I. Background A. General Purpose Reloadable Prepaid Cards

Prepaid cards are one of the fastest growing payment instruments in the United States. The prepaid card market consists of a wide variety of products. Some cards are “closed-loop cards,” which a consumer can use only at a specific merchant or group of merchants. Other cards are “open-loop cards,” which a consumer can use anywhere that accepts payment from a retail electronic payments network, such as Visa, MasterCard, American Express, or Discover. A prepaid card also may or may not be “reloadable,” meaning that the consumer, or other authorized party, can add money to the card after the card is issued.

This ANPR is seeking information about a specific type of prepaid card known as a general purpose reloadable (GPR) card (GPR card). According to projections by the Mercator Advisory Group, the total dollar value of amounts loaded onto GPR cards is expected to reach $167 billion in 2014, far in excess of the amount for 2007 of $12 billion. 1 A GPR card is issued for a set amount in exchange for payment made by a consumer. A GPR card is reloadable, meaning the consumer can add funds to the card. While this ANPR refers to a “card,” these devices may include other mechanisms, such as a key fob or cell phone application, that access a financial account. This ANPR does not seek information about “closed loop” cards, debit cards linked to a traditional checking account, non-reloadable cards, payroll cards, electronic benefit transfers (EBTs), or gift cards.

The GPR card market is one of the fastest growing segments of the overall prepaid market. According to the Mercator Advisory Group, the total dollar value of funds loaded to GPR cards is expected to grow at an average annual rate of 42% from 2010 to 2014. 2 Both depository and non-depository institutions participate in the GPR card market. Recently, the GPR card market has benefited from competition and economies of scale, leading many market participants to voluntarily provide some protections for consumers. The Bureau is gathering information about GPR cards, however, in order to ensure that consumers are protected regardless of the economic environment. Three factors in particular command greater attention to GPR cards: The growth of the market for GPR cards, consumer use, and the lack of comprehensive federal regulation. First, the number of GPR card users is growing rapidly, as the two largest issuers report that the number of active GPR cards more than doubled from nearly 3.4 million cards active as of the first quarter of 2009 to over 7.0 million active cards as of the first quarter of 2012. 3 Given this rapid growth and projections for continued growth, the need to evaluate and address potential risks to consumers will increase.

Second, some consumers may view and use GPR cards as an alternative to traditional checking accounts. This possibility is reflected in the increase in the number of GPR cards that consumers are loading through direct deposit. The second largest GPR card program manager reported that nearly 42% of its cardholders had direct deposit as of December 31, 2011, as compared to about 14% as of December 31, 2007. 4 The largest GPR card program manager reported a 69% year-over-year increase in the funds loaded via direct deposit during the fourth quarter of 2011. 5 The Bureau has also observed some GPR cards marketed as a substitute for a checking account. While consumers may be using GPR cards as a substitute for checking accounts, GPR cards do not carry the same protections given to checking accounts and electronic transactions involving checking accounts under federal law.

Third, the lack of a comprehensive federal regulatory regime may contribute to market distortions, misaligned incentives, or consumer confusion, as GPR card consumers may mistakenly assume that they possess rights enforceable under federal law. Unlike some other “general-use prepaid cards” such as payroll cards, Regulation E generally does not apply to GPR cards. Many GPR card market participants offer contractual protections similar to those provided in Regulation E for payroll cards, though such provisions may vary, and are subject to unilateral change.

Given the growth in the GPR card market and risk of consumer harm, the Bureau is seeking information to determine how best to implement consumer protection rules for this product. This information will help inform the Bureau as to the contours of any proposed rulemaking concerning GPR cards.

The Electronic Fund Transfer Act (15 U.S.C. 1693 et seq. ) (EFTA), enacted in 1978, provides a basic framework establishing the rights, liabilities, and responsibilities of participants in electronic fund transfer (EFT) systems. Historically, the EFTA was implemented in Regulation E of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (Board), 12 CFR part 205. The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (Dodd-Frank Act) amended a number of consumer financial protection laws, including the EFTA. Public Law 111-203,124 Stat. 1376 (2010). In addition to certain substantive amendments, the Dodd-Frank Act generally transferred the Board's rulemaking authority for the EFTA to the Bureau, effective July 21, 2011. 6 See sections 1061 and 1084 of the Dodd-Frank Act. Pursuant to the Dodd-Frank Act and EFTA, as amended, in December 2011 the Bureau republished Regulation E as an interim final rule, 12 CFR part 1005. 76 FR 81020 (Dec. 27, 2011).

Regulation E generally applies to electronic fund transfers authorizing a financial institution to debit or credit a consumer's account. Examples of types of transfers covered by the Act and regulation include transfers initiated through an automated teller machine (ATM), point-of-sale (POS) terminal, automated clearinghouse (ACH) transactions, telephone bill-payment plans, and remote banking service. Regulation E defines an “account” as “a demand deposit (checking), savings, or other consumer asset account (other than an occasional or incidental credit balance in a credit plan) held directly or indirectly by a financial institution and established primarily for personal, family, or household purposes.” 12 CFR 1005.2(b)(1).

In March 1994, the Board amended Regulation E to extend coverage to electronic benefit transfers (EBTs) issued by government agencies. 59 FR 10678 (March 7, 1994). The Board also amended Regulation E to deem a government agency an “institution” for purposes of the regulation. 12 CFR 1005.15(a). While EBTs became subject to most of the requirements of Regulation E, the Board exempted government agencies providing EBTs from the requirement of providing a periodic statement, so long as the agency makes the consumer's account balance readily available by telephone line and electronically, and the agency provides a written sixty day account history upon request. In response to the Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996, the Board published a final rule in August 1997 to exempt needs-tested benefits, those based on a person or family's income, from Regulation E. Public Law 104-193, 110 Stat. 2105 (1996); 62 FR 43467, 43468 (Aug. 14, 1997).

