consultation With Other States 2. Consultation With the FLMs G. Periodic SIP Revisions and Five-Year Progress Reports V. What action is EPA taking? VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review B. Paperwork Reduction Act C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) E. Executive Order 13132, Federalism F. Executive Order 13175, Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments G. Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children From Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks H. Executive Order 13211, Actions That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act I. What action is EPA proposing To take?

EPA is proposing a limited approval of Georgia's February 11, 2010, SIP revision and November 19, 2010, SIP supplement, addressing regional haze under CAA sections 301(a) and 110(k)(3) because these revisions, as a whole, strengthen the Georgia SIP. Throughout this document, references To Georgia's “regional haze SIP” or “SIP submittal” or “SIP revision” collectively refer To Georgia's original February 11, 2010, SIP revision and the supplement to this February 2010 SIP revision submitted on November 19, 2010. This proposed rulemaking and the accompanying Technical Support Document1 (TSD) explain the basis for EPA's proposed limited approval action.2

In a separate action, EPA has proposed a limited disapproval of the Georgia regional haze SIP because of deficiencies in the State's regional haze SIP submittal arising from the State's reliance on CAIR to meet certain regional haze requirements.See76 FR 82219 (December 30, 2011). EPA is not proposing to take action in today's rulemaking on issues associated with Georgia's reliance on CAIR in its regional haze SIP. Comments on EPA's proposed limited disapproval of Georgia's regional haze SIP are accepted at the docket for EPA's December 30, 2011, proposed rulemaking (seeDocket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0729). The comment period for EPA's December 30, 2011, proposed rulemaking is scheduled to end on February 28, 2012.

Regional haze is visibility impairment that is produced by a multitude of sources and activities which are located across a broad geographic area and emit fine particles (PM2.5) (e.g., sulfates, nitrates, organic carbon, elemental carbon, and soil dust), and their precursors (e.g., sulfur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen oxides (NOX), and in some cases, ammonia (NH3) and volatile organic compounds (VOC)). Fine particle precursors react in the atmosphere to form fine particulate matter which impairs visibility by scattering and absorbing light. Visibility impairment reduces the clarity, color, and visible distance that one can see. PM2.5can also cause serious health effects and mortality in humans and contributes to environmental effects such as acid deposition and eutrophication.

Data from the existing visibility monitoring network, the “Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual Environments” (IMPROVE) monitoring network, show that visibility impairment caused by air pollution occurs virtually all the time at most national park and wilderness areas. The average visual range3 in many Class I areas4 (i.e., national parks and memorial parks, wilderness areas, and international parks meeting certain size criteria) in the western United States is 100-150 kilometers, or about one-half to two-thirds of the visual range that would exist without anthropogenic air pollution. In most of the eastern Class I areas of the United States, the average visual range is less than 30 kilometers, or about one-fifth of the visual range that would exist under estimated natural conditions.See64 FR 35715 (July 1, 1999).

In section 169A of the 1977 Amendments to the CAA, Congress created a program for protecting visibility in the nation's national parks and wilderness areas. This section of the CAA establishes as a national goal the “prevention of any future, and the remedying of any existing, impairment of visibility in mandatory Class I areas which impairment results from manmade air pollution.” On December 2, 1980, EPA promulgated regulations to address visibility impairment in Class I areas that is “reasonably attributable” to a single source or small group of sources, i.e., “reasonably attributable visibility impairment.”See45 FR 80084. These regulations represented the first phase in addressing visibility impairment. EPA deferred action on regional haze that emanates from a variety of sources until monitoring, modeling and scientific knowledge about the relationships between pollutants and visibility impairment were improved.

Congress added section 169B to the CAA in 1990 to address regional haze issues. EPA promulgated a rule to address regional haze on July 1, 1999 (64 FR 35713), the RHR. The RHR revised the existing visibility regulations to integrate into the regulation provisions addressing regional haze impairment and established a comprehensive visibility protection program for Class I areas. The requirements for regional haze, found at 40 CFR 51.308 and 51.309, are included in EPA's visibility protection regulations at 40 CFR 51.300-309. Some of the main elements of the regional haze requirements are summarized in section III of this preamble. The requirement to submit a regional haze SIP applies to all 50 states, the Districtof Columbia, and the Virgin Islands.5 40 CFR 51.308(b) requires states to submit the first implementation plan addressing regional haze visibility impairment no later than December 17, 2007.

Successful implementation of the regional haze program will require long-term regional coordination among states, tribal governments and various Federal agencies. As noted above, pollution affecting the air quality in Class I areas can be transported over long distances, even hundreds of kilometers. Therefore, to effectively address the problem of visibility impairment in Class I areas, states need to develop strategies in coordination with one another, taking into account the effect of emissions from one jurisdiction on the air quality in another.

Because the pollutants that lead to regional haze can originate from sources located across broad geographic areas, EPA has encouraged the states and tribes across the United States to address visibility impairment from a regional perspective. Five regional planning organizations (RPOs) were developed to address regional haze and related issues. The RPOs first evaluated technical information to better understand how their states and tribes impact Class I areas across the country, and then pursued the development of regional strategies to reduce emissions of particulate matter (PM) and other pollutants leading to regional haze.

The Visibility Improvement State and Tribal Association of the Southeast (VISTAS) RPO is a collaborative effort of state governments, tribal governments, and various Federal agencies established to initiate and coordinate activities associated with the management of regional haze, visibility and other air quality issues in the southeastern United States. Member state and tribal governments include: Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia, West Virginia, and the Eastern Band of the Cherokee Indians.

Regional haze SIPs must assure reasonable progress toward the national goal of achieving natural visibility conditions in Class I areas. Section 169A of the CAA and EPA's implementing regulations require states to establish long-term strategies for making reasonable progress toward meeting this goal. Implementation plans must also give specific attention to certain stationary sources that were in existence on August 7, 1977, but were not in operation before August 7, 1962, and require these sources, where appropriate, to install BART controls for the purpose of eliminating or reducing visibility impairment. The specific regional haze SIP requirements are discussed in further detail below.

The RHR establishes the deciview as the principal metric or unit for expressing visibility. This visibility metric expresses uniform changes in haziness in terms of common increments across the entire range of visibility conditions, from pristine to extremely hazy conditions. Visibility expressed in deciviews is determined by using air quality measurements to estimate light extinction and then transforming the value of light extinction using a logarithm function. The deciview is a more useful measure for tracking progress in improving visibility than light extinction itself because each deciview change is an equal incremental change in visibility perceived by the human eye. Most people can detect a change in visibility at one deciview.6

The deciview is used in expressing RPGs (which are interim visibility goals towards meeting the national visibility goal), defining baseline, current, and natural conditions, and tracking changes in visibility. The regional haze SIPs must contain measures that ensure “reasonable progress” toward the national goal of preventing and remedying visibility impairment in Class I areas caused by anthropogenic air pollution by reducing anthropogenic emissions that cause regional haze. The national goal is a return to natural conditions, i.e., anthropogenic sources of air pollution would no longer impair visibility in Class I areas.

To track changes in visibility over time at each of the 156 Class I areas covered by the visibility program (40 CFR 81.401-437), and as part of the process for determining reasonable progress, states must calculate the degree of existing visibility impairment at each Class I area at the time of each regional haze SIP submittal and periodically review progress every five years, i.e., midway through each 10-year implementation period. To do this, the RHR requires states to determine the degree of impairment (in deciviews) for the average of the 20 percent least impaired (“best”) and 20 percent most impaired (“worst”) visibility days over a specified time period at each of their Class I areas. In addition, states must also develop an estimate of natural visibility conditions for the purpose of comparing progress toward the national goal. Natural visibility is determined by estimating the natural concentrations of pollutants that cause visibility impairment and then calculating total light extinction based on those estimates. EPA has provided guidance to states regarding how to calculate baseline, natural, and current visibility conditions in documents titled, EPA'sGuidance for Estimating Natural Visibility Conditions Under the Regional Haze Rule,September 2003, (EPA-454/B-03-005 located athttp://www.epa.gov/ttncaaa1/t1/memoranda/rh_envcurhr_gd.pdf), (hereinafter referred to as “EPA's 2003 Natural Visibility Guidance”), andGuidance for Tracking Progress Under the Regional Haze Rule,September 2003, (EPA-454/B-03-004 located athttp://www.epa.gov/ttncaaa1/t1/memoranda/rh_tpurhr_gd.pdf), (hereinafter referred to as “EPA's 2003 Tracking Progress Guidance”).

For the first regional haze SIPs that were due by December 17, 2007, “baseline visibility conditions” were the starting points for assessing “current” visibility impairment. Baseline visibility conditions represent the degree of visibility impairment for the 20 percent least impaired days and 20 percent most impaired days for each calendar year from 2000 to 2004. Using monitoring data for 2000 through 2004, states are required to calculate the average degree of visibility impairment for each Class I area, based on the average of annual values over the five-year period. The comparison of initial baseline visibility conditions to natural visibility conditions indicates the amount of improvement necessary to attain natural visibility, while the future comparison of baseline conditions to the then current conditions will indicate the amount of progress made. In general, the2000-2004 baseline period is considered the time from which improvement in visibility is measured.

The vehicle for ensuring continuing progress toward achieving the natural visibility goal is the submission of a series of regional haze SIPs from the states that establish two RPGs (i.e., two distinct goals, one for the “best” and one for the “worst” days) for every Class I area for each (approximately) 10-year implementation period. The RHR does not mandate specific milestones or rates of progress, but instead calls for states to establish goals that provide for “reasonable progress” toward achieving natural (i.e., “background”) visibility conditions. In setting RPGs, states must provide for an improvement in visibility for the most impaired days over the (approximately) 10-year period of the SIP, and ensure no degradation in visibility for the least impaired days over the same period.

States have significant discretion in establishing RPGs, but are required to consider the following factors established in section 169A of the CAA and in EPA's RHR at 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1)(i)(A): (1) The costs of compliance; (2) the time necessary for compliance; (3) the energy and non-air quality environmental impacts of compliance; and (4) the remaining useful life of any potentially affected sources. States must demonstrate in their SIPs how these factors are considered when selecting the RPGs for the best and worst days for each applicable Class I area. States have considerable flexibility in how they take these factors into consideration, as noted in EPA'sGuidance for Setting Reasonable Progress Goals Under the Regional Haze Program(“EPA's Reasonable Progress Guidance”), July 1, 2007, memorandum from William L. Wehrum, Acting Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation, to EPA Regional Administrators, EPA Regions 1-10 (pp. 4-2, 5-1). In setting the RPGs, states must also consider the rate of progress needed to reach natural visibility conditions by 2064 (referred to as the “uniform rate of progress” or the “glidepath”) and the emissions reduction measures needed to achieve that rate of progress over the 10-year period of the SIP. Uniform progress towards achievement of natural conditions by the year 2064 represents a rate of progress which states are to use for analytical comparison to the amount of progress they expect to achieve. In setting RPGs, each state with one or more Class I areas (“Class I state”) must also consult with potentially “contributing states,” i.e., other nearby states with emissions sources that may be affecting visibility impairment at the Class I state's areas.See40 CFR 51.308(d)(1)(iv).

Section 169A of the CAA directs states to evaluate the use of retrofit controls at certain larger, often uncontrolled, older stationary sources in order to address visibility impacts from these sources. Specifically, section 169A(b)(2)(A) of the CAA requires states to revise their SIPs to contain such measures as may be necessary to make reasonable progress towards the natural visibility goal, including a requirement that certain categories of existing major stationary sources7 built between 1962 and 1977 procure, install, and operate the “Best Available Retrofit Technology” as determined by the state. Under the RHR, states are directed to conduct BART determinations for such “BART-eligible” sources that may be anticipated to cause or contribute to any visibility impairment in a Class I area. Rather than requiring source-specific BART controls, states also have the flexibility to adopt an emissions trading program or other alternative program as long as the alternative provides greater reasonable progress towards improving visibility than BART.

On July 6, 2005, EPA published theGuidelines for BART Determinations Under the Regional Haze Ruleat Appendix Y to 40 CFR part 51 (hereinafter referred to as the “BART Guidelines”) to assist states in determining which of their sources should be subject to the BART requirements and in determining appropriate emissions limits for each applicable source. In making a BART determination for a fossil fuel-fired electric generating plant with a total generating capacity in excess of 750 megawatts (MW), a state must use the approach set forth in the BART Guidelines. A state is encouraged, but not required, to follow the BART Guidelines in making BART determinations for other types of sources.

States must address all visibility-impairing pollutants emitted by a source in the BART determination process. The most significant visibility impairing pollutants are SO2, NOX, and PM. EPA has stated that states should use their best judgment in determining whether VOC or NH3compounds impair visibility in Class I areas.

Under the BART Guidelines, states may select an exemption threshold value for their BART modeling, below which a BART-eligible source would not be expected to cause or contribute to visibility impairment in any Class I area. The state must document this exemption threshold value in the SIP and must state the basis for its selection of that value. Any source with emissions that model above the threshold value would be subject to a BART determination review. The BART Guidelines acknowledge varying circumstances affecting different Class I areas. States should consider the number of emissions sources affecting the Class I areas at issue and the magnitude of the individual sources' impacts. Any exemption threshold set by the state should not be higher than 0.5 deciview.

In their SIPs, states must identify potential BART sources, described as “BART-eligible sources” in the RHR, and document their BART control determination analyses. In making BART determinations, section 169A(g)(2) of the CAA requires that states consider the following factors: (1) The costs of compliance, (2) the energy and non-air quality environmental impacts of compliance, (3) any existing pollution control technology in use at the source, (4) the remaining useful life of the source, and (5) the degree of improvement in visibility which may reasonably be anticipated to result from the use of such technology. States are free to determine the weight and significance to be assigned to each factor.

A regional haze SIP must include source-specific BART emissions limits and compliance schedules for each source subject to BART. Once a state has made its BART determination, the BART controls must be installed and in operation as expeditiously as practicable, but no later than five years after the date of EPA approval of the regional haze SIP.SeeCAA section 169(g)(4));see40 CFR 51.308(e)(1)(iv). In addition to what is required by the RHR, general SIP requirements mandate that the SIP must also include all regulatory requirements related to monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting for the BART controls on the source.

As noted above, the RHR allows states to implement an alternative program in lieu of BART so long as the alternative program can be demonstrated to achieve greater reasonable progress toward the national visibility goal than would BART. Under regulations issued in 2005revising the regional haze program, EPA made just such a demonstration for CAIR.See70 FR 39104 (July 6, 2005). EPA's regulations provide that states participating in the CAIR cap-and trade program under 40 CFR part 96 pursuant to an EPA-approved CAIR SIP or which remain subject to the CAIR Federal Implementation Plan in 40 CFR part 97 need not require affected BART-eligible electrical generating (EGUs) to install, operate, and maintain BART for emissions of SO2and NOX.See40 CFR 51.308(e)(4). Because CAIR did not address direct emissions of PM, states were still required to conduct a BART analysis for PM emissions from EGUs subject to BART for that pollutant. Challenges to CAIR, however, resulted in the remand of the rule to EPA.See North Carolinav.EPA,550 F.3d 1175 (DC Cir. 2008).

