[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 243 (Tuesday, December 18, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 74856-74859]
[FR Doc No: 2012-30374]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Docket ID FEMA-2012-0003]

Changes in Flood Hazard Determinations

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Final Notice.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: New or modified Base (1% annual-chance) Flood Elevations
(BFEs), base flood depths, Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) boundaries
or zone designations, and/or the regulatory floodway (hereinafter
referred to as flood hazard determinations) as shown on the indicated
Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) for each of the communities listed in the
table below are finalized. Each LOMR revises the Flood Insurance Rate
Maps (FIRMs), and in some cases the Flood Insurance Study (FIS)
reports, currently in effect for the listed communities. The flood
hazard determinations modified by each LOMR will be used to calculate
flood insurance premium rates for new buildings and their contents.

DATES: The effective date for each LOMR is indicated in the table
below.

ADDRESSES: Each LOMR is available for inspection at both the respective
Community Map Repository address listed in the table below and online
through the FEMA Map Service Center at www.msc.fema.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Luis Rodriguez, Chief, Engineering
Management Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration,
FEMA, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or
(email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or visit the FEMA Map Information
eXchange (FMIX) online at www.floodmaps.fema.gov/fhm/fmx_main.html.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA) makes the final flood hazard determinations as shown in the
LOMRs for each community listed in the table below. Notice of these
modified flood hazard determinations has been published in newspapers
of local circulation and ninety (90) days have elapsed since that
publication. The Deputy Associate Administrator for Mitigation has
resolved any appeals resulting from this notification.
    The modified flood hazard determinations are made pursuant to
section 206 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C.
4105, and are in accordance with the National Flood Insurance Act of
1968, 42 U.S.C. 4001 et seq., and with 44 CFR part 65.
    For rating purposes, the currently effective community number is
shown and must be used for all new policies and renewals.
    The new or modified flood hazard determinations are the basis for
the floodplain management measures that the community is required
either to adopt or to show evidence of being already in effect in order
to remain qualified for participation in the National Flood Insurance
Program (NFIP).
    These new or modified flood hazard determinations, together with
the floodplain management criteria required by 44 CFR 60.3, are the
minimum that are required. They should not be construed to mean that
the community must change any existing ordinances that are more
stringent in their floodplain management requirements. The community
may at any time enact stricter requirements of its own or pursuant to
policies established by other Federal, State, or regional entities.
    These new or modified flood hazard determinations are used to meet
the floodplain management requirements of the NFIP and also are used to
calculate the appropriate flood insurance premium rates for new
buildings, and for the contents in those buildings. The changes in
flood hazard determinations are in accordance with 44 CFR 65.4.
    Interested lessees and owners of real property are encouraged to
review the final flood hazard information available at the address
cited below for each community or online through the FEMA Map Service
Center at www.msc.fema.gov.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      Location and case    Chief executive officer                                   Effective date of        Community
         State and county                    No.                 of community         Community map repository          modification             No.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama: Baldwin (FEMA Docket No.:  City of Gulf Shores   The Honorable Robert S.    Community Development      June 4, 2012...............       015005
 B-1249).                            (12-04-0183P).        Craft, Mayor, City of      Department, 1905 West
                                                           Gulf Shores, P.O. Box      1st Street, Gulf Shores,
                                                           299, Gulf Shores, AL       AL 36547.
                                                           36547.
Arizona:
    Coconino (FEMA Docket No.: B-   City of Flagstaff     The Honorable Sara         City Hall Stormwater       May 15, 2012...............       040020
     1249).                          (11-09-3783P).        Presler, Mayor, City of    Management Section, 211
                                                           Flagstaff, 211 West        West Aspen Avenue,
                                                           Aspen Avenue, Flagstaff,   Flagstaff, AZ 86001.
                                                           AZ 86001.
    Coconino (FEMA Docket No.: B-   City of Flagstaff     The Honorable Sara         City Hall Stormwater       May 15, 2012...............       040020
     1249).                          (11-09-3785P).        Presler, Mayor, City of    Management Section, 211
                                                           Flagstaff, 211 West        West Aspen Avenue,
                                                           Aspen Avenue, Flagstaff,   Flagstaff, AZ 86001.
                                                           AZ 86001.
    Coconino (FEMA Docket No.: B-   City of Flagstaff     The Honorable Sara         City Hall Stormwater       May 9, 2012................       040020
     1249).                          (11-09-3787P).        Presler, Mayor, City of    Management Section, 211
                                                           Flagstaff, 211 West        West Aspen Avenue,
                                                           Aspen Avenue, Flagstaff,   Flagstaff, AZ 86001.
                                                           AZ 86001.
    Coconino (FEMA Docket No.: B-   Unincorporated areas  The Honorable Lena         2500 North Fort Valley     May 15, 2012...............       040019
     1249).                          of Coconino County    Fowler, Chair, Coconino    Road, Building 1,
                                     (11-09-3785P).        County Board of            Flagstaff, AZ 86001.
                                                           Supervisors, P.O. Box
                                                           948, Tuba City, AZ 86045.
California:
    Placer (FEMA Docket No.: B-     Unincorporated areas  The Honorable Jennifer     Department of Public       June 4, 2012...............       060239
     1249).                          of Placer County      Montgomery, Chair,         Works, 11444 B Avenue,
                                     (12-09-0102P).        Placer County Board of     Auburn, CA 95603.
                                                           Supervisors, 175
                                                           Fulweiler Avenue,
                                                           Auburn, CA 95603.
    Tulare (FEMA Docket No.: B-     Unincorporated areas  The Honorable Mike Ennis,  Tulare County Resource     April 24, 2012.............       065066
     1245).                          of Tulare County      Chairman, Tulare County    Management Agency, 5961
                                     (11-09-3490P).        Board of Supervisors,      South Mooney Boulevard,
                                                           2800 West Burrell          Visalia, CA 93227.
                                                           Avenue, Visalia, CA
                                                           93291.
Colorado:
    Boulder (FEMA Docket No.: B-    City of Lafayette     The Honorable Carolyn      Planning Department, 1290  April 27, 2012.............       080026
     1249).                          (11-08-0913P).        Cutler, Mayor, City of     South Public Road,
                                                           Lafayette, 1290 South      Lafayette, CO 80026.
                                                           Public Road, Lafayette,
                                                           CO 80026.
    Boulder (FEMA Docket No.: B-    City of Louisville    The Honorable Bob Muckle,  Community Development,     April 27, 2012.............       085076
     1249).                          (11-08-0913P).        Mayor, City of             749 Main Street,
                                                           Louisville, 749 Main       Louisville, CO 80027.
                                                           Street, Louisville, CO
                                                           80027.
    Boulder (FEMA Docket No.: B-    Town of Erie (11-08-  The Honorable Joe Wilson,  1739 Broadway, Suite 300,  May 15, 2012...............       080181
     1249).                          0866P).               Mayor, Town of Erie,       Boulder, CO 80306.
                                                           P.O. Box 750, Erie, CO
                                                           80516.