In August 2006, the Board published a final rule amending Regulation E to address payroll card accounts. 71 FR 51437 (Aug. 30, 2006); 12 CFR 1005.2(b)(2). The Board's final rule generally did not define employers and third-party service providers as “financial institutions.” The Board's final rule limited Regulation E's applicability to payroll card accounts to those established directly or indirectly through an employer. 12 CFR 1005.2(b)(2). While the Board received comments from consumer groups “urg[ing] the Board to initiate a separate rulemaking to cover additional cards used to deliver important household funds, such as emergency benefit payments, income tax refunds, or loan proceeds, as well as other cards marketed or used as deposit account substitutes,” the Board elected not to do so. The Board was of the view that GPR cards “may only be used for limited purposes or on a short-term basis, and * * * may hold minimal funds” and based on that premise the Board reasoned that “[c]onsumers would derive little benefit from receiving full Regulation E protections for cards * * *, while the issuer's costs of compliance with Regulation E might be significant.” 71 FR 51437, 51440-41. Thus, GPR cards were not included within the definition of “account.”

On May 22, 2009, the Credit Card Accountability Responsibility and Disclosure Act of 2009 (CARD Act) was signed into law. Public Law 111-24, 123 Stat. 1734 (2009). The CARD Act amended the EFTA to impose restrictions on a person's ability to impose dormancy fees, service fees, or expiration dates on gift cards, which might take the form of a gift certificate, store gift card, or what was termed a general-use prepaid card. In April 2010, the Board published a final rule to implement these provisions. 75 FR 16580 (Aug. 22, 2010). The Board defined the term “general-use prepaid card,” as a “a card, code, or other device that is: (i) [I]ssued on a prepaid basis primarily for personal, family, or household purposes to a consumer in a specified amount, whether or not that amount may be increased or reloaded, in exchange for payment; and (ii) [r]edeemable upon presentation at multiple, unaffiliated merchants for goods or services, or usable at automated teller machines.” EFTA Section 915(a)(2)(A); 12 CFR 1005.20(a)(3)(i)-(ii). Because the CARD Act restrictions applied only to gift cards, however, the Board was careful to note that a general-use prepaid card did not include a device that was “[r]eloadable and not marketed or labeled as a gift card or gift certificate.” 12 CFR 1005.20(b)(2). Thus, the CARD Act restrictions regarding dormancy fees, service fees, or expiration dates on gift cards applied solely to general-purpose cards intended as gifts, not to those used more generally as replacement products for checking or deposit accounts. Moreover, the definition of “account” in Regulation E remained unaltered.

The Bureau is seeking information from the public with respect to GPR cards, including their costs, benefits, and risks to consumers. These comments, in conjunction with other outreach and analysis, will help the Bureau better understand and evaluate potential consumer protection issues for this product. The Bureau will carefully consider the public's input as it formulates a proposal to regulate GPR cards. The Bureau's goals are to ensure that consistent minimum standards apply across similar consumer financial products, to allow consumers to easily compare financial products by ensuring transparent fee disclosure, and to allocate the risks of fraud or loss appropriately. In pursuing these goals, the Bureau will be mindful of avoiding any unnecessary burden on industry.

The Bureau has grouped questions on GPR cards into four broad categories: (A) Regulatory coverage of products by some or all of Regulation E, (B) product fees and disclosures, (C) product features, and (D) other information on GPR cards.

1. How should the CFPB define GPR cards in the context of Regulation E? Should certain prepaid products not be included in this definition, such as cards that may serve a limited purpose ( e.g., university cards or health spending cards)? Why or why not?

2. Should only certain aspects of Regulation E be applied to GPR cards? For example, as Regulation E is currently applied to payroll cards, consumers are not guaranteed a periodic paper statement. If possible, please explain why a GPR card's use or structure makes any such modification appropriate. If the Bureau were to propose modifications to the Regulation E protections, what alternative protections or requirements, if any, should the Bureau propose?

3. What steps could the Bureau take to most effectively regulate these products to provide the consumer with transparent, useful, and timely fee disclosures? Should market participants be required to provide disclosure pre-sale, post-sale, or both?

4. How can the Bureau best enable a consumer to compare various GPR cards, or other payment products, that may have different fee structures or be offered through various distribution channels? Many GPR cards offer limited space to disclose contract terms. How should market participants convey the most important contractual terms to consumers to enable them to make educated purchase decisions?

5. Many, but not all, GPR card accounts are insured by Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) pass-through insurance (coverage that “passes through” the agent to the holders of the accounts). 7 Other GPR cards may provide alternative security mechanisms, but do not offer FDIC pass-through insurance. Should the existence, or lack thereof, of FDIC pass-through insurance associated with a GPR card be disclosed to the consumer? If so, how and when should the existence of FDIC pass-through insurance be disclosed?

6. Currently, most GPR cards do not offer credit features, such as an “overdraft” feature that may be offered with a debit card that is linked to a traditional checking account. While an overdraft can occur in unusual circumstances, as when a small-item transaction is submitted for settlement without prior authorization or when a submitted transaction exceeds the authorized amount, generally speaking most GPR cardholders may not be able to withdraw or spend more than the funds loaded on the card. Nonetheless, some GPR card programs do allow cardholders to opt in to an overdraft program in which the issuer may authorize overdrafts and charges an overdraft transaction fee. The Bureau seeks public input on the costs, benefits, and consumer protection issues related to any credit features that may be offered by GPR cards.

7. Currently, most GPR cards do not offer a savings account associated with the card. The Bureau seeks public input on the costs, and benefits, and consumer protection issues related to savings features offered with GPR cards.