EPA issued a new rule in 2011 to address the interstate transport of NOXand SO2in the eastern United States.See76 FR 48208 (August 8, 2011) (“the Transport Rule,” also known as the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule). On December 30, 2011, EPA proposed to find that the trading programs in the Transport Rule would achieve greater reasonable progress towards the national goal than would BART in the states in which the Transport Rule applies.See76 FR 82219. Based on this proposed finding, EPA also proposed to revise the RHR to allow states to substitute participation in the trading programs under the Transport Rule for source-specific BART. EPA has not yet taken final action on that rule. Also on December 30, 2011, the DC Circuit issued an order addressing the status of the Transport Rule and CAIR in response to motions filed by numerous parties seeking a stay of the Transport Rule pending judicial review. In that order, the D.C. Circuit stayed the Transport Rule pending the court's resolutions of the petitions for review of that rule inEME Homer Generation, L.P.v.EPA(No. 11-1302 and consolidated cases). The court also indicated that EPA is expected to continue to administer CAIR in the interim until the court rules on the petitions for review of the Transport Rule.

Consistent with the requirement in section 169A(b) of the CAA that states include in their regional haze SIP a 10 to 15 year strategy for making reasonable progress, section 51.308(d)(3) of the RHR requires that states include a LTS in their regional haze SIPs. The LTS is the compilation of all control measures a state will use during the implementation period of the specific SIP submittal to meet applicable RPGs. The LTS must include “enforceable emissions limitations, compliance schedules, and other measures as necessary to achieve the reasonable progress goals” for all Class I areas within, or affected by emissions from, the state.See40 CFR 51.308(d)(3).

When a state's emissions are reasonably anticipated to cause or contribute to visibility impairment in a Class I area located in another state, the RHR requires the impacted state to coordinate with the contributing states in order to develop coordinated emissions management strategies.See40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(i). In such cases, the contributing state must demonstrate that it has included, in its SIP, all measures necessary to obtain its share of the emissions reductions needed to meet the RPGs for the Class I area. The RPOs have provided forums for significant interstate consultation, but additional consultations between states may be required to sufficiently address interstate visibility issues. This is especially true where two states belong to different RPOs.

States should consider all types of anthropogenic sources of visibility impairment in developing their LTS, including stationary, minor, mobile, and area sources. At a minimum, states must describe how each of the following seven factors listed below are taken into account in developing their LTS: (1) Emissions reductions due to ongoing air pollution control programs, including measures to address RAVI; (2) measures to mitigate the impacts of construction activities; (3) emissions limitations and schedules for compliance to achieve the RPG; (4) source retirement and replacement schedules; (5) smoke management techniques for agricultural and forestry management purposes including plans as currently exist within the state for these purposes; (6) enforceability of emissions limitations and control measures; and (7) the anticipated net effect on visibility due to projected changes in point, area, and mobile source emissions over the period addressed by the LTS.See40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(v).

As part of the RHR, EPA revised 40 CFR 51.306(c) regarding the LTS for RAVI to require that the RAVI plan must provide for a periodic review and SIP revision not less frequently than every three years until the date of submission of the state's first plan addressing regional haze visibility impairment, which was due December 17, 2007, in accordance with 40 CFR 51.308(b) and (c). On or before this date, the state must revise its plan to provide for review and revision of a coordinated LTS for addressing RAVI and regional haze, and the state must submit the first such coordinated LTS with its first regional haze SIP. Future coordinated LTSs, and periodic progress reports evaluating progress towards RPGs, must be submitted consistent with the schedule for SIP submission and periodic progress reports set forth in 40 CFR 51.308(f) and 51.308(g), respectively. The periodic review of a state's LTS must report on both regional haze and RAVI impairment and must be submitted to EPA as a SIP revision.

Section 51.308(d)(4) of the RHR includes the requirement for a monitoring strategy for measuring, characterizing, and reporting of regional haze visibility impairment that is representative of all mandatory Class I areas within the state. The strategy must be coordinated with the monitoring strategy required in section 51.305 for RAVI. Compliance with this requirement may be met through “participation” in the IMPROVE network, i.e., review and use of monitoring data from the network. The monitoring strategy is due with the first regional haze SIP, and it must be reviewed every five years. The monitoring strategy must also provide for additional monitoring sites if the IMPROVE network is not sufficient to determine whether RPGs will be met.

The SIP must also provide for the following:

• Procedures for using monitoring data and other information in a state with mandatory Class I areas to determine the contribution of emissions from within the state to regional haze visibility impairment at Class I areas both within and outside the state;

• Procedures for using monitoring data and other information in a state with no mandatory Class I areas to determine the contribution of emissions from within the state to regional haze visibility impairment at Class I areas in other states;

• Reporting of all visibility monitoring data to the Administrator at least annually for each Class I area in the state, and where possible, in electronic format;

• Developing a statewide inventory of emissions of pollutants that are reasonably anticipated to cause or contribute to visibility impairment in any Class I area. The inventory must include emissions for a baseline year,emissions for the most recent year for which data are available, and estimates of future projected emissions. A state must also make a commitment to update the inventory periodically; and

• Other elements, including reporting, recordkeeping, and other measures necessary to assess and report on visibility.

The RHR requires control strategies to cover an initial implementation period extending to the year 2018, with a comprehensive reassessment and revision of those strategies, as appropriate, every 10 years thereafter. Periodic SIP revisions must meet the core requirements of section 51.308(d) with the exception of BART. The requirement to evaluate sources for BART applies only to the first regional haze SIP. Facilities subject to BART must continue to comply with the BART provisions of section 51.308(e), as noted above. Periodic SIP revisions will assure that the statutory requirement of reasonable progress will continue to be met.

The RHR requires that states consult with FLMs before adopting and submitting their SIPs.See40 CFR 51.308(i). States must provide FLMs an opportunity for consultation, in person and at least 60 days prior to holding any public hearing on the SIP. This consultation must include the opportunity for the FLMs to discuss their assessment of impairment of visibility in any Class I area and to offer recommendations on the development of the RPGs and on the development and implementation of strategies to address visibility impairment. Further, a state must include in its SIP a description of how it addressed any comments provided by the FLMs. Finally, a SIP must provide procedures for continuing consultation between the state and FLMs regarding the state's visibility protection program, including development and review of SIP revisions, five-year progress reports, and the implementation of other programs having the potential to contribute to impairment of visibility in Class I areas.

On February 11, 2010, GA EPD submitted revisions to the Georgia SIP to address regional haze in the State's Class I areas as required by EPA's RHR. The State supplemented this February 2010 submittal on November 19, 2010, with title V permit amendments that contain emissions limitations for three facilities.

Georgia has three Class I areas within its borders: Cohutta Wilderness Area, Okefenokee Wilderness Area, and Wolf Island Wilderness Area. Georgia is responsible for developing a regional haze SIP that addresses these Class I areas and for consulting with other states that impact Georgia's Class I areas.

The Georgia regional haze SIP establishes RPGs for visibility improvement at each of these Class I areas and a LTS to achieve those RPGs within the first regional haze implementation period ending in 2018. In developing the LTS for each area, Georgia considered both emissions sources inside and outside of Georgia that may cause or contribute to visibility impairment in Georgia's Class I areas. The State also identified and considered emissions sources within Georgia that may cause or contribute to visibility impairment in Class I areas in neighboring states as required by 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3). The VISTAS RPO worked with the State in developing the technical analyses used to make these determinations, including state-by-state contributions to visibility impairment in specific Class I areas, which included the three areas in Georgia and those areas affected by emissions from Georgia.

As required by the RHR and in accordance with EPA's 2003 Natural Visibility Guidance, Georgia calculated baseline/current and natural visibility conditions for each of its Class I areas, as summarized below (and as further described in sections III.B.1 and III.B.2 of EPA's TSD to thisFederal Registeraction).

Natural background visibility, as defined in EPA's 2003 Natural Visibility Guidance, is estimated by calculating the expected light extinction using default estimates of natural concentrations of fine particle components adjusted by site-specific estimates of humidity. This calculation uses the IMPROVE equation, which is a formula for estimating light extinction from the estimated natural concentrations of fine particle components (or from components measured by the IMPROVE monitors). As documented in EPA's 2003 Natural Visibility Guidance, EPA allows states to use “refined” or alternative approaches to 2003 EPA guidance to estimate the values that characterize the natural visibility conditions of the Class I areas. One alternative approach is to develop and justify the use of alternative estimates of natural concentrations of fine particle components. Another alternative is to use the “new IMPROVE equation” that was adopted for use by the IMPROVE Steering Committee in December 2005.8 The purpose of this refinement to the “old IMPROVE equation” is to provide more accurate estimates of the various factors that affect the calculation of light extinction. Georgia opted to use the default estimates for the natural concentrations combined with the “new IMPROVE equation” for all of its areas. Using this approach, natural visibility conditions using the new IMPROVE equation were calculated separately for each Class I area by VISTAS.

The new IMPROVE equation takes into account the most recent review of the science9 and it accounts for the effect of particle size distribution on light extinction efficiency of sulfate, nitrate, and organic carbon. It also adjusts the mass multiplier for organic carbon (particulate organic matter) by increasing it from 1.4 to 1.8. New terms are added to the equation to account for light extinction by sea salt and light absorption by gaseous nitrogen dioxide. Site-specific values are used for Rayleigh scattering (scattering of light due to atmospheric gases) to account for the site-specific effects of elevation and temperature. Separate relative humidityenhancement factors are used for small and large size distributions of ammonium sulfate and ammonium nitrate and for sea salt. The terms for the remaining contributors, elemental carbon (light-absorbing carbon), fine soil, and coarse mass terms, do not change between the original and new IMPROVE equations.

GA EPD estimated baseline visibility conditions at the Georgia Class I areas using available monitoring data from two IMPROVE monitoring sites, one in the Okefenokee Wilderness Area and the other in the Cohutta Wilderness Area. The Wolf Island Wilderness Area does not contain an IMPROVE monitor. In cases where onsite monitoring is not available, 40 CFR 51.308(d)(2)(i) requires states to use the most representative monitoring available for the 2000-2004 period to establish baseline visibility conditions, in consultation with EPA. Georgia used, and EPA concurs, with the use of 2000-2004 data from the IMPROVE monitor at the Okefenokee Wilderness Area for the Wolf Island Wilderness Area. The IMPROVE Steering Committee considers the IMPROVE monitor at the Okefenokee Wilderness Area to be representative of visibility at Wolf Island. Okefenokee is the nearest Class I area to Wolf Island, and they possess similar characteristics, such as meteorology and topography.

As explained in section III.B, baseline visibility conditions are the same as current conditions for the first regional haze SIP. A five-year average of the 2000 to 2004 monitoring data was calculated for each of the 20 percent worst and 20 percent best visibility days at each Georgia Class I area. IMPROVE data records for Okefenokee for the period 2000 to 2004 meet the EPA requirements for data completeness.10 IMPROVE data for Cohutta did not meet completeness criteria in the years 2000, 2001, and 2003. Data records for 2001 and 2003 were filled using data substitution procedures.11 There was too little data in 2000 to perform data filling.

Appendix B.1 of the Georgia regional haze SIP lists the 20 percent best and worst days for the baseline period of 2000-2004 for the Okefenokee and Cohutta areas. This data is also provided at the following Web site:http://www.metro4-sesarm.org/vistas/SesarmBext_20BW.htm.

For the Georgia Class I areas, baseline visibility conditions on the 20 percent worst days range between approximately 27 and 30.5 deciviews. Natural visibility in these areas is predicted to be between approximately 10.5 and 11.5 deciviews on the 20 percent worst days. The natural and baseline conditions for Georgia's Class I areas for both the 20 percent worst and best days are presented inTable 1 below.

In setting the RPGs, Georgia considered the uniform rate of progress needed to reach natural visibility conditions by 2064 (“glidepath”) and the emissions reduction measures needed to achieve that rate of progress over the period of the SIP to meet the requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1)(i)(B). As explained in EPA's Reasonable Progress Guidance document, the uniform rate of progress is not a presumptive target, and RPGs may be greater than, less than, or equivalent to the glidepath.

The State's implementation plan presents two sets of graphs, one for the 20 percent best days, and one for the 20 percent worst days, for its three Class I areas. Georgia constructed the graph for the worst days (i.e., the glidepath) in accordance with EPA's 2003 Tracking Progress Guidance by plotting a straight graphical line from the baseline level of visibility impairment for 2000-2004 to the level of visibility conditions representing no anthropogenic impairment in 2064 for its three areas. For the best days, the graph includes a horizontal, straight line spanning from baseline conditions in 2004 out to 2018 to depict no degradation in visibility over the implementation period of the SIP. Georgia's SIP shows that the State's RPGs for its areas provide for improvement in visibility for the 20 percent worst days over the period of the implementation plan and ensure no degradation in visibility for the 20 percent best days over the same period, in accordance with 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1).

For the Cohutta Class I area, the overall visibility improvement necessary to reach natural conditions is the difference between baseline visibility of 30.25 deciviews for the 20 percent worst days and natural conditions of 10.78 deciviews, i.e., 19.47 deciviews. Over the 60-year period from 2004 to 2064, this would require an average improvement of 0.325 deciviews per year to reach natural conditions. Hence, for the 14-year period from 2004 to 2018, in order to achieve visibility improvements at least equivalent to the uniform rate of progress for the 20 percent worst days at the Cohutta Wilderness Area, Georgia would need to project at least 4.55deciviews (approximately) over the first implementation period (i.e., 0.325 deciviews × 14 years = 4.55 deciviews) of visibility improvement from the 30.25 deciviews baseline in 2004, resulting in visibility levels at or below approximately 25.7 deciviews in 2018. As discussed below in section IV.C.7, “Reasonable Progress Goals,” Georgia projects a 7.45 deciview improvement to visibility in the Cohutta Wilderness Area from the 30.25 deciview baseline to 22.8 deciviews in 2018 for the 20 percent most impaired days, and a 2.02 deciview improvement to 11.75 deciviews from the baseline visibility of 13.77 deciviews for the 20 percent least impaired days.