    Boulder (FEMA Docket No.: B-    Unincorporated areas  The Honorable Ben          1739 Broadway, Suite 300,  May 15, 2012...............       080023
     1249).                          of Boulder County     Pearlman, Chairman,        Boulder, CO 80306.
                                     (11-08-0866P).        Boulder County Board of
                                                           Commissioners, P.O. Box
                                                           471, Boulder, CO 80306.
    Jefferson (FEMA Docket No.: B-  City of Lakewood (12- The Honorable Bob Murphy,  Civic Center North--       June 8, 2012...............       085075
     1249).                          08-0106P).            Mayor, City of Lakewood,   Engineering, 480 South
                                                           Lakewood Civic Center      Allison Parkway,
                                                           South, 480 South Allison   Lakewood, CO 80226.
                                                           Parkway, Lakewood, CO
                                                           80226.
Florida:
    Charlotte (FEMA Docket No.: B-  Unincorporated areas  The Honorable Bob Starr,   18500 Murdock Circle,      June 1, 2012...............       120061
     1249).                          of Charlotte County   Chairman, Charlotte        Port Charlotte, FL 33948.
                                     (12-04-0206P).        County Board of
                                                           Commissioners, 18500
                                                           Murdock Circle, Port
                                                           Charlotte, FL 33948.
    Leon (FEMA Docket No.: B-1249)  Unincorporated areas  The Honorable John E.      Leon County Courthouse,    May 21, 2012...............       120143
                                     of Leon County (11-   Dailey, Chairman, Leon     301 South Monroe Street,
                                     04-5515P).            County Board of            Tallahassee, FL 32301.
                                                           Commissioners, 301 South
                                                           Monroe Street, 5th
                                                           Floor, Tallahassee, FL
                                                           32301.
    Monroe (FEMA Docket No.: B-     Unincorporated areas  The Honorable Kim          Monroe County Department   May 31, 2012...............       125129
     1249).                          of Monroe County      Wigington, Mayor Pro       of Planning and
                                     (12-04-0072P).        Tem, Monroe County, 500    Environmental Resources,
                                                           Whitehead Street, Suite    2798 Overseas Highway,
                                                           102, Key West, FL 33040.   Marathon, FL 33050.
    Monroe (FEMA Docket No.: B-     Unincorporated areas  The Honorable Kim          Monroe County Department   May 7, 2012................       125129
     1249).                          of Monroe County      Wigington, Mayor Pro       of Planning and
                                     (12-04-0205P).        Tem, Monroe County, 500    Environmental Resources,
                                                           Whitehead Street, Suite    2798 Overseas Highway,
                                                           102, Key West, FL 33040.   Marathon, FL 33050.
    Orange (FEMA Docket No.: B-     City of Orlando (11-  The Honorable Buddy Dyer,  Permitting Services, 400   May 9, 2012................       120186
     1249).                          04-8127P).            Mayor, City of Orlando,    South Orange Avenue,
                                                           P.O. Box 4990, Orlando,    Orlando, FL 32801.
                                                           FL 32808.
    Polk (FEMA Docket No.: B-1249)  Unincorporated areas  The Honorable Sam          Polk County Engineering    June 7, 2012...............       120261
                                     of Polk County (11-   Johnson, Chairman, Polk    Division, 330 West
                                     04-6001P).            County Board of            Church Street, Bartow,
                                                           Commissioners, Drawer      FL 33830.
                                                           BC01, P.O. Box 9005,
                                                           Bartow, FL 33831.
Kansas:
    Johnson (FEMA Docket No.: B-    City of Leawood, (12- The Honorable Peggy J.     4800 Town Center Drive,    May 23, 2012...............       200167
     1249).                          07-0114X).            Dunn, Mayor, City of       Leawood, KS 66211.
                                                           Leawood, 4800 Town
                                                           Center Drive, Leawood,
                                                           KS 66211.
Nevada:
    Clark (FEMA Docket No.: B-      City of North Las     The Honorable Shari L.     Public Works Department,   June 4, 2012...............       320007
     1249).                          Vegas (11-09-2931P).  Buck, Mayor, City of       2200 Civic Center Drive,
                                                           North Las Vegas, 2250      North Las Vegas, NV
                                                           Las Vegas Boulevard        89030.
                                                           North, North Las Vegas,
                                                           NV 89030.
    Clark (FEMA Docket No.: B-      Unincorporated areas  The Honorable Susan        Office of the Director of  June 4, 2012...............       320003
     1249).                          of Clark County (11-  Brager, Chair, Clark       Public Works, 500 Grand
                                     09-2931P).            County Commissioners,      Central Parkway, Las
                                                           500 South Grand Central    Vegas, NV 89155.
                                                           Parkway, Las Vegas, NV
                                                           89155.
South Carolina:
    Charleston (FEMA Docket No.: B- City of Charleston    The Honorable Joseph P.    Engineering Department,    May 9, 2012................       455412
     1249).                          (11-04-0520P).        Riley, Jr., Mayor, City    75 Calhoun Street,
                                                           of Charleston, P.O. Box    Division 301,
                                                           652, Charleston, SC        Charleston, SC 29401.
                                                           29402.
    Charleston (FEMA Docket No.: B- Unincorporated areas  The Honorable Teddie E.    Charleston County          May 9, 2012................       455413
     1249).                          of Charleston         Pryor, Sr., Chairman,      Building Services, 4045
                                     County (11-04-        Charleston County          Bridge View Drive, North
                                     0520P).               Council, Lonnie            Charleston, SC 29405.
                                                           Hamilton, III Public
                                                           Services Building, 4045
                                                           Bridge View Drive, North
                                                           Charleston, SC 29405.
    Greenville (FEMA Docket No.: B- City of Greenville    The Honorable Knox White,  City Hall, 206 South Main  May 21, 2012...............       450091
     1249).                          (11-04-4629P).        Mayor, City of             Street, Greenville, SC
                                                           Greenville, 206 South      29601.
                                                           Main Street, Greenville,
                                                           SC 29601.
South Dakota:
    Lake (FEMA Docket No.: B-1249)  City of Madison (11-  The Honorable Gene Hexom,  116 East Center Street,    May 15, 2012...............       460044
                                     08-0817P).            Mayor, City of Madison,    Madison, SD 57042.
                                                           116 West Center Street,
                                                           Madison, SD 57042.
    Lake (FEMA Docket No.: B-1249)  Unincorporated areas  The Honorable Scott        200 West Center Street,    May 15, 2012...............       460276
                                     of Lake County (11-   Pedersen, Chairman, Lake   Madison, SD 57042.
                                     08-0817P).            County Board of
                                                           Commissioners, 200 East
                                                           Center Street, Madison,
                                                           SD 57042.
Tennessee:
    Hamilton (FEMA Docket No.: B-   City of Chattanooga   The Honorable Ron          Planning Department, 1250  April 24, 2012.............       470072
     1245).                          (11-04-2368P).        Littlefield, Mayor, City   Market Street,
                                                           of Chattanooga, 101 East   Chattanooga, TN 37402.
                                                           11th Street,
                                                           Chattanooga, TN 37402.
Utah:
    Davis (FEMA Docket No.: B-      City of Kaysville     The Honorable Steve A.     23 East Center,            June 4, 2012...............       490046
     1249).                          (11-08-0022P).        Hiatt, Mayor, City of      Kaysville, UT 84037.
                                                           Kaysville, 697 North 240
                                                           East, Kaysville, UT
                                                           84037.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance No. 97.022, ``Flood
Insurance.'')