8. Currently some GPR cards include a feature that claims to offer consumers the opportunity to improve or build credit. Consumers generally need to opt in to this feature, which involves the reporting of certain information to credit reporting agencies. The Bureau seeks public input and data concerning the efficacy of credit reporting features on GPR cards in enabling consumers to improve or build credit. The Bureau also seeks information on whether regulatory provisions should address how such services are marketed to consumers.

9. Through what methods, and under what circumstances, do market participants communicate a change of contract terms, or other information, to cardholders? Are there inventory replacement cycles that drive the printing of cards to stock distribution outlets? Do market participants conduct periodic maintenance of systems during which updating compliance systems would impose less of a burden? If so, how often does this maintenance occur? Are there other issues with respect to the cost of regulatory compliance about which the CFPB should be aware?

10. Is there any other information relevant to GPR cards that will help inform the Bureau as it considers how best to address these products or other issues the Bureau should consider in this regard?

Comments Invited

We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2010-0217; Directorate Identifier 2009-NE-23-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this proposed AD because of those comments.

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

On August 26, 2010, we issued AD 2010-18-13, Amendment 39-16427 (75 FR 55459, September 13, 2010), for all Pratt & Whitney PW4052, PW4056, PW4060, PW4062, PW4062A, PW4074, PW4077, PW4077D, PW4084D, PW4090, PW4090-3, PW4152, PW4156A, PW4158, PW4164, PW4168, PW4168A, PW4460, and PW4462 turbofan engines. That AD requires initial and repetitive FPI for cracks in the blade locking and loading slots of the HPC rear drum. That AD resulted from reports of cracked locking and loading slots in the HPC rear drum. We issued that AD to prevent failure of the HPC drum rotor disk assembly, which could lead to an uncontained engine failure, and damage to the airplane.

Since we issued AD 2010-18-13 (75 FR 55459, September 13, 2010), Pratt & Whitney has developed a redesigned HPC drum rotor disk assembly for PW4000-94″ and PW4000-100″ engine models. The redesign includes new 13th, 14th, and 15th stage HPC seals that lower the temperature in the loading and locking slots and decrease the likelihood of cracking. Based on the risk analysis, it was determined that installing the redesigned 13th, 14th, and 15th stage HPC seals on the original design HPC drum rotor disk assembly is an additional required action to maintain an acceptable level of safety and prevent cracking in the loading and locking slots while the redesigned HPC drum rotor disk assembly is being implemented. The option of installing a redesigned HPC drum rotor disk assembly is considered final corrective action to the repetitive inspections required by this AD.

Prior to publishing AD 2010-18-13 (75 FR 55459, September 13, 2010), we reviewed the technical contents of Pratt & Whitney Service Bulletin (SB) No. PW4ENG 72-796, dated June 11, 2009, SB No. PW4G-100-72-186, Revision 1, dated September 2, 2004, and SB No. PW4G-112-72-264, Revision 2, dated February 23, 2010. Those three SBs describe procedures for performing a local FPI of the HPC rear drum blade locking and loading slots for cracks.

During the development of this proposed AD, we reviewed Pratt & Whitney SB No. PW4ENG 72-816, dated December 2, 2011, and SB No. PW4G-100-72-240, dated November 15, 2011. Those two SBs describe procedures for replacing the 13th, 14th, and 15th stage HPC seals in PW4000-94″ and PW4000-100″ engine models, with redesigned seals. We also reviewed Pratt & Whitney SB No. PW4ENG 72-817, dated December 7, 2011, and SB No. PW4G-100-72-241, dated November 15, 2011. Those two SBs describe procedures for replacing the HPC drum rotor disk assemblies in PW4000-94″ and PW4000-100″ engine models, with redesigned HPC drum rotor disk assemblies.

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

This proposed AD would retain all of the requirements of AD 2010-18-13 (75 FR 55459, September 13, 2010). This proposed AD would also require replacement of the 13th, 14th, and 15th stage HPC seals with redesigned seals, and would add an optional terminating action to the repetitive inspection requirements by allowing replacement of the HPC drum rotor disk assembly with a redesigned HPC drum rotor disk assembly.

We estimate that this proposed AD would affect 911 engines installed on airplanes of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it would take about 1 work-hour per engine to perform an inspection using an average labor rate of $85 per work-hour. We estimate that there are 770 PW4000-94″ and PW4000-100″ engines that would require replacement of 13th, 14th, and 15th stage HPC seals, at a parts cost of $3,000 per engine. No additional labor is assumed when the replacement is done at piece-part exposure of the HPC drum rotor disk assembly. The replacement parts cost of the redesigned HPC drum rotor disk assembly is $630,000. Based on these figures, we estimate that the total cost of the proposed AD to U.S. operators will be $2,387,435.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Employee Benefits Security Administration of the Department of Labor (Department) is reopening the period for public comment on proposed regulatory amendments to improve the information that is disclosed to participants and beneficiaries concerning investments in target date or similar funds (TDFs). In November 2010, the Department published a proposal to amend its qualified default investment alternative regulation (29 CFR 2550.404c-5) and participant-level disclosure regulation (29 CFR 2550.404a-5). The comment period for the proposal originally closed on January 14, 2011. 1 The proposal includes more specific disclosure requirements for TDFs, based on evidence that plan participants and beneficiaries would benefit from additional information concerning these investments. Specifically, the proposal would require an explanation of the TDF's asset allocation, how the asset allocation will change over time, and the point in time when the TDF will reach its most conservative asset allocation; including a chart, table, or other graphical representation that illustrates such change in asset allocation. The proposal also would require, among other things, information about the relevance of the TDF's “target date;” any assumptions about participants' and beneficiaries' contribution and withdrawal intentions following the target date; and a statement that TDFs do not guarantee adequate retirement income and that participants and beneficiaries may lose money by investing in the TDF, including losses near and following retirement. Additional background and other information are contained in the Supplementary Information published with the proposed amendments. 2

Throughout this regulatory initiative, the Department has consulted with the Securities and Exchange Commission (Commission). The Department also specifically requested comment in its proposal on whether the final rule should incorporate any of the elements of a rule proposed by the Commission to address concerns regarding the potential for investor misunderstandings about TDFs. 3 In response, a large number of commenters strongly encouraged careful coordination with the Commission to avoid the potential cost and confusion (on the part of plan sponsors and participants and beneficiaries) that could result if the two agencies were to establish inconsistent disclosure requirements. Because of the relationship between the Department's and the Commission's regulatory proposals, the Department has continued to consult with Commission staff while working to issue a final rule.