For the Okefenokee and Wolf Island Class I areas, the overall visibility improvement necessary to reach natural conditions is the difference between baseline visibility of 27.13 deciviews for the 20 percent worst days and natural conditions of 11.21 deciviews, i.e., 15.92 deciviews. Over the 60-year period from 2004 to 2064, this would require an average improvement of 0.265 deciviews per year to reach natural conditions. Hence, for the 14-year period from 2004 to 2018, in order to achieve visibility improvements at least equivalent to the uniform rate of progress for the 20 percent worst days at the Okefenokee and Wolf Island Wilderness Areas, Georgia would need to project at least 3.71 deciviews (approximately) over the first implementation period (i.e., 0.265 deciviews × 14 years = 3.71 deciviews) of visibility improvement from the 27.13 deciviews baseline in 2004, resulting in visibility levels at or below 23.42 deciviews in 2018. As discussed below in section IV.C.7, “Reasonable Progress Goals,” Georgia projects a 3.31 deciview improvement to visibility for the Okefenokee and Wolf Island Class I areas from the 27.13 deciview baseline to 23.82 deciviews in 2018 for the 20 percent most impaired days, and a 1.31 deciview improvement to 13.92 deciviews from the baseline visibility of 15.23 deciviews for the 20 percent least impaired days.

As described in section III.E of this action, the LTS is a compilation of state-specific control measures relied on by the state for achieving its RPGs. Georgia's LTS for the first implementation period addresses the emissions reductions from Federal, state, and local controls that take effect in the State from the end of the baseline period starting in 2004 until 2018. The Georgia LTS was developed by the State, in coordination with the VISTAS RPO, through an evaluation of the following components: (1) Identification of the emissions units within Georgia and in surrounding states that likely have the largest impacts currently on visibility at the State's three Class I areas; (2) estimation of emissions reductions for 2018 based on all controls required or expected under Federal and state regulations for the 2004-2018 period (including BART); (3) comparison of projected visibility improvement with the uniform rate of progress for the State's Class I areas; and (4) application of the four statutory factors in the reasonable progress analysis for the identified emissions units to determine if additional reasonable controls were required.

In a separate action proposing limited disapproval of the regional haze SIPs of a number of states, EPA noted that these states relied on the trading programs of CAIR to satisfy the BART requirement and the requirement for a LTS sufficient to achieve the state-adopted RPGs.See76 FR 82219 (December 30, 2011). In that action, EPA proposed a limited disapproval of Georgia's regional haze SIP submittal insofar as the SIP relied on CAIR. For that reason, EPA is not taking action on that aspect of Georgia's regional haze SIP in this rulemaking. Comments on the December 30, 2011, proposed determination are accepted at Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0729. The comment period for EPA's December 30, 2011, proposed rulemaking is scheduled to end on February 28, 2012.

The emissions inventory used in the regional haze technical analyses was developed by VISTAS with assistance from Georgia. The 2018 emissions inventory was developed by projecting 2002 emissions and applying reductions expected from Federal and state regulations affecting the emissions of VOC and the visibility-impairing pollutants NOX, PM, and SO2. The BART Guidelines direct states to exercise judgment in deciding whether VOC and NH3impair visibility in their Class I area(s). As discussed further in section IV.C.3, VISTAS performed modeling sensitivity analyses, which demonstrated that anthropogenic emissions of VOC and NH3do not significantly impair visibility in the VISTAS region. Thus, while emissions inventories were also developed for NH3and VOC, and applicable Federal VOC reductions were incorporated into Georgia's regional haze analyses, Georgia did not further evaluate NH3and VOC emissions sources for potential controls under BART or reasonable progress.

VISTAS developed emissions for five inventory source classifications: stationary point and area sources, off-road and on-road mobile sources, and biogenic sources. Stationary point sources are those sources that emit greater than a specified tonnage per year, depending on the pollutant, with data provided at the facility level. Stationary area sources are those sources whose individual emissions are relatively small, but due to the large number of these sources, the collective emissions from the source category could be significant. VISTAS estimated emissions on a countywide level for the inventory categories of: (a) Stationary area sources; (b) off-road (or non-road) mobile sources (i.e., equipment that can move but does not use roadways); and (c) biogenic sources (which are natural sources of emissions, such as trees). On-road mobile source emissions are estimated by vehicle type and road type, and are summed to the countywide level.

There are many Federal and state control programs being implemented that VISTAS and Georgia anticipate will reduce emissions between the end of the baseline period and 2018. Emissions reductions from these control programs are projected to achieve substantial visibility improvement by 2018 in the Georgia Class I areas. The control programs relied upon by Georgia include: CAIR; Federal 2007 heavy duty diesel (2007) engine standards for on-road trucks and buses; Federal Tier 2 tailpipe controls for on-road vehicles; Federal large spark ignition and recreational vehicle controls; EPA's non-road diesel rules; Georgia Rule 391-3-1-.02(2)(yy), “Emissions of Nitrogen Oxides from Major Sources” requiring NOXreasonably available control technology for subject sources in the Atlanta 1-hour ozone non-attainment area; Georgia Rule 391-3-1-.02(2)(sss), “Multipollutant Control for Electric Utility Steam Generating Units;” and NOXand/or VOC reductions from the control rules in 1-hour ozone SIPs for Atlanta, Birmingham, and Northern Kentucky. Controls from various Federal Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) rules were also utilized in the development of the 2018 emissions inventory projections. These MACT rules include the industrial boiler/process heater MACT (referred to as “Industrial Boiler MACT”), the combustion turbine and reciprocating internal combustion engines MACTs, and the VOC 2-, 4-, 7-, and 10-year MACT standards.

Effective July 30, 2007, the D.C. Circuit mandated the vacatur and remand of the Industrial Boiler MACT Rule.13 This MACT was vacated since it was directly affected by the vacatur and remand of the Commercial and Industrial Solid Waste Incinerator Definition Rule. EPA proposed a new Industrial Boiler MACT rule to address the vacatur on June 4, 2010 (75 FR 32006) and issued a final rule on March 21, 2011 (76 FR 15608). The VISTAS modeling included emissions reductions from the vacated Industrial Boiler MACT rule, and Georgia did not redo its modeling analysis when the rule was re-issued. Even though Georgia's modeling is based on the vacated Industrial Boiler MACT limits, the State's modeling conclusions are unlikely to be affected because the expected reductions due to the vacated rule were relatively small compared to the State's total SO2, PM2.5, and coarse particulate matter (PM10) emissions in 2018 (i.e., 0.1 to 0.7 percent, depending on the pollutant, of the projected 2018 SO2, PM2.5, and PM10inventory). Thus, EPA does not expect that differences between the vacated and final Industrial Boiler MACT emissions limits would affect the adequacy of the existing Georgia regional haze SIP. If there is a need to address discrepancies between projected emissions reductions from the vacated Industrial Boiler MACT and the Industrial Boiler MACT issued March 21, 2011 (76 FR 15608), EPA expects Georgia to do so in the State's five-year progress report.

Tables 2 and 3, below, summarize the 2002 baseline and 2018 estimated emissions inventories for Georgia.14

VISTAS performed modeling for the regional haze LTS for the 10 southeastern states, including Georgia. The modeling analysis is a complex technical evaluation that began with selection of the modeling system. VISTAS used the following modeling system:

•Meteorological Model:The Pennsylvania State University/National Center for Atmospheric Research Mesoscale Meteorological Model is a nonhydrostatic, prognostic meteorological model routinely used for urban- and regional-scale photochemical, PM2.5,and regional haze regulatory modeling studies.

•Emissions Model:The Sparse Matrix Operator Kernel Emissions modeling system is an emissions modeling system that generates hourly gridded speciated emissions inputs of mobile, non-road mobile, area, point, fire, and biogenic emissions sources for photochemical grid models.

•Air Quality Model:The EPA's Models-3/Community Multiscale Air Quality (CMAQ) modeling system is a photochemical grid model capable of addressing ozone, PM, visibility, and acid deposition at a regional scale. The photochemical model selected for this study was CMAQ version 4.5. It was modified through VISTAS with a module for Secondary Organics Aerosols in an open and transparent manner that was also subjected to outside peer review.

CMAQ modeling of regional haze in the VISTAS region for 2002 and 2018 was carried out on a grid of 12x12 kilometer cells that covers the 10 VISTAS states (Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia, West Virginia) and states adjacent to them. This grid is nested within a larger national CMAQ modeling grid of 36x36 kilometer cells that covers the continental United States, portions of Canada and Mexico, and portions of the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans along the east and west coasts. Selection of a representative period of meteorology is crucial for evaluating baseline air quality conditions and projecting future changes in air quality due to changes in emissions of visibility-impairing pollutants. VISTAS conducted an in-depth analysis which resulted in the selection of the entire year of 2002 (January 1-December 31) as the best period of meteorology available for conducting the CMAQ modeling. The VISTAS states modeling was developed consistent with EPA'sGuidance on the Use of Models and Other Analyses for Demonstrating Attainment of Air Quality Goals for Ozone, PM 2.5, and Regional Haze,located athttp://www.epa.gov/scram001/guidance/guide/final-03-pm-rh-guidance.pdf, EPA-454/B-07-002, April 2007, and EPA document,Emissions Inventory Guidance for Implementation of Ozone and Particulate Matter National Ambient AirQuality Standards (NAAQS) and Regional Haze Regulations,located athttp://www.epa.gov/ttnchie1/eidocs/eiguid/index.html, EPA-454/R-05-001, August 2005, updated November 2005 (“EPA's Modeling Guidance”).

VISTAS examined the model performance of the regional modeling for the areas of interest before determining whether the CMAQ model results were suitable for use in the regional haze assessment of the LTS and for use in the modeling assessment. The modeling assessment predicts future levels of emissions and visibility impairment used to support the LTS and to compare predicted, modeled visibility levels with those on the uniform rate of progress. In keeping with the objective of the CMAQ modeling platform, air quality model performance was evaluated using graphical and statistical assessments based on measured ozone, fine particles, and acid deposition from various monitoring networks and databases for the 2002 base year. VISTAS used a diverse set of statistical parameters from the EPA's Modeling Guidance to stress and examine the model and modeling inputs. Once VISTAS determined the model performance to be acceptable, VISTAS used the model to assess the 2018 RPGs using the current and future year air quality modeling predictions, and compared the RPGs to the uniform rate of progress.

In accordance with 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3), the State of Georgia provided the appropriate supporting documentation for all required analyses used to determine the State's LTS. The technical analyses and modeling used to develop the glidepath and to support the LTS are consistent with EPA's RHR and interim and final EPA Modeling Guidance. EPA proposes to accept the VISTAS technical modeling to support the LTS and to determine visibility improvement for the uniform rate of progress because the modeling system was chosen and simulated according to EPA Modeling Guidance. EPA proposes to agree with the VISTAS model performance procedures and results, and that the CMAQ is an appropriate tool for the regional haze assessments for the Georgia LTS and regional haze SIP.

An important step toward identifying reasonable progress measures is to identify the key pollutants contributing to visibility impairment at each Class I area. To understand the relative benefit of further reducing emissions from different pollutants, source sectors, and geographic areas, VISTAS developed emissions sensitivity model runs using CMAQ to evaluate visibility and air quality impacts from various groups of emissions and pollutant scenarios in the Class I areas on the 20 percent worst visibility days.

Regarding which pollutants are most significantly impacting visibility in the VISTAS region, VISTAS' contribution assessment, based on IMPROVE monitoring data, demonstrated that ammonium sulfate is the major contributor to PM2.5mass and visibility impairment at Class I areas in the VISTAS and neighboring states. On the 20 percent worst visibility days in 2000-2004, ammonium sulfate accounted for 75 to 87 percent of the calculated light extinction at the inland Class I areas in VISTAS, and 69 to 74 percent of the calculated light extinction for all but one of the coastal Class I areas in the VISTAS states. In particular, for the Okefenokee and Cohutta Wilderness Areas, sulfate particles resulting from SO2emissions contribute roughly 69 and 84 percent, respectively, to the calculated light extinction on the haziest days. In contrast, ammonium nitrate contributed five percent or less of the calculated light extinction at VISTAS Class I areas on the 20 percent worst visibility days. Particulate organic matter (organic carbon) accounted for 20 percent or less of the light extinction on the 20 percent worst visibility days at the VISTAS Class I areas.

VISTAS grouped its 18 Class I areas into two types, either “coastal” or “inland” (sometimes referred to as “mountain”) sites, based on common/similar characteristics (e.g., terrain, geography, meteorology), to better represent variations in model sensitivity and performance within the VISTAS region and to describe the common factors influencing visibility conditions in the two types of Class I areas. The Cohutta Class I area is considered an “inland” area and the Okefenokee and Wolf Island Class I areas are both “coastal” areas.

Results from VISTAS' emissions sensitivity analyses indicate that sulfate particles resulting from SO2emissions are the dominant contributor to visibility impairment on the 20 percent worst days at all Class I areas in VISTAS, including the three Georgia areas. Georgia concluded that reducing SO2emissions from EGU and non-EGU point sources in the VISTAS states would have the greatest visibility benefits for the Georgia Class I areas. Because ammonium nitrate is a small contributor to PM2.5mass and visibility impairment on the 20 percent worst days at the inland Class I areas in VISTAS, the benefits of reducing NOXand NH3emissions at these sites are small.

The VISTAS sensitivity analyses show that VOC emissions from biogenic sources such as vegetation also contribute to visibility impairment. However, control of these biogenic sources of VOC would be extremely difficult, if not impossible. The anthropogenic sources of VOC emissions are minor compared to the biogenic sources. Therefore, controlling anthropogenic sources of VOC emissions would have little, if any, visibility benefits at the Class I areas in the VISTAS region, including those in Georgia. The sensitivity analyses also show that reducing primary carbon from point sources, ground level sources, or fires is projected to have small to no visibility benefit at the VISTAS Class I areas.

Georgia considered the factors listed in 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(v) and in section III.E of this action to develop its LTS as described below. Georgia, in conjunction with VISTAS, demonstrated in its SIP that elemental carbon (a product of highway and non-road diesel engines, agricultural burning, prescribed fires, and wildfires) and fine soils (a product of construction activities and activities that generate fugitive dust), are relatively minor contributors to visibility impairment at the Class I areas in Georgia. Additionally, the State, in conjunction with VISTAS, demonstrated that the benefits of reducing point source ammonia emissions are small. With regard to area source ammonia emissions, while reducing ammonia emissions would be relatively more beneficial for Georgia's two coastal Class I areas than the Cohutta area, these emissions are primarily from agricultural activity, specifically fertilizing operations and animal farming. The State explains in its SIP that because there are no economically feasible options for controlling these types of area sources of ammonia emissions, and GA EPD does not have regulatory authority to control these sources, Georgia did not further evaluate this source category for control.