    Dated: November 28, 2012.
James A. Walke,
Acting Deputy Associate Administrator for Mitigation, epartment of
Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2012-30374 Filed 12-17-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-12-P


[Federal Register: March 31, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 62)]
[Notices]
[Page 16914-16916]
[DOCID:fr31mr08-114]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-57550; File No. SR-ISE-2008-30]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; International Securities Exchange,
LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule
Change Regarding Responses to Special Orders

March 24, 2008.
    Pursuant to section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on March 19, 2008, the International Securities Exchange, LLC (``ISE''
or ``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in

Items I and II below, which Items have been substantially prepared by
ISE. The Exchange filed the proposal as a ``non-controversial''
proposed rule change pursuant to section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act
\3\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder,\4\ which renders it effective upon
filing with the Commission.\5\ The Commission is publishing this notice
to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested
persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
    \4\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \5\ The Exchange has asked the Commission to waive the 30-day
operative delay required by Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii), 17 CFR 240.19b-
4(f)(6)(iii). See discussion infra Section III.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance
of the Proposed Rule Change

    The ISE proposes to amend its rules regarding responses to special
orders. The text of the proposed rule change is available at ISE, the
Commission's Public Reference Room, and http://www.iseoptions.com.

II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

    In its filing with the Commission, the ISE included statements
concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and
discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The
text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in
Item IV below. The ISE has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A,
B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.

A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

1. Purpose
    The purpose of this proposed rule change is to amend the Exchange's
rules regarding responses to special orders. Currently, when members
enter orders into the options trading system's Block Mechanism,
Facilitation Mechanism, and Solicited Order Mechanism, the orders are
exposed to all market participants for three seconds. However, the
Exchange's rules restrict on whose behalf a member may respond. In the
case of the Block, Facilitation and Solicited Order Mechanisms, members
may not enter responses on behalf of options market makers on other
exchanges.
    Many of ISE's members operate as market makers on other exchanges
that do not have this same type of restrictions in their rules.
Accordingly, the Exchange proposes to eliminate the restriction on the
entry of orders for the account of market makers of another options
exchange. The Exchange does not believe that this proposed rule change
will have a material effect on the current participation in trades
entered into the mechanisms. Further, this proposed rule change will
bring ISE's rules into conformance with those of the other exchanges
who, as noted above, do not have this restriction in their rules.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with
the Act and the rules and regulations under the Act applicable to a
national securities exchange and, in particular, the requirements of
section 6(b) of the Act.\6\ Specifically, the Exchange believes the
proposed rule change is consistent with section 6(b)(5) of the Act \7\
requirements that the rules of a national securities exchange be
designed to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to prevent
fraudulent and manipulative acts and, in general, to protect investors
and the public interest. In particular, the proposed rule change will
strengthen the Exchange's competitive position while allowing a greater
number of market participants to respond to special orders on the
Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition

    The proposed rule change does not impose any burden on competition
that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of
the Act.

C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed
Rule Change Received From Members, Participants or Others

    The Exchange has not solicited, and does not intend to solicit,
comments on this proposed rule change. The Exchange has not received
any unsolicited written comments from members or other interested
parties.

III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for
Commission Action

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not (1)
significantly affect the protection of investors or the public
interest; (2) impose any significant burden on competition; and (3)
become operative for thirty days from the date on which it was filed,
or such shorter time as the Commission may designate if consistent with
the protection of investors and the public interest, it has become
effective pursuant to section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \8\ and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6) \9\ thereunder.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \9\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \10\ Pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii), the Exchange gave the
Commission written notice of its intent to file the proposed rule
change, along with a brief description and text of the proposed rule
change, at least five business days prior to the date on which the
Exchange filed the proposed rule change. See 17 CFR 240.19b-
4(f)(6)(iii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A proposed rule change filed under Commission Rule 19b-4(f)(6) \11\
normally does not become operative prior to thirty days after the date
of filing. The Exchange requests that the Commission waive the 30-day
operative delay, as specified in Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii), and designate
the proposed rule change to become operative immediately. The
Commission believes that waiving the 30-day operative delay is
consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest
because such waiver will enable a greater number of market participants
to respond to special orders on the Exchange. For these reasons, the
Commission designates the proposed rule change as effective upon
filing.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \12\ For the purposes only of waiving the operative date of this
proposal, the Commission has considered the proposed rule's impact
on efficiency, competition, and capital formation. 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule
change, the Commission may summarily abrogate such rule change if it
appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate
in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule
change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of
the following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://
www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-ISE-2008-30 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Nancy M. Morris,
Secretary,

Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC
20549-1090.
    All submissions should refer to File Number SR-ISE-2008-30. This
file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used.
To help the Commission process and review your comments more
efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all
comments on the Commission's Internet Web site: (http://www.sec.gov/
rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments,
all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that
are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating
to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person,
other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance
with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection
and copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street,
NE., Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours
of 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for
inspection and copying at the principal office of the ISE. All comments
received will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit
personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit
only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-ISE-2008-30 and should be
submitted on or before April 21, 2008.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\13\
Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

 [FR Doc. E8-6476 Filed 3-28-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


impact visibility in these Class I areas (Georgia Power's Plants
Mitchell, Kraft and MacIntosh).
2. Non-EGUs Subject to BART
    One of the emissions units considered for reasonable progress
control, Interstate Paper's Power Boiler F1, is subject to BART and
subsequently was evaluated for BART controls. GA EPD concluded that
BART for the power boiler at Interstate Paper is a requirement to burn
natural gas only, other than during curtailment periods (i.e., during
reduction or discontinuance of supply in natural gas). GA EPD believes
that, for this implementation period, the application of BART
constitutes reasonable progress for this unit, and thus, is not
requiring any additional controls for reasonable progress. As discussed
in EPA's Reasonable Progress Guidance, since the BART analysis is
based, in part, on an assessment of many of the same factors that must
be addressed in establishing the RPG, EPA believes it is reasonable to
conclude that any control requirements imposed in the BART
determination also satisfy the 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ EPA's Reasonable Progress Guidance, pages 4.2-4.3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Other Emissions Units Not Subject to Preparing a Reasonable Progress
Control Analysis
    GA EPD requested reasonable progress control analyses from all
facilities identified as potentially contributing at least 0.5 percent
of the total sulfate visibility impairment at a Class I area. In
response to this request, additional information regarding projected
2018 actual emissions was received from a number of sources. As a
result of this revised information, seven units at four facilities
(Miller Brewing, Boilers B001, B002; Mount Vernon Mills, Boilers E U
03, E U 04; Savannah Sugar Refinery, Boiler U161; and Mohawk
Industries, Boilers BL06, BL07) were removed from consideration for
additional controls based on an analysis that the emissions units would
not contribute 0.5 percent or greater of the total sulfate visibility
impairment at any Class I area in 2018.
    Due to resource limitations and/or uncertainty regarding future
operations, the following three facilities with six emissions units
requested emissions limits on their affected units in lieu of
performing reasonable progress control analyses: (1) Rayonier
Performance Fibers, Power Boilers 2 and 3, Recovery Furnaces 1 and 4;
(2) Southern States Phosphate and Fertilizer, Sulfuric Acid Plant 2;
and (3) Packaging Corporation of America, C E Boiler. The required
emissions limits reduced the sulfate contributions of these units below
0.5 percent of the total sulfate visibility impact on any affected
Class I areas.
6. BART
    BART is an element of Georgia's LTS for the first implementation
period. The BART evaluation process consists of three components: (a)
An identification of all the BART-eligible sources, (b) an assessment
of whether the 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.