As part of its regulatory process, the Commission recently engaged a consultant to conduct investor testing of comprehension and communication issues relating to TDFs. A report presenting the findings of this research on individual investors' understanding of TDFs and related fund advertisements is publicly available on the Commissions' Web site. 4 To provide interested parties an opportunity to comment on the results of this research and on its regulatory proposal, the Commission recently reopened the comment period for its proposal. 5

As the results of this research also may be relevant to the Department's proposal, and in order to provide all persons who are interested in this research an opportunity to comment on the report, the Department is reopening the comment period before action is taken to finalize regulatory amendments. The Department invites additional comments on the TDF proposal in light of this new research. To avoid unnecessary duplication, the Department encourages parties who submitted comments to the Commission in response to their reopened comment period, and who consider their comments to be similarly relevant to the Department's review of the above-mentioned research, to submit (or reference) such comments, in response to this request, for inclusion in the Department's public record. Parties also may comment on any other matters that may have an effect on the Department's proposal. Accordingly, the Department is extending the comment period until July 9, 2012.

Table of Acronyms DHS Department of Homeland Security FR  Federal Register NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking A. Public Participation and Request for Comments

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

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

To submit your comment online, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type the docket number (USCG-2012-0341) in the “SEARCH” box and click “SEARCH.” Click on “Submit a Comment” on the line associated with this rulemaking.

If you submit your comments by mail or hand delivery, submit them in an unbound format, no larger than 8 1/2 by 11 inches, suitable for copying and electronic filing. If you submit comments by mail and would like to know that they reached the Facility, please enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard or envelope. We will consider all comments and material received during the comment period and may change the rule based on your comments.

To view comments, as well as documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type the docket number (USCG-2012-0341) in the “SEARCH” box and click “SEARCH.” Click on Open Docket Folder on the line associated with this rulemaking. You may also visit the Docket Management Facility in Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the Department of Transportation West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

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

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

Annually, since 2008, a regulation has been enforced for the “Wilmington YMCA Triathlon”, locally known as the “Beach 2 Battleship”. The event was recently added to 33 CFR 100.501 on January 19, 2012 in 77 FR 2629. Historically no comments or objections have been received for the regulation. Based on tidal predictions the sponsor has requested a change to the effective dates of this rule.

The YMCA sponsors an annual Triathlon, “Wilmington YMCA Triathlon”, locally known as the “Beach 2 Battleship”, in the Wrightsville Beach area of North Carolina. The Triathlon consists of three events: A running portion, a bike-riding portion, and a swimming portion. The swimming portion of the Triathlon takes place in the waters adjacent to Wrightsville Beach. A special local regulation is effective annually to create a safety zone for the swimming portion of the Triathlon.

The regulation listing annual marine events within the Fifth Coast Guard District and corresponding dates is 33 CFR 100.501. The Table to § 100.501 identifies marine events by Captain of the Port zone. This particular marine event is listed in section (d.) line No. 4 of the table.

The current regulation described in section (d.) line No. 4 of the table indicates the Triathlon should take place this year on October 27, 2012, November 3, 2012 or November 10, 2012, this year. This regulation proposes to change the date for the event to take place on October 20, 2012 for this year only.

The swim portion of the Triathlon, scheduled to take place on Saturday October 20, 2012, will consist of two groups of 950 swimmers entering Banks Channel at the Blockade Runner Hotel and swimming northwest along Motts Channel to Seapath Marine. A fleet of spectator vessels are expected to gather near the event site to view the competition.

To provide for the safety of the participants, spectators and other transiting vessels, the Coast Guard will temporarily restrict vessel traffic in the event area during this event. The regulation at 33 CFR 100.501 would be enforced from 7 a.m. to 11 a.m. on October 20, 2012; vessels may not enter the regulated area unless they receive permission from the Coast Guard Patrol Commander.

The Coast Guard proposes to temporarily suspend the regulation listed at section (d.) line No. 4 in the Table to § 100.501 and insert this new temporary regulation at the Table to § 100.501 line No. 5 in order to reflect the change of date for this year's event. This change is needed to accommodate the change in date of the annual Triathlon. No other portion of the Table to § 100.501 or other provisions in § 100.501 shall be affected by this regulation.

This safety zone will restrict vessel movement on the specified waters of Wrightsville Channel, Wrightsville Beach, NC. The regulated area will be established in the interest of participant safety during the swim portion of the “Wilmington YMCA Triathlon” and will be enforced from 7 a.m. to 11 a.m. on October 20, 2012. The Coast Guard, at its discretion, when deemed safe will allow the passage of vessels. During the Marine Event no vessel will be allowed to transit the waterway unless the vessel is given permission from the Patrol Commander to transit the regulated segment of the waterway.

Any vessel transiting the regulated area must do so at a no-wake speed during the effective period. Nothing in this proposed rule negates the requirement to operate at a safe speed as provided in the Navigational Rules and Regulations.