Georgia considered agricultural and forestry smoke management techniques to address visibility impacts from elemental carbon. On July 11, 2008, GA EPD entered into a memorandum of understanding with the Georgia Forestry and Georgia Department of Natural Resources Wildlife Resources Division adopting a smoke management program that utilizes basic smoke management practices and addresses the issues laidout in the EPA's 1998Interim Air Quality Policy on Wildland and Prescribed Firesavailable at:http://www.epa.gov/ttncaaa1/t1/memoranda/firefnl.pdf. With regard to fine soils, the State considered those activities that generate fugitive dust, including construction activities. Georgia's Rules for Air Quality Control include requirements for precautions to prevent fugitive dust from becoming airborne and to limit the opacity of fugitive emissions to less than 20 percent. The requirements of Georgia Rule 391-3-1-.02(n), “Fugitive Dust,” include preventive measures for construction activities.

EPA preliminarily concurs with the State's technical demonstration showing that elemental carbon, fine soils, and ammonia are not significant contributors to visibility in the State's Class I areas, and therefore, proposes to find that Georgia has adequately satisfied 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(v). EPA's TSD to thisFederal Registeraction and Georgia's SIP provide more details on the State's consideration of these factors for Georgia's LTS.

The emissions sensitivity analyses conducted by VISTAS predict that reductions in SO2emissions from EGU and non-EGU industrial point sources will result in the greatest improvements in visibility in the Class I areas in the VISTAS region, more than any other visibility-impairing pollutant. Specific to Georgia, the VISTAS sensitivity analysis projects visibility benefits in the Georgia Class I areas and Class I areas outside the State impacted by Georgia sources from SO2reductions from EGUs in the VISTAS states. Additional, smaller benefits are projected from SO2emissions reductions from non-utility industrial point sources. SO2emissions contributions to visibility impairment from other RPO regions are comparatively small in contrast to the VISTAS states' contributions, and thus, controlling sources outside of the VISTAS region is predicted to provide less significant improvements in visibility in the Class I areas in VISTAS.

Taking the VISTAS sensitivity analyses results into consideration, Georgia concluded that reducing SO2emissions from EGU and non-EGU point sources in certain VISTAS states would have the greatest visibility benefits for the Georgia Class I areas. The State chose to focus solely on evaluating certain SO2sources contributing to visibility impairment to the State's Class I areas for additional emissions reductions for reasonable progress in this first implementation period (described in sections IV.C.4 and IV.C.5 of this action). EPA proposes to agree with the State's analyses and conclusions used to determine the pollutants and source categories that most contribute to visibility impairment in the Georgia Class I areas, and proposes to find the State's approach to focus on developing a LTS that includes largely additional measures for point sources of SO2emissions to be appropriate.

SO2sources for which it is demonstrated that no additional controls are reasonable in this current implementation period will not be exempted from future assessments for controls in subsequent implementation periods or, when appropriate, from the five-year periodic SIP reviews. In future implementation periods, additional controls on these SO2sources evaluated in the first implementation period may be determined to be reasonable, based on a reasonable progress control evaluation, for continued progress toward natural conditions for the 20 percent worst days and to avoid further degradation of the 20 percent best days. Similarly, in subsequent implementation periods, the State may use different criteria for identifying sources for evaluation and may consider other pollutants as visibility conditions change over time.

As discussed in section IV.C.3 of this action, through comprehensive evaluations by VISTAS and the Southern Appalachian Mountains Initiative (SAMI),15 the VISTAS states concluded that sulfate particles resulting from SO2emissions account for the greatest portion of the regional haze affecting the Class I areas in VISTAS states, including those in Georgia. Utility and non-utility boilers are the main sources of SO2emissions within the southeastern United States. VISTAS developed a methodology for Georgia that enables the State to focus its reasonable progress analysis on those geographic regions and source categories that impact visibility at each of its Class I areas. Recognizing that there was neither sufficient time nor adequate resources available to evaluate all emissions units within a given area of influence (AOI) around each of the Class I areas that Georgia's sources impact, the State established a threshold to determine which emissions units would be evaluated for reasonable progress control. In applying this methodology, GA EPD first calculated the fractional contribution to visibility impairment from all emissions units within the SO2AOI for each of its Class I areas, and those surrounding areas in other states potentially impacted by emissions from emissions units in Georgia. The State then identified those emissions units with a contribution of one half (0.5) percent or more to the visibility impairment at that particular Class I area, and evaluated each of these units for control measures for reasonable progress using the following four “reasonable progress factors” required under 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1)(i)(A): (i) Cost of compliance; (ii) time necessary for compliance; (iii) energy and non-air quality environmental impacts of compliance; and (iv) remaining useful life of the emissions unit.

Georgia's SO2AOI methodology captured greater than 70 percent of the total point source SO2contribution to visibility impairment in two of Georgia's three Class I areas and required an evaluation of more than 30 units. At the remaining area, Cohutta Wilderness Area, the 0.5-percent threshold represents 69 percent of the total SO2contribution to visibility impairment and required an evaluation of 38 units. Capturing a significantly greater percentage of the total contribution would involve an evaluation of many more emissions units that have substantially less impact. EPA believes the approach developed by VISTAS and implemented for the Class I areas in Georgia is a reasonable methodology to prioritize the most significant contributors to regional haze and to identify sources to assess for reasonable progress control in the State's Class I area. The approach is consistent with EPA's Reasonable Progress Guidance. The technical approach of VISTAS and Georgia was objective and based on several analyses including the evaluation of a large universe of emissions units within and surrounding the State of Georgia and all of the 18 VISTAS Class I areas. It also included an analysis of the VISTAS emissions units affecting nearby Class I areas surrounding the VISTAS states that are located in other RPOs' Class I areas.

Under Georgia's state rule 391-3-1-.02(13), “Clean Air Interstate Rule SO2Annual Trading Program,” SO2emissions from Georgia EGUs will be capped at 149,140 tons in 2015, a 70-percent reduction from 2002 actual emissions. GA EPD concluded that additional EGU control for SO2during this time period is not reasonable for the EGU sources that contribute greater than 0.5 percent to visibility impairment at Class I areas that are clearly projected to meet or exceed the uniform rate of progress in 2018. However, for five EGUs at three facilities owned by Georgia Power (see Table 4) that meet the State's minimum threshold for reasonable progress evaluation at Class I areas not clearly at or below the glidepath (Okefenokee and Wolf Island Wilderness Areas), GA EPD did consider additional controls.

GA EPD initially identified 24 additional non-EGU emissions units at 13 facilities in Georgia (see Table 4) which meet the State's minimum threshold for a reasonable progress control evaluation (i.e., because they were modeled to fall within the SO2AOI of any Class I area and have a 0.5 percent or greater contribution to the sulfate visibility impairment in at least one Class I area).16 GA EPD later determined, based on updated data, that of these 24 non-EGU units, seven units at four facilities would not contribute 0.5 percent or greater of the total sulfate visibility impairment at any Class I area in 2018 and thus, these seven units were not subject to a reasonable progress control evaluation. In addition, six units at three facilities requested and received emissions limits to reduce the projected sulfate visibility impairment from each emissions unit to less than 0.5 percent. Finally, one of the emissions units is subject to BART review under the RHR. As discussed in EPA's Reasonable Progress Guidance, since the BART analysis is based, in part, on an assessment of many of the same factors that must be addressed in establishing the RPG, EPA believes it is reasonable to conclude that any control requirements imposed in the BART determination also satisfy the RPG-related requirements for source review in the first implementation period.17 Therefore, reasonable progress control reviews were conducted on the remaining 10 non-EGU emissions units at five facilities and five EGUs at three facilities.

The RHR requires that states consider the following factors and demonstrate how these factors were taken into consideration in selecting the RPGs: costs of compliance; time necessary for compliance; energy and non-air quality environmental impacts of compliance; and remaining useful life of any potentially-affected sources. As stated previously, GA EPD performed reasonable progress control analyses for 15 emissions units. The results of GA EPD's analyses are summarized below, followed by EPA's assessment.

Georgia Pacific's Brunswick Cellulose facility is located in Glynn County near the Georgia coast. Power Boiler No. 4 is an 800 million British thermal units per hour (MMBtu/hr) boiler that burns primarily No. 6 fuel oil and wood waste, including bark. The boiler is also permitted to burn tire-derived fuel (TDF) and wastewater treatment sludge. The sulfur content of the fuel oil is three percent or less.

Power Boiler 4 at the Brunswick Cellulose facility meets Georgia's minimum threshold for reasonable progress control evaluation. The unit contributes to the total sulfate visibility impairment at two Class I areas (i.e., approximately 12.6 percent at Wolf Island and 3.9 percent at Okefenokee). The State noted in its SIP that these contributions are the highest level of visibility impairment contribution to any Class I area caused by any single emissions unit that GA EPD analyzed. The 2018 projected SO2emissions developed by VISTAS are 1,642 tpy. However, the boiler had alreadyreduced emissions to approximately 1,099 tpy due to a 2002 modification achieving higher efficiency.

The reasonable progress control analysis reviewed wet flue gas desulfurization (FGD), in-duct sorbent injection, and a limitation on fuel oil usage coupled with lower sulfur content fuel oil (2.2 percent and 1.0 percent sulfur fuel oil). Of these control measures, the fuel oil changes could take place prior to 2012 and the wet FGD and in-duct sorbent injection could be installed before 2013. The remaining useful life of the unit extends past 2018 and past the control equipment amortization period. The wet FGD would have an impact on water usage and wastewater discharge, and in-duct sorbent injection would result in additional solid waste. The company did not identify any significant energy impacts for any of the options.

Of the control options considered, both in-duct sorbent injection and a switch to 1.0 percent sulfur fuel oil coupled with a five million gallon-per-year oil usage limit were considered reasonably cost effective. The costs are $3,562 per ton of SO2removed ($/ton SO2) and $20.7 million per inverse megameter (MM/Mm-1) at Wolf Island for in-duct sorbent injection, and $3,228/ton SO2and $18.8 MM/Mm-1 at Wolf Island for 1.0 percent sulfur fuel oil. These controls were considered cost effective due to the relatively high visibility impact on two Class I areas and the fact that neither of these Class I areas are projected to be clearly at or below the glidepath. Both in-duct sorbent injection and 1.0 percent sulfur fuel oil achieve approximately the same amount of SO2emissions reductions (769 tpy for sorbent injection and 731 tpy for 1.0 percent sulfur fuel oil) from the current emissions level of 1,099 tpy SO2. Implementation of the more cost effective of these two options would reduce SO2emissions to 368 tons of SO2per 12-consecutive months (i.e., 1,099 tpy − 731 tpy = 368 tpy SO2).

Supplemental information provided by the facility indicated that the two controls deemed to be reasonable would control emissions from oil combustion but would not affect SO2emissions from combustion of wood waste and TDF. The facility requested an allowance for an additional 200 tons of emissions based on calculations of historical emissions from wood waste and TDF. This request was also supported by the facility's assertion that the sulfur content of locally available TDF may be above what has been burned historically. GA EPD concurred with the facility's request and established an SO2emissions limit in the facility's title V permit for the power boiler of 568 tpy SO2(368 + 200 = 568 tpy) for reasonable progress with a compliance date of 2012. The revised permit is included in Appendix M of the Georgia regional haze submittal.

Recovery Boiler R407 (M24) contributes approximately 1.3 percent to the total sulfate visibility impairment at the Wolf Island Wilderness Area. The 2018 projected SO2emissions are 193 tpy. Georgia Pacific's reasonable progress control analysis found combustion control and wet FGD to be the only technically feasible control options. The company stated that emissions of SO2of 38 parts per million (ppm), as measured in a 2006 stack test, are too low of a load for effective operation of a FGD. Therefore, the company ruled out this control technology.

Combustion control, the other technically feasible control option, is already included in the boiler design. Because this emissions unit only contributes to visibility impairment at one Class I area and has a relatively low 2018 projected emissions level, the State determined that no additional controls are required for reasonable progress for the Recovery Boiler R407 at Georgia Pacific—Brunswick Cellulose.

Power Boilers 1 and 2 at the Georgia Pacific—Cedar Springs facility are two nearly identical power boilers. Each of these units contributes approximately 1.1 percent to the total sulfate visibility impairment at the Saint Marks Class I area in Florida. The 2018 projected SO2emissions are 1,976 tpy for each boiler.

The reasonable progress control analyses for these units reviewed six options: (1) Wet FGD, (2) addition of spray towers and caustic to the existing venturi scrubbers, (3) adding caustic to the existing venturi scrubbers (resulting in a 79 percent SO2reduction), (4) in-duct sorbent injection, (5) coal washing, and (6) coal switching. In addition to these control measures, Georgia Pacific submitted two variations of option 3 as part of their BART exemption modeling request that included the addition of lower amounts of caustic to their existing scrubbers (resulting in approximately a 68 percent and 37 percent SO2reduction for these two variations). All of the control options could be installed prior to 2012 except the wet FGD, which could be installed before 2013. All three of the scrubber options (i.e., wet FGD, adding spray towers and caustic to the existing scrubbers, and adding caustic to the existing venturi scrubbers) would generate approximately 15,000 tpy of solid waste. The company did not identify any significant energy impacts associated with the scrubber options. The remaining useful life of the unit extends past 2018 and past the control equipment amortization period.

Out of all the control options considered, adding caustic to the existing venturi scrubber and installing in-duct sorbent injection were considered reasonably cost effective. The costs were $1,675/ton SO2and $849.2 MM/Mm-1 at the Saint Marks Class I area for adding caustic to the scrubber, and $1,663/ton SO2and $843.2 MM/Mm-1 at the Saint Marks area for in-duct sorbent injection. These figures were considered cost effective even with a relatively low visibility impact on only one Class I area because the Saint Marks area is not clearly at or below the uniform rate of progress. Since the company submitted control options for three different levels of caustic use (resulting in 79 percent, 68 percent, and 37 percent SO2reduction), GA EPD analyzed the information to determine which level of caustic use was considered reasonable. In comparison, in-duct sorbent injection achieves approximately 70 percent SO2reduction, which is within the range of control efficiencies for caustic scrubbing. GA EPD concluded that a 70 percent SO2reduction was reasonable for this unit. As part of Georgia Pacific's BART exemption modeling, the company proposed SO2emissions limits to avoid being subject to BART of 135 pounds of SO2per hour (lb SO2/hr) for each power boiler, along with additional SO2limits on Recovery Boiler R402 (“Recovery Boiler 3”) as discussed below. The State agreed with this limit of 135 lb SO2/hr, which would result in maximum annual emissions of 591 tpy of SO2(a 70 percent reduction from current emissions), and determined that this limit satisfies reasonable progress. The actual annual reduction is expected to be even higher since the power boilers are not anticipated to emit SO2at the maximum allowable level for an entire year. A copy of the revised title V permit is included in Appendix M of the Georgia regional haze SIP submittal.