A. BART-Eligible Sources

    The first phase of a BART evaluation is to identify all the BART-
eligible sources within the state's boundaries. GA EPD identified the
BART-eligible sources in Georgia by utilizing the three eligibility
criteria in the BART Guidelines (70 FR 39158) and EPA's regulations (40
CFR 51.301): (1) One or more emissions units at the facility fit within
one of the 26 categories listed in the BART Guidelines; (2) the
emissions units were not in operation prior to August 7, 1962, and were
in existence on August 7, 1977; and (3) these units have the potential
to emit 250 tons or more per year of any visibility-impairing
pollutant.
    The BART Guidelines also direct states to address SO2,
NOX, and direct PM (including both PM10 and
PM2.5) emissions as visibility-impairment pollutants and to
exercise judgment in determining whether VOC or ammonia emissions from
a source impair visibility in a Class I area. See 70 FR 39160. VISTAS
modeling demonstrated that VOC from anthropogenic sources and ammonia
from point sources, except for potentially one ammonia source, are not
significant 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.

B. BART-Subject Sources

    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.
1. Modeling Methodology
    The BART Guidelines allow states to use the CALPUFF \19\ modeling
system (CALPUFF) or another appropriate model to predict the visibility
impacts from a single source on a Class I area, and therefore, to
determine whether an individual source is anticipated to cause or
contribute to impairment of visibility in Class I areas, i.e., ``is
subject to BART.'' The Guidelines state that EPA believes that CALPUFF
is the best regulatory modeling application currently available for
predicting a single source's contribution to visibility impairment (70
FR 39162). Georgia, in coordination with VISTAS, used the CALPUFF
modeling system to determine whether individual sources in the State
are subject to BART.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ Note that EPA's reference to CALPUFF encompasses the entire
CALPUFF modeling system, which includes the CALMET, CALPUFF, and
CALPOST models and other pre and post processors. The different
versions of CALPUFF have corresponding versions of CALMET, CALPOST,
etc. which may not be compatible with previous versions (e.g., the
output from a newer version of CALMET may not be compatible with an
older version of CALPUFF). The different versions of the CALPUFF
modeling system are available from the model developer on the
following Web site: http://www.src.com/verio/download/download.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The BART Guidelines also recommend that states develop a modeling
protocol for making individual source attributions and suggest that
states may want to consult with EPA and their RPO to address any issues
prior to modeling. The VISTAS states, including Georgia, developed a
``Protocol for the Application of CALPUFF for BART Analyses.''
Stakeholders, including EPA, FLMs, industrial sources, trade groups,
and other interested parties, actively participated in the development
and review of the VISTAS protocol.
    VISTAS developed a post-processing approach to use the new IMPROVE
equation with the CALPUFF model results so that the BART analyses could
consider the old and new IMPROVE equations. GA EPD sent a letter and
supplemental email to EPA justifying the need for this post-processing
approach, and the EPA Region 4 Regional Administrator sent the State a
letter of approval dated September 11, 2008. Georgia's justification
included a method to process the CALPUFF output and a rationale on the
benefits of using the new IMPROVE equation. The State's description of
the new post-processing methodology and the State and Region 4 letters
are located in Appendices H.9a, H.9b, and H.9c, respectively, of the
Georgia regional haze SIP submittal and can be accessed at
www.regulations.gov using Docket ID No. EPA-R04-OAR-2010-0936.
2. Contribution Threshold
    For states using modeling to determine the applicability of BART to
single sources, the BART Guidelines note that the first step is to set
a contribution threshold to assess whether the impact of a single
source is sufficient to cause or contribute to visibility impairment at
a Class I area. The BART Guidelines state that ``[a] single source that
is responsible for a 1.0 deciview change or more should be considered
to `cause' visibility impairment.'' The BART Guidelines also state that
``the appropriate threshold for determining whether a source
`contributes to visibility impairment' may reasonably differ across
states,'' but, ``[a]s a general matter, any threshold that you use for
determining whether a source `contributes' to visibility impairment
should not be higher than 0.5 deciviews.'' The Guidelines affirm that
states are free to use a lower threshold if they conclude that the
location of a large number of BART-eligible sources in proximity of a
Class I area justifies this approach.
    Georgia used a contribution threshold of 0.5 deciview for
determining which sources are subject to BART and concluded that the
threshold of 0.5 deciview was appropriate in this situation. Georgia
determined that, considering the results of the visibility impacts
modeling conducted, a 0.5 deciview threshold was appropriate and a
lower threshold was not warranted for the following reasons. There are
a limited number of BART-eligible sources in close proximity to each of
the State's Class I areas, and the overall impact of the BART-eligible
sources on visibility in nearby Class I areas is relatively minimal. In
addition, the results of the visibility impacts modeling demonstrated
that the majority of the individual BART-eligible sources had
visibility impacts well below 0.5 deciview. As stated in the BART
Guidelines, where a state concludes that a large number of these BART-
eligible sources within proximity of a Class I area justify a lower
threshold, it may warrant establishing a lower contribution threshold.
See 70 FR 39161-39162 (July 6, 2005). EPA proposes to concur with
Georgia that the overall impacts of these sources are not sufficient to
warrant a lower

contribution threshold and that a 0.5 deciview threshold was
appropriate in this instance.
3. Identification of Sources Subject to BART
    Georgia identified 24 facilities with BART-eligible sources. All of
Georgia's 24 BART-eligible sources were required by the State to submit
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 SO2 emissions
limits on Power Boilers 1 and 2 (135 lb SO2/hr each) and on
Recovery Boiler 3 (350 ppm). These limits result in a 0.499 deciview
impact at the Saint Marks Class I area and a 0.306 deciview impact at
the Okefenokee Class I area. The remaining 19 sources demonstrated that
they are not subject to BART by modeling less than a 0.5 deciview
visibility impact at the affected Class I areas. For the non-EGU BART-
eligible sources, this modeling involved emissions of NOX,
SO2, and PM10 as applicable to individual
facilities.
    Ten of Georgia's BART-eligible sources are facilities with EGUs.
These units are subject to CAIR. Because Georgia relied on CAIR to
satisfy BART for SO2 and NOX for its EGUs in
CAIR, in accordance with 40 CFR 51.308(e)(4), Georgia's EGUs were
allowed to submit BART exemption modeling demonstrations for PM
emissions only. All EGUs other than Georgia Power--Plant Bowen
demonstrated that their PM10 emissions do not contribute to
visibility impairment in any Class I area. Table 5 identifies the 24
BART-eligible sources located in Georgia.