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

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

We expect the economic impact of this proposed rule to be so minimal that a full Regulatory Evaluation is unnecessary. Although this regulation prevents traffic from transiting waters of Wrightsville Channel during the event, the effect of this regulation will not be significant due to the limited duration that the regulated area will be in effect. Extensive advance notification will be made to the maritime community via marine information broadcast and local area newspapers so mariners can adjust their plans accordingly. Additionally, this rulemaking does not change the permanent regulated areas that have been published in 33 CFR 100.501, Table to § 100.501. Vessel traffic will be able to transit the regulated area before and after the races, when the Coast Guard Patrol Commander deems it is safe to do so. Coast Guard vessels enforcing this regulated area can be contacted on marine band radio VHF-FM channel 16 (156.8 MHz).

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have considered the impact of this proposed rule on small entities. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This rule will affect the following entities, some of which may be small entities: The owners of operators of vessels intending to transit Wrightsville Channel from 7 a.m. to 11 a.m. on October 20, 2012.

This rule will not have a significant economic impact on substantial number of small entities for the following reasons. The regulation will be enforced for only two hours. Although the regulated area will apply to Motts, Banks and Wrightsville Channels, traffic may be allowed to pass through the regulated area with the permission of the Coast Guard Patrol Commander. In the case where the Patrol Commander authorizes passage through the regulated area, vessels shall proceed at the minimum speed necessary to maintain a safe course that minimizes wake near the swim course. The Patrol Commander will allow non-participating vessels to transit the event area once all swimmers are safely clear of navigation channels and vessel traffic areas. Before the enforcement period, we will issue maritime advisories so mariners can adjust their plans accordingly.

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

Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this proposed rule. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT , above. The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this proposed rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.

This proposed rule will not call for a new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520.).

A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on 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. We have analyzed this proposed rule under that Order and determined that this rule does not have implications for federalism.

The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters. Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the “For Further Information Contact” section to coordinate protest activities so that your message can be received without jeopardizing the safety or security of people, places or vessels.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We have analyzed this proposed rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have made a preliminary determination that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This proposed rule involves implementation of regulations within 33 CFR part 100 that apply to organized marine events on the navigable waters of the United States that may have potential for negative impact on the safety or other interest of waterway users and shore side activities in the event area. This special local regulation is necessary to provide for the safety of the general public and event participants from potential hazards associated with movement of vessels near the event area. We seek any comments or information that may lead to the discovery of a significant environmental impact from this proposed rule.

This rule is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph 34(h) of Figure 2-1 of the Commandant Instruction. A preliminary environmental analysis checklist supporting this determination and a Categorical Exclusion Determination are available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES . We seek any comments or information that may lead to the discovery of a significant environmental impact from this proposed rule.

Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Waterways.

For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to amend 33 CFR part 100 as follows:

Table of Contents I. What is the background for EPA's proposed action? A. The Regional Haze Problem B. Background Information C. Roles of Agencies in Addressing Regional Haze D. The Relationship of the Clean Air Interstate Rule and the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule to Regional Haze Requirements II. What are the requirements for the Regional Haze SIPs? A. The CAA and the Regional Haze Rule (RHR) B. Determination of Baseline, Natural, and Current Visibility Conditions C. Determination of Reasonable Progress Goals (RPGs) D. Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) E. Long-Term Strategy (LTS) F. Coordinating Regional Haze and Reasonably Attributable Visibility Impairment (RAVI) LTS G. Monitoring Strategy and Other Implementation Plan Requirements H. Consultation With States and Federal Land Managers (FLMs) III. What is EPA's analysis of Massachusetts' Regional Haze SIP submittal? A. Massachusetts' Impact on MANE-VU Class I Areas B. Best Available Retrofit Technology 1. Identification of all BART-Eligible Sources 2. Cap-Outs 3. Identification of Sources Subject to BART 4. Modeling To Demonstrate Source Visibility Impact 5. Source-Specific BART Determinations 6. Identification of All BART Source Categories Covered by the Alternative Program 7. Determination of the BART Benchmark 8. Massachusetts' SO 2 Alternative BART Program 9. Massachusetts' NO X Alternative BART Program 10. EPA's Assessment of Massachusetts' Alternative to BART Demonstration 11. Massachusetts' PM BART Determinations 12. BART Enforceability C. Long-Term Strategy 1. Emissions Inventory for 2018 With Federal and State Control Requirements 2. Modeling To Support the LTS 3. Relative Contributions of Pollutants to Visibility Impairments 4. Meeting the MANE-VU “Ask” 5. Additional Considerations for the LTS D. Consultation With States and Federal Land Managers E. Periodic SIP Revisions and Five-Year Progress Reports IV. What action is EPA proposing to take? V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

Throughout this document, wherever “we,” “us,” or “our” is used, we mean the EPA.

Regional haze is visibility impairment that is produced by a multitude of sources and activities which are located across a broad geographic area and emit fine particles and their precursors (e.g., sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and in some cases, ammonia and volatile organic compounds). Fine particle precursors react in the atmosphere to form fine particulate matter (PM 2.5 ) (e.g., sulfates, nitrates, organic carbon, elemental carbon, and soil dust), which also impair visibility by scattering and absorbing light. Visibility impairment reduces the clarity, color, and visible distance that one can see. PM 2.5 can also cause serious health effects and mortality in humans and contributes to environmental effects such as acid deposition.

Data from the existing visibility monitoring network, the “Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual Environments” (IMPROVE) monitoring network, show that visibility impairment caused by air pollution occurs virtually all the time at most national park and wilderness areas. The average visual range in many Class I areas (i.e., national parks and memorial parks, wilderness areas, and international parks meeting certain size criteria) in the Western United States is 100-150 kilometers, or about one-half to two-thirds of the visual range that would exist without manmade air pollution. In most of the eastern Class I areas of the United States, the average visual range is less than 30 kilometers, or about one-fifth of the visual range that would exist under estimated natural conditions. See 64 FR 35715 (July 1, 1999).