This unit contributes approximately 0.8 percent to the sulfate visibility impairment at the Saint Marks Class I area. The 2018 projected SO2emissions are 1,726 tpy. However, the State notesthat Georgia Pacific's 2006 and 2007 SO2emissions were significantly lower than this 2018 projected SO2emissions level at 462 and 741 tpy SO2, respectively. The facility accepted a limit of 350 ppm SO2on this unit when firing black liquor solids to avoid being subject to BART.

The reasonable progress control analyses reviewed three additional options: (1) Switching from No. 6 residual fuel oil (1.8 percent sulfur) to No. 2 distillate fuel oil (0.5 percent sulfur); (2) switching to lower sulfur No. 6 residual fuel oil (1.0 percent sulfur); and (3) the installation of a new concentrator and new multi-level air system. The company did not provide any indications that any of the control options could not be installed prior to 2012. No negative energy impacts or non-air quality environmental impacts were identified by the company. Remaining useful life of the unit extends past 2018 and past the control equipment amortization periods.

Of the control options considered, none were considered reasonable because their implementation would have a visibility impact of less than 0.01 inverse megameter (Mm-1) on a single Class I area. Therefore, no additional controls were required for reasonable progress for Recovery Boiler 3 at the Georgia Pacific—Cedar Springs facility.

Boilers B001, B002, and B003 at the Georgia Pacific—Savannah River Mill facility are three relatively similar boilers, with B002 and B003 being almost identical. The emissions units exceed Georgia's minimum threshold for reasonable progress evaluation at one Class I area (approximately 1.1 percent, 0.9 percent, and 0.8 percent of the total sulfate visibility impairment at the Wolf Island Wilderness Area for B001, B002, and B003, respectively). The 2018 projected SO2emissions for B001, B002, and B003 are 1,659 tpy, 1,195 tpy, and 1,190 tpy, respectively. All three of these boilers are relatively well controlled, re-circulating fluidized bed boilers with limestone injection in the combustion chamber. B001 currently achieves approximately 87 percent SO2removal and Boilers B002 and B003 achieve approximately 90 percent SO2removal.

The reasonable progress control analyses reviewed wet FGD, circulating fluidized bed scrubber, switching from petroleum coke to coal, increased limestone injection, and rotating opposed fire air. Of all the proposed changes, only increased limestone injection could occur prior to 2012. All other control measures could not be installed until after 2012, although estimated control dates were not provided. Wet FGD controls would result in increased water use and wastewater discharges. No significant energy impacts were identified by the company. Remaining useful life of the emissions units extended past 2018 and past the control equipment amortization periods. Increased limestone injection would result in increased solid waste generation. Georgia Pacific conducted trial operations with increased limestone injection rates and found that SO2removal could only be increased by an additional two percent (from 87 percent to 89 percent for B001 and from 90 percent to 92 percent for B002 and B003). Revised cost estimates were also derived from the trial operations.

Of the control options considered, none were considered reasonable given their low control efficiencies and a visibility impact of less than 0.01 Mm-1 on a single Class I area that would result from their implementation. Therefore, no additional controls were required for reasonable progress.

Emissions units SG 1, 2, and 3 at Georgia Power—Plant Kraft are three coal-fired steam generating units (i.e., boilers) rated at 50, 54, and 104 MW, respectively. Units 1 and 2 each contribute to the total sulfate visibility impairment at the Wolf Island Class I area by approximately 0.5 percent. Unit 3 was initially determined to contribute to the total sulfate visibility impairment at three Class I areas (approximately 3.3 percent at Wolf Island, 0.9 percent at Okefenokee, and 0.8 percent at Cape Romain). However, with projected reductions in SO2emissions by 2018, the visibility impacts on Okefenokee and Cape Romain Class I areas from Units 1, 2, and 3 are expected to drop below Georgia's minimum threshold for reasonable progress evaluation, and the visibility impact at Wolf Island should drop below two percent. The 2018 projected SO2emissions for Units 1, 2, and 3 were initially estimated by VISTAS at 691 tpy, 704 tpy, and 4,474 tpy, respectively. As part of the supporting documentation for the reasonable progress control analyses, Georgia Power provided projected heat input through 2018 for these units, which indicates that SO2emissions for Units 1, 2, and 3 will be 632 tpy, 889 tpy, and 2,455 tpy, respectively. While the heat inputs provided by Georgia Power for Units 1 and 2 are similar to the VISTAS 2018 projections, Georgia Power's projection for Unit 3 represents a 45 percent reduction in heat input and SO2emissions from the VISTAS projections. This was explained by Georgia Power as the result of additional capacity coming on-line elsewhere between 2010 and 2017. The reduction in heat input for Plant Kraft is expected to occur around 2015. GA EPD utilized these revised heat inputs in conducting the reasonable progress control analyses, and GA EPD plans to verify the heat input reduction during development of the next regional haze SIP (due in 2018).

The following control measures were analyzed for the four statutory factors for all three units: Wet FGD, coal switching (i.e., using a coal with a lower sulfur content), and coal washing (i.e., mechanically removing pyritic sulfur from powdered coal by a flotation process, which does not separate organic sulfur from the coal). Wet FGD could not be installed until 2016 because of required control device installations scheduled up until 2015 in Georgia Power's system. The company did not address the implementation time for the other control options, so GA EPD assumed the controls could be implemented by January 1, 2012. All three control options would require additional energy usage. Wet FGD and coal washing would result in increased water usage and wastewater discharges as well as additional solid waste generation. The remaining useful life of the units extends past 2018 and past the control equipment amortization periods.

The cost effectiveness of wet FGD and coal switching were $3,216 to $8,161/ton SO2and $56.9 MM to $144.5 MM/Mm-1 for wet FGD and $4,041 to $4,306/ton SO2and $71.5 MM/Mm-1 for coal switching. Coal washing cost effectiveness was $1,839 to $1,847/ton SO2and $32.5 to $32.7 MM/Mm-1; the control efficiency is six percent. Regarding non-air environmental impacts, the company indicated that coal washing could possibly reduce boiler efficiency, would use up to 7,500 gallons (at Unit 3) per day of water, would result in acidic wastewater requiring treatment, and would result in coal refuse in the amount of approximately five percent of the total coal consumption. Emissions reductions from these control options are projected to achieve very little visibility improvement at the Wolf Island Wilderness Area.

Based on the control efficiency of coal washing, the negative non-air environmental impacts, and the visibility impact of less than 0.01 Mm-1, the State determined that this control option is not reasonable. The State eliminated coal switching and FGD fromconsideration due to the cost effectiveness considerations. Based on the above considerations, no additional controls were required for any of the Georgia Power—Plant Kraft units.

Emissions unit SG 1 at Georgia Power—Plant McIntosh is a coal-fired steam generating unit rated at 178 MW. The 2018 projected SO2emissions were initially estimated by VISTAS at 7,015 tpy. As part of the supporting documentation for the reasonable progress control analyses, Georgia Power provided projected heat input through 2018 for this unit. Those projections indicate that SO2emissions will drop to 1,860 tpy by 2018. Georgia Power's projection represents a 73 percent reduction in heat input and SO2emissions. This was explained by Georgia Power as a result of additional capacity coming on line elsewhere between 2010 and 2017. The State initially determined that this unit impacts visibility at five Class I areas (4.1 percent at Wolf Island, 1.2 percent at Okefenokee, 0.6 percent at Saint Marks, 1.5 percent at Cape Romain, and 0.7 percent at Swanquarter). However, with the projected reduction in SO2emissions by 2018, the visibility impacts on all of these areas except Wolf Island are expected to drop below Georgia's 0.5 percent evaluation threshold, and the impact at Wolf Island is expected to drop to approximately one percent. The reduction in heat input for Plant McIntosh is to occur between around 2011 and 2016. GA EPD utilized this revised SO2emission rate in conducting the reasonable progress control analyses. GA EPD plans to verify the heat input reduction during development of the next regional haze SIP.

Georgia Power analyzed the following control measures: Wet FGD, coal switching, and coal washing. Wet FGD could not be installed until 2016 because required control device installations are scheduled up until 2015 in Georgia Power's system. The company did not address the time necessary for compliance for the other control options so GA EPD assumed the controls could be implemented by January 1, 2012. All three control options would require additional energy usage. Wet FGD and coal washing would result in increased water usage and wastewater discharges as well as additional solid waste generation. The remaining useful life of the units extends past 2018 and past the control equipment amortization periods. The cost effectiveness of all the control operations is $7,131/ton SO2and $118.5 MM/Mm-1 for wet FGD, $4,306/ton SO2and $71.5 MM/Mm-1 for coal switching, and $5,334/ton SO2and $91.9 MM/Mm-1 for coal washing. Based on these factors, GA EPD required no additional controls for SG 1 at Georgia Power's Plant McIntosh.

SG 3 at Georgia Power's Plant Mitchell is a coal-fired steam-generating unit rated at 163 MW and is the only remaining operational boiler at Plant Mitchell. The 2018 projected SO2emissions were initially estimated by VISTAS at 4,930 tpy. As part of the supporting documentation for the reasonable progress control analyses, Georgia Power provided projected heat input through 2018 for this unit. Those projections indicate that SO2emissions will drop to 1,189 tpy by 2018. The State initially determined this unit to impact the total sulfate visibility impairment at two Class I areas at approximately 0.8 percent at the Okefenokee Wilderness Area and approximately 2.7 percent at the Saint Marks Class I area in Florida. However, with the projected reduction in SO2emissions by 2018, the visibility impact at Okefenokee is expected to drop below Georgia's 0.5 percent reasonable progress evaluation threshold and the impact on Saint Marks is predicted to drop to below one percent. Georgia Power's projection represents a 76 percent reduction in heat input and SO2emissions. This was explained by Georgia Power as a result of additional capacity coming online elsewhere else starting in 2010. The reduction in heat input for Plant Mitchell is to occur between around 2008 and 2010. GA EPD utilized this revised SO2emissions rate in conducting the reasonable progress control analyses. GA EPD plans to verify the heat input reduction during the regional haze periodic progress review described in section IV.G of this action.

Georgia Power analyzed wet FGD and coal switching as possible control measures at SG 3. Wet FGD could not be installed until 2016 because required control device installations are scheduled up until 2015 in Georgia Power's system. The company did not address the time necessary for compliance for coal switching so GA EPD assumed this control could be implemented by January 1, 2012. Both control options would require additional energy usage. Georgia Power did not indicate any additional water use, wastewater discharge, or solid waste generation issues for any of the control options. The remaining useful life of the units extends past 2018 and past the control equipment amortization periods. The cost effectiveness for wet FGD was $9,119/ton SO2and $148.5 MM/Mm-1, and the cost effectiveness for coal switching was $2,347/ton SO2and $38.2 MM/Mm-1; the control efficiency was at 43 percent. Based on these factors, including the projected significant utilization drop within the next few years, Georgia required no additional controls for SG 3 at Georgia Power—Plant Mitchell.

International Paper's Savannah Mill Power Boiler 13 is a 1,280 MMBtu/hr coal, oil, and wood waste-fired boiler. The unit also combusts both low-volume high-concentration (LVHC) and high-volume low-concentration (HVLC) non-condensable gases from the pulping process as well as stripper off-gas (SOG) from the stripper used to control hazardous air pollutant (HAP) emissions from wastewater streams. The 2018 projected SO2emissions are 8,578 tpy with approximately 1,944 tpy of this amount coming from the combustion of LVHC, HVLC, and SOG. The State identified this unit as significantly contributing to sulfate visibility impairment at five Class I areas (approximately 6.4 percent at Wolf Island, 1.7 percent at Okefenokee, 0.7 percent at the Saint Marks area in Florida, 1.6 percent at the Cape Romain area in South Carolina, and 0.9 percent at the Swanquarter area in North Carolina). The State noted in its SIP that this is the highest number of Class I areas significantly impacted by any single emissions unit of all those reviewed by Georgia.

The reasonable progress control analysis reviewed the following control options: (1) Wet FGD (packed tower), (2) FGD (wet limestone spray tower), (3) semi-dry lime spray tower, (4) fuel switching to natural gas, (5) dry sorbent injection, and (6) a stand-alone regenerative thermal oxidizer (RTO) with SO2scrubbing for the control of LVHC, HVLC, and SOG. The RTO control option was presented as three different options for LVHC, HVLC, and SOG combustion. International Paper also suggested an SO2reduction of 2,000 tpy (a reduction in the SO2emissions limit from 8,758 tpy to 6,758 tpy) as a control option that would provide maximum flexibility for compliance. Except for the 2,000 tpy SO2reduction alternative, all of these control options could be implemented by 2012. International Paper requested a 2016 compliance date for the 2,000 tpy SO2reduction alternative in order for the company to take into consideration any reductions that will occur as a result ofthe Industrial Boiler MACT and the uncertainty surrounding the final requirements of that standard.

The remaining useful life of the unit extends past 2018 and past the control equipment amortization period. The wet FGD and all three RTO sub-options increased water usage and wastewater discharge. GA EPD evaluated the potential water usage and wastewater discharges associated with these controls. One additional consideration was to ensure that there would be no additional dissolved oxygen load on the Savannah River due to a problem with the dissolved oxygen load in the Savannah River. Because of strict limitations on any additional dissolved oxygen load to the river, any projects that could possibly increase dissolved oxygen load were not considered reasonable at this time. Based on the type of chemicals that would be associated with effluent from a wet FGD (packed tower option) and the semi-dry lime spray tower, GA EPD eliminated these options from further consideration because they could potentially increase dissolved oxygen load. FGD (wet limestone spray tower), semi-dry lime spray tower, and dry sorbent injection also resulted in additional solid waste generation. There were energy impacts associated with all but the fuel switching option. These energy costs were factored into the overall control cost effectiveness.

Regarding the company's cost effectiveness estimates, GA EPD's review indicated that the cost estimates for a packed tower wet FGD and wet FGD limestone spray tower were higher than expected based on the following factors: The costs per actual cubic feet per minute are about four times higher than other units of comparable size, the company's estimate is three to eight times higher than results from EPA cost estimation software, and International Paper used a conservative retrofit factor with a cost estimation model not recommended by EPA. In a letter to International Paper dated December 27, 2007, GA EPD requested site-specific cost analyses for these control options. In that letter, GA EPD stated that if site-specific estimates were not provided, control option recommendations would be made with the understanding that the cost estimates may be overstated. In response, International Paper chose not to provide site-specific cost estimates as requested. GA EPD completed its evaluations and determined that the cost effectiveness of the FGD—wet limestone spray tower ($4,391/ton SO2) was not cost effective in this case. Wet FGD—packed tower was not considered reasonable because of the possible impact on dissolved oxygen load to the Savannah River. Fuel switching to natural gas ($9,506/ton SO2), and dry sorbent injection ($5,223/ton SO2) were determined not to be reasonable because of cost effectiveness.