       Table 5--Georgia BART-Eligible and Subject-to-BART Sources
------------------------------------------------------------------------

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Facilities With Unit(s) Subject to BART
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Georgia Power--Plant Bowen
Interstate Paper, LLC
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Facilities With Unit(s) Not Subject to BART
------------------------------------------------------------------------
EGU CAIR and BART Modeling (PM only) Exempt Sources \20\
  Georgia Power--Plant Branch
  Georgia Power--Plant Hammond
  Georgia Power--Plant McDonough
  Georgia Power--Plant Mitchell
  Georgia Power--Plant Scherer
  Georgia Power--Plant Wansley
  Georgia Power--Plant Yates
  Georgia Power--Plant Kraft
  Georgia Power--Plant McIntosh
Non-EGUs Exempt with Additional Model Based Emission Limits
  Georgia Pacific--Cedar Springs
  Non-EGUs Exempt using Model Plant Criteria
  Lafarge Building Materials (Blue Circle Cement--Atlanta Plant)
  International Paper--Savannah
Non-EGU BART Modeling Exempt
  Chemical Products Corporation
  DSM Chemicals, North America
  International Paper--Augusta
  Georgia Pacific--Brunswick Cellulose
  Owens Corning
  PCA--Valdosta (Tenneco Packaging, Inc.)
  PCS Nitrogen
  Prayon, Inc.
  Rayonier (Rayonier ITT, Inc.)
  Tronox (Kerr-McGee/Kemira)
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Prior to the CAIR remand, the State's reliance on CAIR to satisfy
BART for NOX and SO2 for affected CAIR EGUs was
fully approvable and in accordance with 40 CFR 51.308(e)(4). However,
the BART assessments for CAIR EGUs for NOX and
SO2 and other provisions in this SIP revision are based on
CAIR. In a separate action, EPA has proposed a limited disapproval of
the Georgia regional haze SIP because of deficiencies in the State's
regional haze SIP submittal arising from the remand by the D.C. Circuit
to EPA of CAIR. See 76 FR 82219. Consequently, EPA is not taking action
in this proposed rulemaking to address the State's reliance on CAIR to
meet certain regional haze requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ EGUs were only evaluated for PM emissions. Georgia relied
on CAIR to satisfy BART for SO2 and NOX for
its EGUs in CAIR, in accordance with 40 CFR 51.308(e)(4). Thus,
SO2 and NOX were not analyzed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. BART Determinations

    Two BART-eligible sources (Interstate Paper and Georgia Power--
Plant Bowen) had modeled visibility impacts of more than 0.5 deciview
and are therefore subject to BART. Consequently, they each submitted to
the State permit applications that included their proposed BART
determinations.
    In accordance with the BART Guidelines, to determine the level of
control that represents BART for each source, the State first reviewed
existing controls on these units to assess whether these constituted
the best controls currently available, then identified what other
technically feasible controls are available, and finally, evaluated the
technically feasible controls using the five BART statutory factors.
The State's evaluations and conclusions, and EPA's assessment, are
summarized below.
1. Georgia Power--Plant Bowen
    Georgia Power--Plant Bowen has four BART-eligible emissions units
that comprise the BART-eligible source. These units are coal fired
EGUs, numbers 1, 2, 3, and 4. Each of the EGU's PM emissions are
already controlled by electrostatic precipitators (ESPs) and wet FGD.
The SO2 scrubbers were installed on Plant Bowen between 2008
and 2010. Modeling results estimate that visibility impacts from Plant
Bowen will exceed 0.5 deciview for at least one Class I area even with
the PM emissions reductions that occur from scrubbing. Georgia Power
identified the following four potential additional control
technologies: (a) High voltage power conditioners (juice cans); (b)
particle agglomerators; (c) the combination of juice cans and particle
agglomerators; and (d) a wet ESP. The company evaluated the cost
effectiveness, visibility impacts, and energy and non-air environmental
impacts of these control options.
    GA EPD determined that no additional control was reasonable for
BART for this facility. Wet ESPs are the only control option that
resulted in a modeled visibility improvement greater than 0.01
deciviews. Wet ESPs were predicted to improve visibility by
approximately 0.14 to 0.16 deciviews for each unit at a cost
effectiveness of $37,107 to $47,909/ton SO2. In addition,
the wet ESP would consume additional electricity and have non-air
environmental impacts. The combination juice can/particle agglomerator
option modeled a visibility benefit of 0.01 deciview for each unit at a
cost effectiveness of $12,222 to $21,914/ton SO2.
2. Interstate Paper--Power Boiler (F1), Recovery Boiler (F3), and Lime
Kiln (F4)
    Interstate Paper, located in Riceboro, Georgia, is a paper facility
owned and operated by Interstate Resources Incorporated. Interstate
Paper is located within 100 kilometers of the Wolf Island and
Okefenokee Wilderness Class I areas. Three of Interstate Paper's units

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

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

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

                                                               Table 6--Georgia 2018 RPGs
                                                                     [In deciviews]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                2018 RPG--20%    Uniform rate of                      2018 RPG--20%
                                                                    Baseline         worst days        progress at        Baseline          best days
                         Class I area                            visibility--20%    (improvement     2018--20% worst   visibility--20%    (improvement
                                                                   worst days      from baseline)         days            best days      from baseline)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cohutta Wilderness Area.......................................             30.25             22.80             25.71             13.77             11.75
                                                                                (7.45)                                                (2.02)
Okefenokee Wilderness Area....................................             27.13             23.82             23.42             15.23             13.92
                                                                                (3.31)                                                (1.31)
Wolf Island Wilderness Area...................................             27.13             23.82             23.42             15.23             13.92
                                                                                (3.31)                                                (1.31)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The RPGs for the Class I areas in Georgia are based on modeled
projections of future conditions that were developed using the best
available information at the time the analysis was done. These
projections can be expected to change as additional information
regarding future conditions becomes available. For example, new sources
may be built, existing sources may shut down or modify production in
response to changed economic circumstances, and facilities may change
their emissions characteristics as they install control equipment to
comply with new rules. It would be both impractical and resource-
intensive to require a state to continually revise its RPGs every time
an event affecting these future projections changed.
    EPA recognized the problems of a rigid requirement to meet a long-
term goal based on modeled projections of future visibility conditions
and addressed the uncertainties associated with RPGs in several ways.
EPA made clear in the RHR that the RPG is not a mandatory standard
which must be achieved by a particular date. See 64 FR at 35733. At the
same time, EPA established a requirement for a midcourse review and, if
necessary, correction of the states' regional haze plans. See 40 CFR
52.308(g). In particular, the RHR calls for a five-year progress review
after submittal of the initial regional haze plan. The purpose of this
progress review is to assess the effectiveness of emissions management
strategies in meeting the RPG and to provide an assessment of whether
current implementation strategies are sufficient for the state or
affected states to meet their RPGs. If a state concludes, based on its
assessment, that the RPGs for a Class I area will not be met, the RHR
requires the state to take appropriate action. See 40 CFR 52.308(h).
The nature of the appropriate action will depend on the basis for the
state's conclusion that the current strategies are insufficient to meet
the RPGs. Georgia specifically committed to follow this process in the
LTS portion of its submittal.