In section 169A(a)(1) of the 1977 Amendments to the CAA, Congress created a program for protecting visibility in the nation's national parks and wilderness areas. This section of the CAA establishes as a national goal the “prevention of any future, and the remedying of any existing, impairment of visibility in mandatory Class I Federal areas  1 which impairment results from manmade air pollution.” On December 2, 1980, EPA promulgated regulations to address visibility impairment in Class I areas that is “reasonably attributable” to a single source or small group of sources, i.e., “reasonably attributable visibility impairment” (RAVI). See 45 FR 80084 (Dec. 2, 1980). These regulations represented the first phase in addressing visibility impairment. EPA deferred action on regional haze that emanates from a variety of sources until monitoring, modeling and scientific knowledge about the relationships between pollutants and visibility impairment were improved.

Congress added section 169B to the CAA in 1990 to address regional haze issues. EPA promulgated a rule to address regional haze on July 1, 1999 (64 FR 35714), the Regional Haze Rule. The Regional Haze Rule revised the existing visibility regulations to integrate into the regulation provisions addressing regional haze impairment and established a comprehensive visibility protection program for Class I areas. The requirements for regional haze, found at 40 CFR 51.308 and 51.309, are included in EPA's visibility protection regulations at 40 CFR 51.300-309. Some of the main elements of the regional haze requirements are summarized in Section II. The requirement to submit a regional haze SIP applies to all 50 States, the District of Columbia and the Virgin Islands. In 40 CFR 51.308(b), States are required to submit the first implementation plan addressing regional haze visibility impairment no later than December 17, 2007. On January 15, 2009, EPA found that 37 States, the District of Columbia and the U.S. Virgin Islands failed to submit this required implementation plan. See 74 FR 2392 (Jan. 15, 2009). In particular, EPA found that Massachusetts failed to submit a plan that met the requirements of 40 CFR 51.308. See 74 FR 2393. On December 30, 2011, the Division of Air Quality Control of the MassDEP submitted revisions to the Massachusetts SIP to address regional haze as required by 40 CFR 51.308. In addition, on May 2, 2012, MassDEP requested parallel processing of its February 17, 2012 Proposed Revision to Massachusetts Regional Haze SIP. EPA has reviewed Massachusetts' submittals and is proposing to find that they are consistent with the requirements of 40 CFR 51.308 as outlined in Section II.

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

Because the pollutants that lead to regional haze can originate from sources located across broad geographic areas, EPA has encouraged the States and Tribes across the United States to address visibility impairment from a regional perspective. Five regional planning organizations (RPOs) were developed to address regional haze and related issues. The RPOs first evaluated technical information to better understand how their States and Tribes impact Class I areas across the country, and then pursued the development of regional strategies to reduce emissions of PM 2.5 and other pollutants leading to regional haze.

The Mid-Atlantic/Northeast Visibility Union (MANE-VU) RPO is a collaborative effort of State governments, tribal governments, and various federal agencies established to initiate and coordinate activities associated with the management of regional haze, visibility and other air quality issues in the Northeastern United States. Member State and Tribal governments include: Connecticut, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Penobscot Indian Nation, Rhode Island, and Vermont.

The Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) required some states to reduce emissions of SO 2 and NO X that contribute to violations of the 1997 National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for PM 2.5 and ozone. See 70 FR 25162 (May 12, 2005). CAIR established emissions budgets for SO 2 and NO X . On October 13, 2006, EPA's “Regional Haze Regulations; Revisions to Provisions Governing Alternative to Source-Specific Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) Determinations; Final Rule” (hereinafter known as the “Alternative to BART Rule”) was published in the Federal Register . See 71 FR 60612. This rule establishes that states participating in the CAIR program need not require BART for SO 2 and NO X at BART-eligible electric generating units (EGUs). Many States relied on CAIR as an Alternative to BART for SO 2 and NO X for their subject EGUs.

CAIR was later found to be inconsistent with the requirements of the CAA and the rule was remanded to EPA. See North Carolina v. EPA, 550 F.3d 1176 (D.C. Cir. 2008). The court left CAIR in place until replaced by EPA with a rule consistent with its opinion. See North Carolina v. EPA, 550 F.3d 1176, 1178 (D.C. Cir. 2008).

EPA promulgated the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR), to replace CAIR in 2011 (76 FR 48208, August 8, 2011). Massachusetts was subject to ozone season NO X controls under the CAIR program. In its January 11, 2011, proposed Regional Haze SIP, MassDEP proposed to rely on emission reductions included in EPA's proposed Transport Rule as an Alternative to BART. However, Massachusetts is not subject to any of the requirements of CSAPR and therefore cannot rely on CSAPR as an Alternative to BART.

On December 30, 2011, the D.C. Circuit Court issued an order addressing the status of CSAPR and CAIR in response to motions filed by numerous parties seeking a stay of CSAPR pending judicial review. In that order, the D.C. Circuit stayed CSAPR pending the court's resolutions of the petitions for review of that rule in EME Homer Generation, L.P. v. EPA (No. 11-1302 and consolidated cases). The court also indicated that EPA is expected to continue to administer CAIR in the interim until the court rules on the petitions for review of CSAPR.

On February 17, 2012, MassDEP proposed an amended Alternative to BART. This strategy is discussed in further detail in Section III.B. MassDEP has also requested parallel processing of sections 8.10, 8.11, and 10.5, its revised BART and Long Term Strategy Chapters. Under this procedure, EPA prepared this action before the State's final adoption of this revision. Massachusetts has indicated that they plan to have a final adopted submittal by July 2012, prior to our final action on its Regional Haze SIP. After Massachusetts submits its final adopted revision, EPA will review the submittal to determine whether it differs from the proposed revision. If the final revision does differ from the proposed revision, EPA will determine whether these differences are significant. Based on EPA's determination regarding the significance of any changes in the final revision, EPA would then decide whether it is appropriate to prepare a final rule and describe the changes in the final rulemaking action, re-propose action based on the Massachusetts' final adopted revision, or take such other action as may be appropriate.