Another cost effective control option that GA EPD evaluated is an emissions limit of 6,758 tpy SO2proposed by the company. The 6,758 tpy SO2limit was determined by reducing the projected 2018 SO2emissions level of 8,758 tpy SO2by 2,000 tons. GA EPD reviewed recent SO2emissions data and determined that the projected 8,758 tpy SO2level is reasonable. No specific emissions reduction methodologies were associated with this control option. However, certain control methodologies are under consideration. A compliance date of 2016 was proposed in order to take into consideration any controls that will be required under EPA's Industrial Boiler MACT currently under development (discussed in section IV.C.1). A 2016 compliance date should provide sufficient time for the MACT to be proposed and promulgated, provide the three years required for compliance with the standard, and provide time to determine an appropriate method for complying with the 6,758 tpy SO2emissions limit for Power Boiler 13 following compliance with this MACT standard.

Of the control options considered, GA EPD determined that the 2,000 tpy SO2reduction alternative, which results in an emissions limit of 6,758 tpy SO2, was reasonably cost effective. This limit will include SO2emissions resulting from the combustion of LVHC, HVLC, and SOG, whether they are combusted in Power Boiler 13 or some other combustion device. In order to provide flexibility for the facility, an emissions limit of 6,578 tons SO2/12-consecutive months is required for Power Boiler 13 as a requirement for reasonable progress with a compliance date of 2016. A copy of the revised title V permit was included in Appendix M of the Georgia regional haze submittal.

Temple-Inland Rome Linerboard's Power Boiler 4 is a 565 MMBtu/hr coal- and oil-fired boiler. The State identified this unit as significantly contributing to the total sulfate visibility impairment at two Class I areas (4.4 percent at Cohutta and 1.0 percent at Joyce Kilmer/Slickrock Wilderness Area in North Carolina/Tennessee).

The company's reasonable progress control analysis reviewed: (a) Two wet FGD configurations (magnesium enhanced lime) and limestone forced oxidation; (b) dry FGD (lime absorbent); (c) fuel switching; and (d) dry sorbent injection. All of these control options could be implemented by 2012. The remaining useful life of the power boiler extends past 2018 and past the control equipment amortization period.

The wet FGD options had an impact on water usage. GA EPD notes that the mill had sufficient capacity within their currently permitted water withdrawal permit to adequately handle the increased water use associated with wet FGD. All of the control options resulted in additional solid waste generation, and there were energy impacts associated with all of the control options. These energy costs were factored into the overall control cost effectiveness.

The State determined that none of the control options considered for Power Boiler 4 are reasonable at this time. A key factor in determining what was considered “reasonable” for reasonable progress requirements for this source is that the affected Class I areas impacted by this unit are predicted to meet the uniform rate of progress in 2018 with controls that are already required. This determination may be revisited at the periodic SIP progress review or when determining future RPGs for subsequent implementation periods.

As noted in EPA's Reasonable Progress Guidance, the states have wide latitude to determine appropriate additional control requirements for ensuring reasonable progress, and there are many ways for a state to approach identification of additional reasonable measures. States must consider the four statutory factors, at a minimum, in determining reasonable progress, but states have flexibility in how to take these factors into consideration.

GA EPD applied the methodology developed by VISTAS for identifying appropriate sources to be considered for additional controls under reasonable progress for the implementation period addressed by this SIP, which ends in 2018. Using this methodology, GA EPD first identified those emissions and emissions units most likely to have an impact on visibility in the State's and neighboring Class I areas. Units with emissions of SO2with a relative contribution to total sulfate visibility impairment of at least 0.5 percent contribution at any Class I area were then subject to a reasonable progress control analysis, except for utilities subject to Georgia's state rule 391-3-1-.02(13), “Clean Air Interstate Rule SO2Annual Trading Program,” that onlyimpacted visibility at Class I areas projected to be below the uniform rate of progress line.

Having reviewed GA EPD's methodology and analyses presented in the SIP materials prepared by GA EPD, EPA is proposing to approve Georgia's reasonable progress determinations. EPA preliminarily agrees with the State's approach of identifying the key pollutants contributing to visibility impairment at its Class I areas, and proposes to consider the State's methodology to identify sources of SO2most likely to have an impact on visibility on any Class I area to be an appropriate methodology for narrowing the scope of the State's analysis. In general, EPA also proposes to find Georgia's evaluation of the four statutory factors for reasonable progress to be reasonable and believes that the Georgia regional haze SIP ensures reasonable progress. EPA also proposes that, given the emissions reductions resulting from CAIR, Georgia's BART determinations, the measures in nearby states, and the visibility improvements projected for the affected Class I areas, these emissions reductions are in excess of that needed to be on the glidepath for the Cohutta Wilderness Area, and are close to the glidepaths for the Wolf Island and Okefenokee Wilderness Areas.

In addition, EPA proposes to find that Georgia fully evaluated all control technologies available at the time of its analysis and applicable to these facilities. EPA also proposes to find that Georgia consistently applied its criteria for reasonable compliance costs, and where it diverged, the State included justification for the other factors influencing the control determination.

In concert with VISTAS, GA EPD applied its reasonable progress methodology and identified 20 Georgia Power Company emissions units at seven facilities that contributed greater than 0.5 percent of the total sulfate visibility impairment at a Class I area: (1) Plant Bowen SG 01, SG 02, SG 03, SG 04; (2) Plant Hammond SG 04; (3) Plant Mitchell SG 03; (4) Plant Scherer SG 01, SG 02, SG 03, SG 04; (5) Plant Yates SG 02, SG 03, SG 04, SG 05, SG 06, SG 07; (6) Plant Kraft SG 01, SG 02, SG 03; and (7) Plant McIntosh SG 01. Georgia, as part of its long-term reasonable progress analysis to consider potential sources contributing to visibility impairment, examined other CAA requirements such as CAIR and Georgia state rule 391-3-1-.02(13). Under Georgia's rule, SO2emissions from Georgia EGUs will be capped at 149,140 tons in 2015, a 70 percent reduction from 2002 actual emissions. In addition, a 70 percent reduction of SO2emissions is expected during this time period across all CAIR-affected EGUs in 28 eastern states due to CAIR. Since EGUs will be reducing their SO2emissions by approximately 70 percent through these programs and based on detailed analyses in EPA's May 2, 2005, CAIR, GA EPD concluded that additional EGU control during this time period is not reasonable for sources that significantly contribute to visibility impairment at Class I areas that are clearly projected to meet or exceed the uniform rate of progress in 2018. However, for sources that significantly contribute to visibility impairment at Class I areas not clearly meeting the uniform rate of progress (Okefenokee and Wolf Island), GA EPD considered additional controls at CAIR-affected units. The Cohutta Class I area is expected, based on modeling, to clearly meet/exceed the glidepath in 2018. GA EPD has therefore concluded that CAIR constitutes reasonable measures for Georgia EGUs that significantly impact visibility in Cohutta during this first assessment period (between baseline and 2018). Thus, GA EPD concluded that no additional controls beyond CAIR are reasonable for the remaining four identified Georgia Power facilities (Plants Bowen, Hammond, Scherer, and Yates) for SO2for the first implementation period ending in 2018. Because the Okefenokee, Wolf Island, and Saint Marks Class I areas are not expected to clearly meet or exceed the glidepath in 2018, controls required under CAIR have not been deemed to constitute reasonable measures for Georgia EGUs that significantly impact visibility in these Class I areas (Georgia Power's Plants Mitchell, Kraft and MacIntosh).

One of the emissions units considered for reasonable progress control, Interstate Paper's Power Boiler F1, is subject to BART and subsequently was evaluated for BART controls. GA EPD concluded that BART for the power boiler at Interstate Paper is a requirement to burn natural gas only, other than during curtailment periods (i.e., during reduction or discontinuance of supply in natural gas). GA EPD believes that, for this implementation period, the application of BART constitutes reasonable progress for this unit, and thus, is not requiring any additional controls for reasonable progress. As discussed in EPA's Reasonable Progress Guidance, since the BART analysis is based, in part, on an assessment of many of the same factors that must be addressed in establishing the RPG, EPA believes it is reasonable to conclude that any control requirements imposed in the BART determination also satisfy the RPG-related requirements for source review in the first implementation period.18 Thus, EPA proposes to agree with the State's conclusions that the BART control evaluations satisfy reasonable progress for the first implementation period for Interstate Paper—Power Boiler F1.

GA EPD requested reasonable progress control analyses from all facilities identified as potentially contributing at least 0.5 percent of the total sulfate visibility impairment at a Class I area. In response to this request, additional information regarding projected 2018 actual emissions was received from a number of sources. As a result of this revised information, seven units at four facilities (Miller Brewing, Boilers B001, B002; Mount Vernon Mills, Boilers E U 03, E U 04; Savannah Sugar Refinery, Boiler U161; and Mohawk Industries, Boilers BL06, BL07) were removed from consideration for additional controls based on an analysis that the emissions units would not contribute 0.5 percent or greater of the total sulfate visibility impairment at any Class I area in 2018.

Due to resource limitations and/or uncertainty regarding future operations, the following three facilities with six emissions units requested emissions limits on their affected units in lieu of performing reasonable progress control analyses: (1) Rayonier Performance Fibers, Power Boilers 2 and 3, Recovery Furnaces 1 and 4; (2) Southern States Phosphate and Fertilizer, Sulfuric Acid Plant 2; and (3) Packaging Corporation of America, C E Boiler. The required emissions limits reduced the sulfate contributions of these units below 0.5 percent of the total sulfate visibility impact on any affected Class I areas.

BART is an element of Georgia's LTS for the first implementation period. The BART evaluation process consists of three components: (a) An identification of all the BART-eligible sources, (b) an assessment of whether the BART-eligible sources are subject to BART and (c) a determination of the BART controls. These components, as addressed by GA EPD, and the State's findings, are discussed as follows.

The first phase of a BART evaluation is to identify all the BART-eligible sources within the state's boundaries. GA EPD identified the BART-eligible sources in Georgia by utilizing the three eligibility criteria in the BART Guidelines (70 FR 39158) and EPA's regulations (40 CFR 51.301): (1) One or more emissions units at the facility fit within one of the 26 categories listed in the BART Guidelines; (2) the emissions units were not in operation prior to August 7, 1962, and were in existence on August 7, 1977; and (3) these units have the potential to emit 250 tons or more per year of any visibility-impairing pollutant.

The BART Guidelines also direct states to address SO2, NOX, and direct PM (including both PM10and PM2.5) emissions as visibility-impairment pollutants and to exercise judgment in determining whether VOC or ammonia emissions from a source impair visibility in a Class I area.See70 FR 39160. VISTAS modeling demonstrated that VOC from anthropogenic sources and ammonia from point sources, except for potentially one ammonia source, are not significant visibility-impairing pollutants in Georgia, as discussed in section IV.C.3 of this action. Based on the VISTAS modeling, GA EPD determined that ammonia emissions from the State's point sources are not anticipated to cause or contribute significantly to any impairment of visibility in Class I areas and should be exempt for BART purposes. The only ammonia source in Georgia that was identified by VISTAS as a possible contributor to visibility impairment, PCS Nitrogen, adequately addressed its contribution in its BART exemption modeling analysis.

The second phase of the BART evaluation is to identify those BART-eligible sources that may reasonably be anticipated to cause or contribute to visibility impairment at any Class I area, i.e., those sources that are subject to BART. The BART Guidelines allow states to consider exempting some BART-eligible sources from further BART review because they may not reasonably be anticipated to cause or contribute to any visibility impairment in a Class I area. Consistent with the BART Guidelines, Georgia required each of its BART-eligible sources to develop and submit dispersion modeling to assess the extent of their contribution to visibility impairment at Class I areas in surrounding states.

The BART Guidelines allow states to use the CALPUFF19 modeling system (CALPUFF) or another appropriate model to predict the visibility impacts from a single source on a Class I area, and therefore, to determine whether an individual source is anticipated to cause or contribute to impairment of visibility in Class I areas, i.e., “is subject to BART.” The Guidelines state that EPA believes that CALPUFF is the best regulatory modeling application currently available for predicting a single source's contribution to visibility impairment (70 FR 39162). Georgia, in coordination with VISTAS, used the CALPUFF modeling system to determine whether individual sources in the State are subject to BART.

The BART Guidelines also recommend that states develop a modeling protocol for making individual source attributions and suggest that states may want to consult with EPA and their RPO to address any issues prior to modeling. The VISTAS states, including Georgia, developed a “Protocol for the Application of CALPUFF for BART Analyses.” Stakeholders, including EPA, FLMs, industrial sources, trade groups, and other interested parties, actively participated in the development and review of the VISTAS protocol.

VISTAS developed a post-processing approach to use the new IMPROVE equation with the CALPUFF model results so that the BART analyses could consider the old and new IMPROVE equations. GA EPD sent a letter and supplemental email to EPA justifying the need for this post-processing approach, and the EPA Region 4 Regional Administrator sent the State a letter of approval dated September 11, 2008. Georgia's justification included a method to process the CALPUFF output and a rationale on the benefits of using the new IMPROVE equation. The State's description of the new post-processing methodology and the State and Region 4 letters are located in Appendices H.9a, H.9b, and H.9c, respectively, of the Georgia regional haze SIP submittal and can be accessed atwww.regulations.govusing Docket ID No. EPA-R04-OAR-2010-0936.

For states using modeling to determine the applicability of BART to single sources, the BART Guidelines note that the first step is to set a contribution threshold to assess whether the impact of a single source is sufficient to cause or contribute to visibility impairment at a Class I area. The BART Guidelines state that “[a] single source that is responsible for a 1.0 deciview change or more should be considered to `cause' visibility impairment.” The BART Guidelines also state that “the appropriate threshold for determining whether a source `contributes to visibility impairment' may reasonably differ across states,” but, “[a]s a general matter, any threshold that you use for determining whether a source `contributes' to visibility impairment should not be higher than 0.5 deciviews.” The Guidelines affirm that states are free to use a lower threshold if they conclude that the location of a large number of BART-eligible sources in proximity of a Class I area justifies this approach.

Georgia used a contribution threshold of 0.5 deciview for determining which sources are subject to BART and concluded that the threshold of 0.5 deciview was appropriate in this situation. Georgia determined that, considering the results of the visibility impacts modeling conducted, a 0.5 deciview threshold was appropriate and a lower threshold was not warranted for the following reasons. There are a limited number of BART-eligible sources in close proximity to each of the State's Class I areas, and the overall impact of the BART-eligible sources on visibility in nearby Class I areas is relatively minimal. In addition, the results of the visibility impacts modeling demonstrated that the majority of the individual BART-eligible sources had visibility impacts well below 0.5 deciview. As stated in the BART Guidelines, where a state concludes that a large number of these BART-eligible sources within proximity of a Class I area justify a lower threshold, it may warrant establishing a lower contribution threshold.See70 FR 39161-39162 (July 6, 2005). EPA proposes to concur with Georgia that the overall impacts of these sources are not sufficient to warrant a lowercontribution threshold and that a 0.5 deciview threshold was appropriate in this instance.