D. Coordination of RAVI and Regional Haze Requirements

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

individual source.\22\ EPA finds that this regional haze submittal
appropriately supplements and augments Georgia's RAVI visibility
provisions to address regional haze by updating the monitoring and LTS
provisions as summarized below in this section.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ Georgia submitted its visibility SIP revisions addressing
RAVI on August 31, 1987, which EPA approved on July 12, 1988, (53 FR
26253).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

E. Monitoring Strategy and Other Implementation Plan Requirements

    The primary monitoring network for regional haze in Georgia is the
IMPROVE network. As discussed in section IV.B.2 of this action, there
are currently two IMPROVE monitoring sites in Georgia, one for Cohutta
and the other monitor for Okefenokee. The Okefenokee monitor is also
used to represent visibility conditions at Wolf Island.
    IMPROVE monitoring data from 2000-2004 serves as the baseline for
the regional haze program, and is relied upon in the State's regional
haze submittal. In the submittal, Georgia states its intention to rely
on the IMPROVE network for complying with the regional haze monitoring
requirement in EPA's RHR for the current and future regional haze
implementation periods.
    Data produced by the IMPROVE monitoring network will be used nearly
continuously for preparing the five-year progress reports and the 10-
year SIP revisions, each of which relies on analysis of the preceding
five years of data. The Visibility Information Exchange Web System
(VIEWS) Web site has been maintained by VISTAS and the other RPOs to
provide ready access to the IMPROVE data and data analysis tools.
Georgia is encouraging VISTAS and the other RPOs to maintain VIEWS or a
similar data management system to facilitate analysis of the IMPROVE
data.
    In addition to the IMPROVE measurements, Georgia also operates a
comprehensive PM2.5 network of 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 PM2.5 and visibility formation and
trends in Georgia. The SEARCH monitors provide the following data
related to the nature of ambient PM2.5:
     24-hr PM2.5 filter samples, analyzed for mass,
ions (sulfate, nitrate, ammonium), organic carbon, elemental (black)
carbon, and elements as measured by X-ray fluorescence (XRF);
     24-hr PM coarse mass, ions, and XRF elements;
     24-hr gaseous ammonia as collected with an annular
denuder;
     Continuous (minute to hourly) PM2.5 mass,
organic carbon, elemental carbon, ammonium, nitrate, and sulfate; light
scattering and light absorption;
     Continuous gaseous ozone, nitric oxide, nitrogen dioxide,
total oxidized nitrogen, nitric acid, carbon monoxide, and
SO2; and
     Continuous 10-meter meteorological parameters: wind speed,
wind direction, precipitation, temperature, barometric pressure,
relative humidity and solar radiation.
    In addition, the Clean Air Status and Trends Network (``CASTNet'')
provides atmospheric data on the dry deposition component of total acid
deposition, ground-level ozone, and other forms of atmospheric
pollution.

F. Consultation With States and FLMs

1. Consultation With Other States
    In December 2006 and May 2007, the State Air Directors from the
VISTAS states held formal interstate consultation meetings. The purpose
of these meetings was to discuss the methodology proposed by VISTAS for
identifying sources to evaluate for reasonable progress. The states
invited FLM and EPA representatives to participate and to provide
additional feedback. The Directors discussed the results of analyses
showing contributions to visibility impairment from states to each of
the Class I areas in the VISTAS region.
    GA EPD has evaluated the impact of Georgia sources on Class I areas
in neighboring states. The state in which a Class I area is located is
responsible for determining which sources, both inside and outside of
that state, to evaluate for reasonable progress controls. Because at
the time of Georgia's SIP development many of these states had not yet
defined their criteria for identifying sources to evaluate for
reasonable progress, Georgia applied its AOI methodology to identify
sources in the State that have emissions units with impacts large
enough to potentially warrant further evaluation and analysis. The
State identified eight emissions units in Georgia with a contribution
of 0.5 percent or more to the visibility impairment at the following
seven Class I areas in five neighboring states: Sipsey Wilderness Area
(AL), Saint Marks Wilderness Area (FL), Shining Rock Wilderness Area
(NC), Swanquarter Wilderness Area (NC), Great Smoky Mountains National
Park (NC/TN), Joyce Kilmer-Slickrock Wilderness Area (NC/TN), and Cape
Romain Wilderness Area (SC). Based on an evaluation of the four
reasonable progress statutory factors, Georgia determined that there
are no additional control measures for these Georgia emissions units
that would be reasonable to implement to mitigate visibility impacts in
Class I areas in these neighboring states. GA EPD consulted with these
states in the VISTAS region regarding its reasonable progress control
evaluations showing no cost-effective controls available for those
emissions units in Georgia contributing at least 0.5 percent to
visibility impairment at Class I areas in those states. No adverse
comments were received from the other VISTAS states. The documentation
for these formal consultations is provided in Appendix J of Georgia's
SIP.
    Regarding the impact of sources outside of the State on Class I
areas in Georgia, GA EPD sent letters to Florida,

South Carolina, and Tennessee pertaining to emissions units within
these states that it believes contribute 0.5 percent or more to
visibility impairment in the Georgia Class I areas. At that time, these
neighboring states were still in the process of evaluating BART and
reasonable progress for their sources. Any controls resulting from
those determinations will provide additional emissions reductions and
resulting visibility improvement, which gives further assurances that
Georgia will achieve its RPGs. Therefore, to be conservative, Georgia
opted not to rely on any additional emissions reductions from sources
located outside the State's boundaries beyond those already identified
in the State's regional haze SIP submittal and as discussed in section
IV.C.1 (Federal and state controls in place by 2018) of this action.
    In 2007, Georgia received a letter sent by the Mid-Atlantic/
Northeast Visibility Union (MANE-VU) RPO on behalf of the States of
Maine, New Jersey, New Hampshire, and Vermont, inviting Georgia to
participate in upcoming state consultation calls and meetings. This
letter also requested a control strategy to provide a 28-percent
reduction in SO2 emissions from sources other than EGUs that
would be equivalent to MANE-VU's proposed low sulfur fuel oil strategy.
Georgia also received individual letters in 2007 from the MANE-VU
States of Maine and Vermont stating that based on MANE-VU's analysis of
2002 emissions data, Georgia contributed to visibility impairment to
Class I areas in those states. The letters invited Georgia to
participate in future consultation discussions. Georgia sent letters to
Maine and Vermont stating that GA EPD was currently in the process of
requiring 95-percent SO2 control on the seven largest coal-
fired power plants in Georgia, and that these controls were not fully
accounted for in the VISTAS modeling for 2009 and SO2 AOI
analyses for 2018. Georgia affirms it will continue to work through
VISTAS to continue discussions with MANE-VU regarding this issue.
    GA EPD evaluated both EGU and 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.
2. Consultation With the FLMs
    Through the VISTAS RPO, Georgia and the nine other member states
worked extensively with the FLMs from the U.S. Departments of the
Interior and Agriculture to develop technical analyses that support the
regional haze SIPs for the VISTAS states. The proposed regional haze
plan for Georgia was out for public comment and FLM review from July to
August 2009 and an earlier draft plan was shared for FLM and EPA
discussions between December 2008 and February 2009. The FLMs did not
submit any significant adverse comments regarding either the State's
December 2008 draft or the July 2009 proposed regional haze SIP. The
FLMs requested that the State include a discussion regarding the
Georgia sources' visibility impacts to out-of-state Class I areas in
the draft SIP as well as a discussion on consideration of measures to
address construction activity. Additionally, the FLMs offered some
clarifications to the text and requested inclusion of the BART
exemption modeling reports for eight BART-eligible sources. Georgia
addressed the FLMs' comments, including the requested BART modeling
exemption reports and discussion regarding out-of-state Class I area
impacts, and also provided written responses explaining its changes.
    To address the requirement for continuing consultation procedures
with the FLMs under 40 CFR 51.308(i)(4), Georgia stated in its SIP that
GA EPD will offer the FLMs an opportunity for consultation on a yearly
basis, including the opportunity to discuss the implementation process
and the most recent IMPROVE monitoring data and VIEWS data. Records of
annual consultations and progress report consultations will be
maintained in Georgia EPD's regional haze files.