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

The RHR establishes the deciview (dv) as the principal metric for measuring visibility. This visibility metric expresses uniform changes in haziness in terms of common increments across the entire range of visibility conditions, from pristine to extremely hazy conditions. Visibility is determined by measuring the visual range (or deciview), which is the greatest distance, in kilometers or miles, at which a dark object can be viewed against the sky. The deciview is a useful measure for tracking progress in improving visibility, because each deciview change is an equal incremental change in visibility perceived by the human eye. Most people can detect a change in visibility at one deciview. 2

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

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

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

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

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

Section 169A of the CAA directs States to evaluate the use of retrofit controls at certain larger, often uncontrolled, older stationary sources in order to address visibility impacts from these sources. Specifically, the CAA requires States to revise their SIPs to contain such measures as may be necessary to make reasonable progress towards the natural visibility goal, including a requirement that certain categories of existing stationary sources built between 1962 and 1977 procure, install, and operate the “Best Available Retrofit Technology” as determined by the State. CAA § 169A(b)(2), 42 U.S.C. 7491(b)(2). 3 States are directed to conduct BART determinations for such sources that may be anticipated to cause or contribute to any visibility impairment in a Class I area. Rather than requiring source-specific BART controls, States also have the flexibility to adopt an emissions trading program or other alternative program as long as the alternative provides greater reasonable progress towards improving visibility than BART.

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

States must address all visibility impairing pollutants emitted by a source in the BART determination process. The most significant visibility impairing pollutants are sulfur dioxide (SO 2 ), nitrogen oxides (NO X ), and particulate matter (PM). EPA has stated that States should use their best judgment in determining whether volatile organic compounds (VOCs), or ammonia (NH 3 ) and ammonia compounds impair visibility in Class I areas.

The RPOs provided air quality modeling to the States to help them in determining whether potential BART sources can be reasonably expected to cause or contribute to visibility impairment in a Class I area. Under the BART Guidelines, States may select an exemption threshold value for their BART modeling, below which a BART eligible source would not be expected to cause or contribute to visibility impairment in any Class I area. The State must document this exemption threshold value in the SIP and must state the basis for its selection of that value. Any source with emissions that model above the threshold value would be subject to a BART determination review. The BART Guidelines acknowledge varying circumstances affecting different Class I areas. States should consider the number of emission sources affecting the Class I areas at issue and the magnitude of the individual sources' impacts. Any exemption threshold set by the State should not be higher than 0.5 deciviews. See 70 FR 39161 (July 6, 2005).

In their SIPs, States must identify potential BART sources, described as “BART-eligible sources” in the RHR, and document their BART control determination analyses. The term “BART-eligible source” used in the BART Guidelines means the collection of individual emission units at a facility that together comprises the BART-eligible source. See 70 FR 39161 (July 6, 2005). In making BART determinations, section 169A(g)(2) of the CAA requires that States consider the following factors: (1) The costs of compliance; (2) the energy and non-air quality environmental impacts of compliance; (3) any existing pollution control technology in use at the source; (4) the remaining useful life of the source; and (5) the degree of improvement in visibility which may reasonably be anticipated to result from the use of such technology. States are free to determine the weight and significance to be assigned to each factor. See 70 FR 39170 (July 6, 2005).

A regional haze SIP must include source-specific BART emission limits and compliance schedules for each source subject to BART. Once a State has made its BART determination, the BART controls must be installed and in operation as expeditiously as practicable, but no later than five years after the date of EPA approval of the regional haze SIP, as required by CAA (section 169(g)(4)) and the RHR (40 CFR 51.308(e)(1)(iv)). In addition to what is required by the RHR, general SIP requirements mandate that the SIP must also include all regulatory requirements related to monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting for the BART controls on the source. States have the flexibility to choose the type of control measures they will use to meet the requirements of BART.

States may also provide an Alternative to BART demonstration. On October, 13, 2006, EPA finalized “Regional Haze Regulations; Revisions to Provisions Governing Alternative to Source-Specific Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) Determinations” (71 FR 60612), an alternative emissions program that gives flexibility for states or tribal governments in ways to apply BART. The BART requirements would be satisfied if the alternative program meets or exceeds the visibility benefits resulting from BART. This approach has been approved by the D.C. Circuit. See Center for Energy & Economic Development v. EPA, 398 F.3d 653 (D.C. Cir. 2005); Utility Air Regulatory Group v. EPA, 471 F.3d 1333 (D.C. Cir. 2006).

In 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3) of the RHR, States are required to include a LTS in their SIPs. The LTS is the compilation of all control measures a State will use to meet any applicable RPGs. The LTS must include “enforceable emissions limitations, compliance schedules, and other measures as necessary to achieve the reasonable progress goals” for all Class I areas within, or affected by emissions from, the State. See 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3).

When a State's emissions are reasonably anticipated to cause or contribute to visibility impairment in a Class I area located in another State, the RHR requires the impacted State to coordinate with the contributing States in order to develop coordinated emissions management strategies. See 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(i). In such cases, the contributing State must demonstrate that it has included in its SIP all measures necessary to obtain its share of the emission reductions needed to meet the RPGs for the Class I area. The RPOs have provided forums for significant interstate consultation, but additional consultations between States may be required to sufficiently address interstate visibility issues. This is especially true where two States belong to different RPOs.