Georgia identified 24 facilities with BART-eligible sources. All of Georgia's 24 BART-eligible sources were required by the State to submit exemption-modeling demonstrations. Georgia found that two of its BART-eligible sources (Interstate Paper and Georgia Power—Plant Bowen) had modeled visibility impacts of more than the 0.5 deciview threshold for BART exemption. Therefore, these two facilities are subject to BART and submitted State permit applications including their proposed BART determinations.

Of the 22 exempted BART-eligible sources, two (Lafarge Building Materials and International Paper—Savannah) were exempted because they met EPA's model plant exemption criteria in the BART Guidelines (70 FR 39162-39163), and one, Georgia Pacific—Cedar Springs, was able to demonstrate exemption from BART by accepting SO2emissions limits on Power Boilers 1 and 2 (135 lb SO2/hr each) and on Recovery Boiler 3 (350 ppm). These limits result in a 0.499 deciview impact at the Saint Marks Class I area and a 0.306 deciview impact at the Okefenokee Class I area. The remaining 19 sources demonstrated that they are not subject to BART by modeling less than a 0.5 deciview visibility impact at the affected Class I areas. For the non-EGU BART-eligible sources, this modeling involved emissions of NOX, SO2, and PM10as applicable to individual facilities.

Ten of Georgia's BART-eligible sources are facilities with EGUs. These units are subject to CAIR. Because Georgia relied on CAIR to satisfy BART for SO2and NOXfor its EGUs in CAIR, in accordance with 40 CFR 51.308(e)(4), Georgia's EGUs were allowed to submit BART exemption modeling demonstrations for PM emissions only. All EGUs other than Georgia Power—Plant Bowen demonstrated that their PM10emissions do not contribute to visibility impairment in any Class I area. Table 5 identifies the 24 BART-eligible sources located in Georgia.

Priorto the CAIR remand, the State's reliance on CAIR to satisfy BART for NOXand SO2for affected CAIR EGUs was fully approvable and in accordance with 40 CFR 51.308(e)(4). However, the BART assessments for CAIR EGUs for NOXand SO2and other provisions in this SIP revision are based on CAIR. In a separate action, EPA has proposed a limited disapproval of the Georgia regional haze SIP because of deficiencies in the State's regional haze SIP submittal arising from the remand by the D.C. Circuit to EPA of CAIR.See76 FR 82219. Consequently, EPA is not taking action in this proposed rulemaking to address the State's reliance on CAIR to meet certain regional haze requirements.

Two BART-eligible sources (Interstate Paper and Georgia Power—Plant Bowen) had modeled visibility impacts of more than 0.5 deciview and are therefore subject to BART. Consequently, they each submitted to the State permit applications that included their proposed BART determinations.

In accordance with the BART Guidelines, to determine the level of control that represents BART for each source, the State first reviewed existing controls on these units to assess whether these constituted the best controls currently available, then identified what other technically feasible controls are available, and finally, evaluated the technically feasible controls using the five BART statutory factors. The State's evaluations and conclusions, and EPA's assessment, are summarized below.

Georgia Power—Plant Bowen has four BART-eligible emissions units that comprise the BART-eligible source. These units are coal fired EGUs, numbers 1, 2, 3, and 4. Each of the EGU's PM emissions are already controlled by electrostatic precipitators (ESPs) and wet FGD. The SO2scrubbers were installed on Plant Bowen between 2008 and 2010. Modeling results estimate that visibility impacts from Plant Bowen will exceed 0.5 deciview for at least one Class I area even with the PM emissions reductions that occur from scrubbing. Georgia Power identified the following four potential additional control technologies: (a) High voltage power conditioners (juice cans); (b) particle agglomerators; (c) the combination of juice cans and particle agglomerators; and (d) a wet ESP. The company evaluated the cost effectiveness, visibility impacts, and energy and non-air environmental impacts of these control options.

GA EPD determined that no additional control was reasonable for BART for this facility. Wet ESPs are the only control option that resulted in a modeled visibility improvement greater than 0.01 deciviews. Wet ESPs were predicted to improve visibility by approximately 0.14 to 0.16 deciviews for each unit at a cost effectiveness of $37,107 to $47,909/ton SO2. In addition, the wet ESP would consume additional electricity and have non-air environmental impacts. The combination juice can/particle agglomerator option modeled a visibility benefit of 0.01 deciview for each unit at a cost effectiveness of $12,222 to $21,914/ton SO2.

Interstate Paper, located in Riceboro, Georgia, is a paper facility owned and operated by Interstate Resources Incorporated. Interstate Paper is located within 100 kilometers of the Wolf Island and Okefenokee Wilderness Class I areas. Three of Interstate Paper's unitsare BART-eligible: Power Boiler (F1), Recovery Boiler (F3), and Lime Kiln (F4).

There are no known energy and non-air quality environmental impacts related to BART determined controls for Interstate paper, LLC. The remaining useful life of the source is at least 10 years.

Power Boiler (F1) at Interstate Paper was installed in 1968 and has a maximum heat input of 400 MMBtu/hr. It fires natural gas and No. 6 fuel oil. The power boiler, along with the lime kiln, is used as a backup control device for LVHC non-condensable gases (NCGs) generated in the pulp mill. Air pollutants emitted from the power boiler include all three BART relevant pollutants at the following rates: 300.49 tpy SO2, 409.24 tpy NOX, and 19 tpy PM.

GA EPD evaluated additional controls for NOX, SO2, and particulates. For NOX, selective catalytic reduction (SCR), low NOXburners, and low NOXburner with flue gas recirculation were identified as economically feasible controls. However, they were not considered further for BART because of a visibility improvement of less than 0.01 Mm-1 from NOXcontrols on this unit. An ESP and a fabric filter were identified as technically feasible controls for PM emissions reduction, but capital and operating costs caused them to be economically infeasible for BART. The resulting costs per ton of PM reduction ranged from $19,364 to $79,470/ton.

For SO2, fuel switching to natural gas and a wet scrubber were found technically feasible. The cost per ton of SO2emissions reductions of each alternative is well within the range that GA EPD considers economically feasible. Hence, both control options were further considered for BART analysis. Conversion to natural gas has higher control efficiency at lower cost than a wet scrubber. A fuel switch to natural gas has a PM and SO2removal efficiency of more than 99 percent. The cost that the facility will incur for such a fuel switch is also relatively less than the addition of control equipment and, along with reduction in PM and SO2emissions, NOXemission reductions will also be achieved. Therefore, GA EPD concluded that BART for the power boiler at Interstate Paper is a requirement to burn natural gas only, other than during curtailment periods (i.e., during reduction or discontinuance of supply in natural gas).

Recovery Boiler (F3) has a low odor, indirect contact evaporator design. The boiler fulfills the essential functions of evaporating the residual moisture from the black liquor solids, burning the organic constituents, producing steam, and producing sodium carbonate and sodium sulfides. Black liquor with more than 68 percent solids is fired into the recovery boiler where the organics from the black liquor are burned off in a reducing atmosphere, generating steam, molten sodium carbonate, and sodium sulfides. Air pollutants emitted from the recovery boiler include all three BART relevant pollutants at the following rates: 2.46 tpy SO2, 349.92 tpy NOX, and 0.5 tpy PM. Emissions of the recovery boiler currently pass through a venturi scrubber.

GA EPD evaluated additional controls for particulates, NOX, and SO2. No control technology was identified as being technically and economically feasible; therefore, GA EPD concluded that BART for this unit is no additional controls.

The lime kiln dries and processes lime mud from the causticizing system by burning fuel oil with a sulfur content no greater than 2.5 percent. The lime kiln is permitted to burn natural gas, No. 6 fuel oil, or limited quantities of used oil. It is equipped with a venturi scrubber to control PM emissions. The lime kiln also serves as a back-up combustion device for LVHC NGCs generated in the pulp mill. Air pollutants emitted from the lime kiln include all three BART relevant pollutants at the following rates: 9.50 tpy SO2, 149.16 tpy NOX, and 127.56 tpy PM. Emissions of the lime kiln currently pass through a venturi scrubber.

GA EPD evaluated additional controls for particulates, NOX, and SO2. No control technologies were identified as being technically and economically feasible for particulates or SO2. For NOX, the low-NOXburner control option and two selective non-catalytic reduction (SNCR) control options were considered to be economically feasible. However, they were not considered further as retrofit controls because of the visibility improvement of less than 0.01 Mm-1 from NOXcontrols on this unit. GA EPD concluded that BART for particulates, NOX, and SO2for this unit is no additional controls.

EPA proposes to approve Georgia's analyses and conclusions for BART for the Interstate Paper and Georgia Power—Plant Bowen facilities because the analyses were conducted in a manner that is consistent with EPA's BART Guidelines and EPA'sAir Pollution Control Cost Manual.In addition, EPA believes that the conclusions reflect a reasonable application of EPA's guidance to these sources.

The required operational restrictions limiting the power boiler at the Interstate Paper facility to natural gas except during curtailment periods to meet BART were added as permit conditions to the facility's title V operating permit. Georgia EPD included a copy of the permit in the SIP (see Appendix M as revised in GA EPD's technical supplement dated November 19, 2010).

GA EPD also issued an operating permit with BART exemption limits for Georgia Pacific—Cedar Springs. Power Boilers 1 and No. 2 have limits of 135 lbs SO2/hr each. Recovery Boiler No. 3 has an emissions limit of 350 ppm SO2on a dry basis corrected to eight percent oxygen as a 24-hour average when firing black liquor solids. These limits were added to the facility's title V operating permit. A copy of the revised title V permit was included in Appendix M of the Georgia regional haze submittal.

Recordkeeping, monitoring, and testing requirements were included to demonstrate compliance with the BART limits. These requirements are consistent with GA EPD'sProcedures for Testing and Monitoring Sources of Air Pollutants,and must meet the requirements of Compliance Assurance Monitoring (40 CFR Part 64) or Periodic Monitoring (40 CFR 70.6(3)(i)(B)), as appropriate.

The RHR at 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1) requires states to establish RPGs for each Class I area within the state (expressed in deciviews) that provide for reasonable progress towards achieving natural visibility. VISTAS modeled visibility improvements under existing Federal and state regulations for the period 2004-2018 and additional control measures which the VISTAS states planned to implement in the first implementation period. At the time of VISTAS modeling, some of the other states with sources potentially impacting visibility at the Georgia Class I areas had not yet made final control determinations for BART and/or reasonable progress, and thus, these controls were not included in the modeling submitted by Georgia. Anycontrols resulting from those determinations will provide additional emissions reductions and resulting visibility improvement, which give further assurances that Georgia will achieve its RPGs. This modeling demonstrates that the 2018 base control scenario provides for an improvement in visibility better than the uniform rate of progress for the Cohutta Class I area for the most impaired days over the period of the implementation plan and, for all three of Georgia's areas, ensures no degradation in visibility for the least impaired days over the same period. For the Okefenokee and Wolf Island Wilderness Areas, the modeling predicts an improvement in visibility that is slightly slower than the uniform rate of progress by approximately 0.40 deciview for the most impaired days over the period of the implementation plan.

As shown in Table 6 below, Georgia's RPG for the 20 percent worst days (22.80 deciviews in 2018) at the Cohutta Wilderness Area provides greater visibility improvement from the baseline of 30.25 deciviews by 2018 than the uniform rate of progress (25.71 deciviews in 2018). For Okefenokee and Wolf Island, the RPGs for the 20 percent worst days (23.82 deciviews in 2018) provide slightly less visibility improvement from the baseline of 27.13 deciviews by 2018 than the uniform rate of progress (23.42 deciviews in 2018). Also, the RPGs for the 20 percent best days for all three Class I areas in the State provide greater visibility improvement by 2018 than current best day conditions. The regional haze provisions specify that a state may not adopt a RPG that represents less visibility improvement than is expected to result from other CAA requirements during the implementation period. 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1)(vi). Therefore, the CAIR states with Class I areas, like Georgia, took into account emissions reductions anticipated from CAIR in determining their 2018 RPGs.21 The modeling supporting the analysis of these RPGs is consistent with EPA guidance at the time.

The RPGs for the Class I areas in Georgia are based on modeled projections of future conditions that were developed using the best available information at the time the analysis was done. These projections can be expected to change as additional information regarding future conditions becomes available. For example, new sources may be built, existing sources may shut down or modify production in response to changed economic circumstances, and facilities may change their emissions characteristics as they install control equipment to comply with new rules. It would be both impractical and resource-intensive to require a state to continually revise its RPGs every time an event affecting these future projections changed.

EPA recognized the problems of a rigid requirement to meet a long-term goal based on modeled projections of future visibility conditions and addressed the uncertainties associated with RPGs in several ways. EPA made clear in the RHR that the RPG is not a mandatory standard which must be achieved by a particular date.See64 FR at 35733. At the same time, EPA established a requirement for a midcourse review and, if necessary, correction of the states' regional haze plans.See40 CFR 52.308(g). In particular, the RHR calls for a five-year progress review after submittal of the initial regional haze plan. The purpose of this progress review is to assess the effectiveness of emissions management strategies in meeting the RPG and to provide an assessment of whether current implementation strategies are sufficient for the state or affected states to meet their RPGs. If a state concludes, based on its assessment, that the RPGs for a Class I area will not be met, the RHR requires the state to take appropriate action.See40 CFR 52.308(h). The nature of the appropriate action will depend on the basis for the state's conclusion that the current strategies are insufficient to meet the RPGs. Georgia specifically committed to follow this process in the LTS portion of its submittal.

EPA's visibility regulations direct states to coordinate their RAVI LTS and monitoring provisions with those for regional haze, as explained in sections III.F and III.G of this action. Under EPA's RAVI regulations, the RAVI portion of a state SIP must address any integral vistas identified by the FLMs pursuant to 40 CFR 51.304. Anintegral vistais defined in 40 CFR 51.301 as a “view perceived from within the mandatory Class I Federal area of a specific landmark or panorama located outside the boundary of the mandatory Class I Federal area.” Visibility in any mandatory Class I area includes any integral vista associated with that area. The FLMs did not identify any integral vistas in Georgia. In addition, the Class I areas in Georgia are neither experiencing RAVI nor are any of its sources affected by the RAVI provisions. Thus, the Georgia regional haze SIP submittal does not explicitly address the two requirements regarding coordination of the regional haze with the RAVI LTS and monitoring provisions. However, Georgia previously made a commitment to address RAVI should the FLMs certify visibility impairment from anindividual source.22 EPA finds that this regional haze submittal appropriately supplements and augments Georgia's RAVI visibility provisions to address regional haze by updating the monitoring and LTS provisions as summarized below in this section.