G. Periodic SIP Revisions and Five-Year Progress Reports

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

V. What action is EPA taking?

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

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review

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

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

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

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

    The RFA generally requires an agency to conduct a regulatory
flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment
rulemaking requirements unless the agency certifies that the rule will
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. Small entities include small businesses, small not-for-profit
enterprises, and small governmental jurisdictions.
    This rule will not have a significant impact on a substantial
number of small entities because SIP approvals under section 110 and
subchapter I, part D of the CAA do not create any new requirements but
simply approve requirements that the State is already imposing.
Therefore, because the Federal SIP approval does not create any new
requirements, I certify that this action will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
    Moreover, due to the nature of the Federal-state relationship under
the CAA, preparation of flexibility analysis

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

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

    Under sections 202 of the UMRA of 1995 (``Unfunded Mandates Act''),
signed into law on March 22, 1995, EPA must prepare a budgetary impact
statement to accompany any proposed or final rule that includes a
Federal mandate that may result in estimated costs to State, local, or
tribal governments in the aggregate; or to the private sector, of $100
million or more. Under section 205, EPA must select the most cost-
effective and least burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives
of the rule and is consistent with statutory requirements. Section 203
requires EPA to establish a plan for informing and advising any small
governments that may be significantly or uniquely impacted by the rule.
    EPA has determined that today's proposal does not include a Federal
mandate that may result in estimated costs of $100 million or more to
either state, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate, or to the
private sector. This Federal action proposes to approve 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.

E. Executive Order 13132, Federalism

    Federalism (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) revokes and replaces
Executive Orders 12612 (Federalism) and 12875 (Enhancing the
Intergovernmental Partnership). Executive Order 13132 requires EPA to
develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful and timely input
by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies
that have Federalism implications.'' ``Policies that have federalism
implications'' is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations
that have ``substantial direct effects on the states, on the
relationship between the national government and the states, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government.'' Under Executive Order 13132, EPA may not issue a
regulation that has Federalism implications, that imposes substantial
direct compliance costs, and that is not required by statute, unless
the Federal government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct
compliance costs incurred by state and local governments, or EPA
consults with state and local officials early in the process of
developing the proposed regulation. EPA also may not issue a regulation
that has Federalism implications and that preempts state law unless the
Agency consults with state and local officials early in the process of
developing the proposed regulation.
    This rule will not have substantial direct effects on the states,
on the relationship between the national government and the states, or
on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various
levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132, because it
merely approves a state rule implementing a Federal standard, and does
not alter the relationship or the distribution of power and
responsibilities established in the CAA. Thus, the requirements of
section 6 of the Executive Order do not apply to this rule.

F. Executive Order 13175, Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments

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

G. Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children From Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks

    Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), applies to any rule that: (1) is
determined to be ``economically significant'' as defined under
Executive Order 12866, and (2) concerns an environmental health or
safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may have a disproportionate
effect on children. If the regulatory action meets both criteria, the
Agency must evaluate the environmental health or safety effects of the
planned rule on children, and explain why the planned regulation is
preferable to other potentially effective and reasonably feasible
alternatives considered by the Agency.
    This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it does
not involve decisions intended to mitigate environmental health or
safety risks.

H. Executive Order 13211, Actions That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use

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

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Section 12 of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
(NTTAA) of 1995 requires Federal agencies to evaluate existing
technical standards when developing a new regulation. To comply with
NTTAA, EPA must consider and use ``voluntary consensus standards''
(VCS) if available and applicable when developing programs and policies
unless doing so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise
impractical.
    EPA believes that VCS are inapplicable to this action. Today's
action does not require the public to perform activities conducive to
the use of VCS.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Intergovernmental
relations, Nitrogen oxides, Particulate matter, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur dioxide, Volatile organic compounds.

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

    Dated: February 15, 2012.
A. Stanley Meiburg,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4.
[FR Doc. 2012-4516 Filed 2-24-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: October 13, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 198)]
[Notices]
[Page 60496]
[DOCID:fr13oc06-47]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP06-635-000]

Dominion Transmission, Inc.; Notice of Proposed Changes in FERC
Gas Tariff

October 5, 2006.
    Take notice that on September 29, 2006, Dominion Transmission Inc.
(DTI) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, Third Revised
Volume No. 1, the following tariff sheets, to become effective November
1, 2006:

Thirtieth Revised Sheet No. 31
Sixth Revised Sheet No. 31A
Thirty-Third Revised Sheet No. 32
Sixth Revised Sheet No. 32A
Nineteenth Revised Sheet No. 34
Fourth Revised Sheet No. 34A
Twenty-Sixth Revised Sheet No. 35
Sixth Revised Sheet No. 35A
Nineteenth Revised Sheet No. 39
Seventh Revised Sheet No. 39A

    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices,
motions, or protests must be filed in accordance with the provisions of
Section 154.210 of the Commission's regulations (18 CFR 154.210).
Anyone filing an intervention or protest must serve a copy of that
document on the Applicant. Anyone filing an intervention or protest on
or before the intervention or protest date need not serve motions to
intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov.
 Persons unable to file electronically should submit an

original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the

``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For

TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E6-16980 Filed 10-12-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 80 (Wednesday, April 25, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 24702-24703]
[FR Doc No: 2012-9896]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2004-0015 and EPA-HQ-OAR-2004-0016; FRL 9514-8]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to OMB for
Review and Approval; Comment Request; Part 70 State Operating Permit
Program (Renewal) and Part 71 Federal Operating Permit Program
(Renewal)

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), this document announces that two Information
Collection Requests (ICRs) have been forwarded to the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval. This is a request
to renew two existing approved collections. The ICRs, which are
abstracted below, describe the nature of the two information
collections and the estimated burdens and costs.