In its January 25, 2010, submittal, GA EPD updated its visibility monitoring program and developed a LTS to address regional haze. Also in this submittal, GA EPD affirmed its commitment to complete items required in the future under EPA's RHR. Specifically, GA EPD made a commitment to review and revise its regional haze implementation plan and submit a plan revision to EPA by July 31, 2018, and every 10 years thereafter.See40 CFR 51.308(f). In accordance with the requirements listed in 40 CFR 51.308(g) of EPA's regional haze regulations and 40 CFR 51.306(c) of the RAVI LTS regulations, GA EPD committed to submit a report to EPA on progress towards the RPGs for each mandatory Class I area located within Georgia and for each mandatory Class I area located outside Georgia that may be affected by emissions from within Georgia. The progress report is required to be in the form of a SIP revision and is due every five years following the initial submittal of the regional haze SIP. Consistent with EPA's monitoring regulations for RAVI and regional haze, Georgia will rely on the IMPROVE network for compliance purposes, in addition to any RAVI monitoring that may be needed in the future.See40 CFR 51.305, 40 CFR 51.308(d)(4). Also, the Georgia new source review rules, previously approved in the State's SIP, continue to provide a framework for review and coordination with the FLMs on new sources which may have an adverse impact on visibility in either form (i.e., RAVI and/or regional haze) in any Class I area.

The primary monitoring network for regional haze in Georgia is the IMPROVE network. As discussed in section IV.B.2 of this action, there are currently two IMPROVE monitoring sites in Georgia, one for Cohutta and the other monitor for Okefenokee. The Okefenokee monitor is also used to represent visibility conditions at Wolf Island.

IMPROVE monitoring data from 2000-2004 serves as the baseline for the regional haze program, and is relied upon in the State's regional haze submittal. In the submittal, Georgia states its intention to rely on the IMPROVE network for complying with the regional haze monitoring requirement in EPA's RHR for the current and future regional haze implementation periods.

Data produced by the IMPROVE monitoring network will be used nearly continuously for preparing the five-year progress reports and the 10-year SIP revisions, each of which relies on analysis of the preceding five years of data. The Visibility Information Exchange Web System (VIEWS) Web site has been maintained by VISTAS and the other RPOs to provide ready access to the IMPROVE data and data analysis tools. Georgia is encouraging VISTAS and the other RPOs to maintain VIEWS or a similar data management system to facilitate analysis of the IMPROVE data.

In addition to the IMPROVE measurements, Georgia also operates a comprehensive PM2.5network of filter-based Federal reference method monitors, continuous mass monitors, filter-based speciated monitors, and the continuous speciated monitors listed below. GA EPD will use Southeastern Aerosol Research and Characterization (SEARCH) data from the monitoring sites listed below to further the understanding of both PM2.5and visibility formation and trends in Georgia. The SEARCH monitors provide the following data related to the nature of ambient PM2.5:

• 24-hr PM2.5filter samples, analyzed for mass, ions (sulfate, nitrate, ammonium), organic carbon, elemental (black) carbon, and elements as measured by X-ray fluorescence (XRF);

• 24-hr PM coarse mass, ions, and XRF elements;

• 24-hr gaseous ammonia as collected with an annular denuder;

• Continuous (minute to hourly) PM2.5mass, organic carbon, elemental carbon, ammonium, nitrate, and sulfate; light scattering and light absorption;

• Continuous gaseous ozone, nitric oxide, nitrogen dioxide, total oxidized nitrogen, nitric acid, carbon monoxide, and SO2; and

• Continuous 10-meter meteorological parameters: wind speed, wind direction, precipitation, temperature, barometric pressure, relative humidity and solar radiation.

In addition, the Clean Air Status and Trends Network (“CASTNet”) provides atmospheric data on the dry deposition component of total acid deposition, ground-level ozone, and other forms of atmospheric pollution.

In December 2006 and May 2007, the State Air Directors from the VISTAS states held formal interstate consultation meetings. The purpose of these meetings was to discuss the methodology proposed by VISTAS for identifying sources to evaluate for reasonable progress. The states invited FLM and EPA representatives to participate and to provide additional feedback. The Directors discussed the results of analyses showing contributions to visibility impairment from states to each of the Class I areas in the VISTAS region.

GA EPD has evaluated the impact of Georgia sources on Class I areas in neighboring states. The state in which a Class I area is located is responsible for determining which sources, both inside and outside of that state, to evaluate for reasonable progress controls. Because at the time of Georgia's SIP development many of these states had not yet defined their criteria for identifying sources to evaluate for reasonable progress, Georgia applied its AOI methodology to identify sources in the State that have emissions units with impacts large enough to potentially warrant further evaluation and analysis. The State identified eight emissions units in Georgia with a contribution of 0.5 percent or more to the visibility impairment at the following seven Class I areas in five neighboring states: Sipsey Wilderness Area (AL), Saint Marks Wilderness Area (FL), Shining Rock Wilderness Area (NC), Swanquarter Wilderness Area (NC), Great Smoky Mountains National Park (NC/TN), Joyce Kilmer-Slickrock Wilderness Area (NC/TN), and Cape Romain Wilderness Area (SC). Based on an evaluation of the four reasonable progress statutory factors, Georgia determined that there are no additional control measures for these Georgia emissions units that would be reasonable to implement to mitigate visibility impacts in Class I areas in these neighboring states. GA EPD consulted with these states in the VISTAS region regarding its reasonable progress control evaluations showing no cost-effective controls available for those emissions units in Georgia contributing at least 0.5 percent to visibility impairment at Class I areas in those states. No adverse comments were received from the other VISTAS states. The documentation for these formal consultations is provided in Appendix J of Georgia's SIP.

Regarding the impact of sources outside of the State on Class I areas in Georgia, GA EPD sent letters to Florida,South Carolina, and Tennessee pertaining to emissions units within these states that it believes contribute 0.5 percent or more to visibility impairment in the Georgia Class I areas. At that time, these neighboring states were still in the process of evaluating BART and reasonable progress for their sources. Any controls resulting from those determinations will provide additional emissions reductions and resulting visibility improvement, which gives further assurances that Georgia will achieve its RPGs. Therefore, to be conservative, Georgia opted not to rely on any additional emissions reductions from sources located outside the State's boundaries beyond those already identified in the State's regional haze SIP submittal and as discussed in section IV.C.1 (Federal and state controls in place by 2018) of this action.

In 2007, Georgia received a letter sent by the Mid-Atlantic/Northeast Visibility Union (MANE-VU) RPO on behalf of the States of Maine, New Jersey, New Hampshire, and Vermont, inviting Georgia to participate in upcoming state consultation calls and meetings. This letter also requested a control strategy to provide a 28-percent reduction in SO2emissions from sources other than EGUs that would be equivalent to MANE-VU's proposed low sulfur fuel oil strategy. Georgia also received individual letters in 2007 from the MANE-VU States of Maine and Vermont stating that based on MANE-VU's analysis of 2002 emissions data, Georgia contributed to visibility impairment to Class I areas in those states. The letters invited Georgia to participate in future consultation discussions. Georgia sent letters to Maine and Vermont stating that GA EPD was currently in the process of requiring 95-percent SO2control on the seven largest coal-fired power plants in Georgia, and that these controls were not fully accounted for in the VISTAS modeling for 2009 and SO2AOI analyses for 2018. Georgia affirms it will continue to work through VISTAS to continue discussions with MANE-VU regarding this issue.

GA EPD evaluated both EGU and non-EGU sources to determine what controls are reasonable in this first implementation period. EPA proposes to find that Georgia has adequately addressed the consultation requirements in the RHR and appropriately documented its consultation with other states in its SIP submittal.

Through the VISTAS RPO, Georgia and the nine other member states worked extensively with the FLMs from the U.S. Departments of the Interior and Agriculture to develop technical analyses that support the regional haze SIPs for the VISTAS states. The proposed regional haze plan for Georgia was out for public comment and FLM review from July to August 2009 and an earlier draft plan was shared for FLM and EPA discussions between December 2008 and February 2009. The FLMs did not submit any significant adverse comments regarding either the State's December 2008 draft or the July 2009 proposed regional haze SIP. The FLMs requested that the State include a discussion regarding the Georgia sources' visibility impacts to out-of-state Class I areas in the draft SIP as well as a discussion on consideration of measures to address construction activity. Additionally, the FLMs offered some clarifications to the text and requested inclusion of the BART exemption modeling reports for eight BART-eligible sources. Georgia addressed the FLMs' comments, including the requested BART modeling exemption reports and discussion regarding out-of-state Class I area impacts, and also provided written responses explaining its changes.

To address the requirement for continuing consultation procedures with the FLMs under 40 CFR 51.308(i)(4), Georgia stated in its SIP that GA EPD will offer the FLMs an opportunity for consultation on a yearly basis, including the opportunity to discuss the implementation process and the most recent IMPROVE monitoring data and VIEWS data. Records of annual consultations and progress report consultations will be maintained in Georgia EPD's regional haze files.

As also summarized in section IV.D of this action, consistent with 40 CFR 51.308(g), GA EPD affirmed its commitment to submitting a progress report in the form of a SIP revision to EPA every five years following this initial submittal of the Georgia regional haze SIP. The report will evaluate the progress made towards the RPGs for each mandatory Class I area located within Georgia and for each mandatory Class I area located outside Georgia that may be affected by emissions from within Georgia. Georgia also offered recommendations for several technical improvements that, as funding allows, can support the State's next LTS. These recommendations are discussed in detail in the Georgia submittal in Appendix K.

If another state's regional haze SIP identifies that Georgia's SIP needs to be supplemented or modified, and if after appropriate consultation Georgia agrees, today's action may be revisited or additional information and/or changes will be addressed in the five-year progress report SIP revision.

EPA is proposing a limited approval of a revision to the Georgia SIP submitted by the State of Georgia on February 11, 2010, and supplemented on November 19, 2010, as meeting some of the applicable regional haze requirements as set forth in sections 169A and 169B of the CAA and in 40 CFR 51.300-308, as described previously in this action.

The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted this regulatory action from Executive Order 12866, entitled “Regulatory Planning and Review.”

Under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501et seq.,OMB must approve all “collections of information” by EPA. The Act defines “collection of information” as a requirement for answers to * * * identical reporting or recordkeeping requirements imposed on ten or more persons * * *. 44 U.S.C. 3502(3)(A). The Paperwork Reduction Act does not apply to this action.

The RFA generally requires an agency to conduct a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses, small not-for-profit enterprises, and small governmental jurisdictions.

This rule will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities because SIP approvals under section 110 and subchapter I, part D of the CAA do not create any new requirements but simply approve requirements that the State is already imposing. Therefore, because the Federal SIP approval does not create any new requirements, I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

Moreover, due to the nature of the Federal-state relationship under the CAA, preparation of flexibility analysiswould constitute Federal inquiry into the economic reasonableness of state action. The CAA forbids EPA to base its actions concerning SIPs on such grounds.Union Electric Co.,v.EPA,427 U.S. 246, 255-66 (1976); 42 U.S.C. 7410(a)(2).

Under sections 202 of the UMRA of 1995 (“Unfunded Mandates Act”), signed into law on March 22, 1995, EPA must prepare a budgetary impact statement to accompany any proposed or final rule that includes a Federal mandate that may result in estimated costs to State, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate; or to the private sector, of $100 million or more. Under section 205, EPA must select the most cost-effective and least burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives of the rule and is consistent with statutory requirements. Section 203 requires EPA to establish a plan for informing and advising any small governments that may be significantly or uniquely impacted by the rule.

EPA has determined that today's proposal does not include a Federal mandate that may result in estimated costs of $100 million or more to either state, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate, or to the private sector. This Federal action proposes to approve pre-existing requirements under State or local law, and imposes no new requirements. Accordingly, no additional costs to State, local, or tribal governments, or to the private sector, result from this action.

Federalism(64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) revokes and replaces Executive Orders 12612 (Federalism) and 12875 (Enhancing the Intergovernmental Partnership). Executive Order 13132 requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure “meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies that have Federalism implications.” “Policies that have federalism implications” is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations that have “substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.” Under Executive Order 13132, EPA may not issue a regulation that has Federalism implications, that imposes substantial direct compliance costs, and that is not required by statute, unless the Federal government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance costs incurred by state and local governments, or EPA consults with state and local officials early in the process of developing the proposed regulation. EPA also may not issue a regulation that has Federalism implications and that preempts state law unless the Agency consults with state and local officials early in the process of developing the proposed regulation.

This rule will not have substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132, because it merely approves a state rule implementing a Federal standard, and does not alter the relationship or the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the CAA. Thus, the requirements of section 6 of the Executive Order do not apply to this rule.

Executive Order 13175, entitled “Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments” (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure “meaningful and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory policies that have tribal implications.” This proposed rule does not have tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175. It will not have substantial direct effects on tribal governments. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this rule. EPA specifically solicits additional comment on this proposed rule from tribal officials.

Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks(62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), applies to any rule that: (1) is determined to be “economically significant” as defined under Executive Order 12866, and (2) concerns an environmental health or safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may have a disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action meets both criteria, the Agency must evaluate the environmental health or safety effects of the planned rule on children, and explain why the planned regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and reasonably feasible alternatives considered by the Agency.

This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it does not involve decisions intended to mitigate environmental health or safety risks.

This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) because it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.

Section 12 of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) of 1995 requires Federal agencies to evaluate existing technical standards when developing a new regulation. To comply with NTTAA, EPA must consider and use “voluntary consensus standards” (VCS) if available and applicable when developing programs and policies unless doing so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical.

EPA believes that VCS are inapplicable to this action. Today's action does not require the public to perform activities conducive to the use of VCS.

This document concerns the delegation of unchanged NESHAP to the Nevada Division of Environmental Protection. In the Rules and Regulations section of thisFederal Register, EPA is amending regulations to reflect the current delegation status of NESHAP in Nevada. EPA is taking direct final action without prior proposal because the Agency believes this action is not controversial. If we receive adverse comments, however, we will publish a timely withdrawal of the direct final rule and address the comments in a subsequent action based on this proposed rule. Please note that if we receive adverse comment on an amendment, paragraph, or section of this rule and if that provision may be severed from the remainder of the rule, we may adopt as final those provisions of the rule that are not the subject of an adverse comment.

We do not plan to open a second comment period, so anyone interested in commenting should do so at this time. If we do not receive adverse comments, no further activity is planned. For further information, please see the direct final action.