DATES: Additional comments may be submitted on or before May 25, 2012.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2004-0015 (for the Part 70 state program) or Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2004-0016 (for the Part 71 federal program), to (1) the EPA online
using www.regulations.gov (our preferred method), by email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or by mail to: Air and Radiation Docket and Information
Center, Mailcode: 28221T, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460, and (2) the OMB by mail
to: Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management
and Budget (OMB), Attention: Desk Officer for EPA, 725 17th Street NW.,
Washington, DC 20503.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Jeff Herring, Air Quality Policy
Division, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, (C504-05),
Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina
27711; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax number:<PHONE_NUMBER>;
email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The EPA has submitted the following ICRs to
the OMB for review and approval according to the procedures prescribed
in 5 CFR 1320.12. On December 14, 2011 (76 FR 77820), the EPA sought
comments on the two ICRs pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.8(d). The EPA received
no comments. Any additional comments on the two ICRs should be
submitted to the EPA and the OMB within 30 days of this notice.
    The EPA has established a public docket for the Part 70 ICR renewal
under Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2004-0015 and a public docket for the
Part 71 ICR renewal under Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2004-0016, which are
available at www.regulations.gov. Use the EPA's electronic docket and
comment system at www.regulations.gov, to submit or view public
comments.
    Title: Part 70 State Operating Permit Program (Renewal) and Part 71
Federal Operating Permit Program (Renewal).
    ICR numbers: For the Part 70 regulations, EPA ICR No. 1587.12 and
OMB Control No. 2060-0243. For the Part 71 regulations, EPA ICR No.
1713.10 and OMB Control No. 2060-0336.
    ICR Status: The two ICRs are both scheduled to expire on April 30,
2012. Under OMB regulations, the Agency may continue to conduct or
sponsor the collection of information while this submission is pending
at the OMB. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not
required to respond to, a collection of information, unless it displays
a currently valid OMB control number.
    Abstract: Title V of the Clean Air Act (Act) requires states to
develop and implement a program for issuing operating permits to all
sources that fall under any Act definition of ``major'' and certain
other non-major sources that are subject to federal air quality
regulations. The Act further requires the EPA to develop regulations
that establish the minimum requirements for those state operating
permits programs, to oversee implementation of the state programs, and
to operate a federal operating permits program in areas not subject to
an approved state program. The EPA regulations setting forth
requirements for the state operating permit program are at 40 CFR part
70, and the EPA regulations setting forth the requirements for the
federal (EPA) operating permit program are at 40 CFR part 71. The part
70 program is designed to be implemented primarily by state and local
permitting authorities in all areas where they have juridiction. The
part 71 program is designed to be implemented primarily by the EPA in
all areas where state and local agencies do not have jurisdiction, such
as Indian country and offshore beyond states' seaward boundaries. The
EPA may also delegate authority to implement the part 71 program on its
behalf to a state, local or tribal agency if the agency requests

delegation and makes certain showings regarding its authority and
ability to implement the program. One such delegate agency for the part
71 program exists at present.
    In order to receive an operating permit for a major or other source
subject to either of the permitting programs, the applicant must
conduct the necessary research, perform the appropriate analyses and
prepare the permit application with documentation to demonstrate that
its facility meets all applicable statutory and regulatory
requirements. Specific activities and requirements are listed and
described in the Supporting Statements for the two ICRs.
    State and local agencies under part 70 and the EPA (or a delegate
agency) under part 71 review permit applications, provide for public
review of proposed permits, issue permits based on consideration of all
technical factors and public input, and review information submittals
required of sources during the term of the permit. Also, under part 70,
the EPA reviews certain actions of the state and local agencies and
provides oversight of the programs to ensure that they are being
adequately implemented and enforced. Under part 71, the EPA reviews
certain actions and performs oversight for any delegate agency,
consistent with the terms of a delegation agreement. Consequently,
information prepared and submitted by sources is essential for sources
to receive permits, and for federal, state, local and tribal permitting
agencies to adequately review the permit applications and thereby
properly administer and manage the program.
    Since the previous renewal of this ICR, the EPA has promulgated two
changes to the part 70 and 71 regulations: the Flexible Air Permits
rule and the Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Tailoring rule. The first rule
provides a mechanism for sources to establish provisions in their
operating permits that result in fewer permit revisions necessary
during the term of the permit; the second establishes levels where GHG
emissions trigger permitting requirements. The information collection
requirements for these regulatory revisions were approved by the OMB
after the approval of the 2007 ICR renewals, and those approved changes
are included and updated in these ICR renewals. Also, the previous part
71 ICR renewal identifed the EPA as the sole permitting authority,
while this part 71 renewal identifies the EPA and one delegate agency,
the Navaho Nation, as permitting authorities (the EPA continues to
serve as a permitting authority in all areas, while the delegate agency
serves as a permitting authority in a limited portion of Indian
country).
    Burden Statement: Burden means the total time, effort or financial
resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain or disclose
or provide information to or for a federal agency. This includes the
time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install and
utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting,
validating and verifying information, processing and maintaining
information and disclosing and providing information; adjust the
existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and
requirements which have subsequently changed; train personnel to be
able to respond to a collection of information; search data sources;
complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or
otherwise disclose the information.
    The annual public reporting and recordkeeping burden for the
collection of information under parts 70 and 71 is broken down as
follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Type of permit action               Part 70         Part 71
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of Sources.......................          15,940             174
Burden Hours per Response:
    Sources.............................             250             209
    Permitting Authority................              84              90
Total Annual Burden Hours:
    Sources.............................       3,977,316          36,375
    Permitting Authority................       1,336,370       1,254 \a\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Any minor discrepencies are due to rounding.
\a\ Only delegate agency burden is shown for part 71.

    Respondents/Affected Entities: Industrial plants (sources); state,
local and tribal permitting authorities.
    Estimated Number of Respondents: For part 70 there are 15,940
sources and 112 state and local permitting authorities. For part 71
there are 174 industry sources and 1 tribal delegate permitting
authority. (The EPA serves as a permitting authority but, as a federal
agency, is not a respondent.)
    Estimated Total Annual Hour Burden: For part 70, the total annual
burden for sources and state and local permitting authorities is
5,313,686 hours. For part 71, the total annual burden for sources and
the one delegate agency (tribal) is 37,629 hours.
    Estimated Total Annual Cost: For part 70, the total annual cost for
sources and state and local permitting authorities is $322,734,860. For
part 71, the total annual cost for sources and the one delegate agency
(tribal) is $2,393,171. In both cases, all costs are labor costs; there
are no capital, startup or operating and maintenance costs.
    Changes in the Estimates: Since the last renewal of the part 70 ICR
(in 2007), there is an decrease of about 199,000 hours (or nearly a 5
percent decrease) of annual respondent burden. This change is primarily
due to an updated estimate of the number of permits expected.
    Since the last renewal of the part 71 ICR (in 2007), there is an
increase of over 10,000 hours of total annual respondent burden (about
a 38 percent increase). This is primarily due to an updated estimate of
the number of permits expected.

John Moses,
Director, Collection Strategies Division.
[FR Doc. 2012-9896 Filed 4-24-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P