States should consider all types of anthropogenic sources of visibility impairment in developing their LTS, including stationary, minor, mobile, and area sources. At a minimum, States must describe how each of the seven factors listed below is taken into account in developing their LTS: (1) Emission reductions due to ongoing air pollution control programs, including measures to address RAVI; (2) measures to mitigate the impacts of construction activities; (3) emissions limitations and schedules for compliance to achieve the RPG; (4) source retirement and replacement schedules; (5) smoke management techniques for agricultural and forestry management purposes including plans as currently exist within the State for these purposes; (6) enforceability of emissions limitations and control measures; (7) the anticipated net effect on visibility due to projected changes in point, area, and mobile source emissions over the period addressed by the LTS. See 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(v).

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

In 40 CFR 51.308(d)(4), the RHR requires a monitoring strategy for measuring, characterizing, and reporting of regional haze visibility impairment that is representative of all mandatory Class I Federal areas within the State. The strategy must be coordinated with the monitoring strategy required in 40 CFR 51.305 for RAVI. Compliance with this requirement may be met through participation in the Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual Environments (IMPROVE) network. The monitoring strategy is due with the first regional haze SIP, and it must be reviewed every five years. The monitoring strategy must also provide for additional monitoring sites if the IMPROVE network is not sufficient to determine whether RPGs will be met.

The SIP must also provide for the following:

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

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

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

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

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

Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.308(f) of the RHR, state control strategies must cover an initial implementation period extending to the year 2018, with a comprehensive reassessment and revision of those strategies, as appropriate, every 10 years thereafter. Periodic SIP revisions must meet the core requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(d) with the exception of BART. The BART provisions of 40 CFR 51.308(e), as noted above, apply only to the first implementation period. Periodic SIP revisions will assure that the statutory requirement of reasonable progress will continue to be met.

The RHR requires that States consult with FLMs before adopting and submitting their SIPs. See 40 CFR 51.308(i). States must provide FLMs an opportunity for consultation, in person and at least 60 days prior to holding any public hearing on the SIP. This consultation must include the opportunity for the FLMs to discuss their assessment of impairment of visibility in any Class I area and to offer recommendations on the development of the RPGs and on the development and implementation of strategies to address visibility impairment. Further, a State must include in its SIP a description of how it addressed any comments provided by the FLMs. Finally, a SIP must provide procedures for continuing consultation between the State and FLMs regarding the State's visibility protection program, including development and review of SIP revisions, five-year progress reports, and the implementation of other programs having the potential to contribute to impairment of visibility in Class I areas.

On December 30, 2011, the Division of Air Quality Control of the MassDEP submitted revisions to the Massachusetts SIP to address regional haze as required by 40 CFR 51.308. In addition, on May 2, 2012, MassDEP requested parallel processing of its February 17, 2012 Proposed Revision to Massachusetts Regional Haze SIP. EPA has reviewed Massachusetts' submittals and is proposing to find that they are consistent with the requirements of 40 CFR 51.308 as outlined in Section II. A detailed analysis follows.

Massachusetts is responsible for developing a regional haze SIP which addresses Massachusetts' impact on any nearby Class I areas. As Massachusetts has no Class I areas within its borders, Massachusetts is not required to address the following Regional Haze SIP elements: (a) Calculation of baseline and natural visibility conditions; (b) establishment of reasonable progress goals; (c) monitoring requirements; and (d) RAVI requirements.

Massachusetts is a member of the MANE-VU RPO. The MANE-VU RPO contains seven Class I areas in four States: Moosehorn Wilderness Area, Acadia National Park, and Roosevelt/Campobello International Park in Maine; Presidential Range/Dry River Wilderness Area and Great Gulf Wilderness Area in New Hampshire; Brigantine Wilderness Area in New Jersey; and Lye Brook Wilderness Area in Vermont.

Through source apportionment modeling, MANE-VU assisted States in determining their contribution to the visibility impairment of each Class I area in the MANE-VU region. Massachusetts and the other MANE-VU States adopted a weight-of-evidence approach which relied on several independent methods for assessing the contribution of different sources and geographic source regions to regional haze in the northeastern and mid-Atlantic portions of the United States. Details about each technique can be found in the Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use Management (NESCAUM) document Contributions to Regional Haze in the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic United States, August 2006 (hereinafter referred to as the “Contribution Report”). 4

The MANE-VU Class I States determined that any State contributing at least 2.0% of the total sulfate (the main contributor to visibility impairment in the Northeast, see Section III.C.3) observed on the 20 percent worst visibility days in 2002 was a contributor to visibility impairment at the Class I areas. Massachusetts emissions were found to contribute to the total annual average sulfate at the nearby Class I areas: Acadia National Park, Maine (10.11% of total sulfate); Moosehorn Wilderness Area, Maine and Roosevelt Campobello International Park (6.78% of total sulfate); Great Gulf Wilderness Area and Presidential Range Dry River, New Hampshire (3.11% of total sulfate); Lye Brook Wilderness Area (2.45% of total sulfate); and Brigantine Wilderness Area, New Jersey (2.73% of total sulfate). The impact of sulfate on visibility is discussed in greater detail below.

EPA is proposing to find that Massachusetts has adequately demonstrated that emissions from sources within the State cause or contribute to visibility impairment in nearby Class I Areas.

According to 51.308(e), “The State must submit an implementation plan containing emission limitations representing BART and schedules for compliance with BART for each BART-eligible source that may reasonably be anticipated to cause or contribute to any impairment of visibility in any Class I Federal area, unless the State demonstrates that an emissions trading program or other alternative will achieve greater reasonable progress toward natural visibility conditions.” On October 13, 2006, EPA's “Regional Haze Regulations; Revisions to Provisions Governing Alternative to Source-Specific Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) Determinations; Final Rule” (hereinafter known as the “Alternative to BART Rule”) was published in the Federal Register . See 71 FR 60612. Massachusetts chose to demonstrate that programs already developed by the State provide greater progress in visibility improvement than source-by-source BART determinations. A demonstration that the alternative program will achieve greater reasonable progress than would have resulted from the installation and operation of BART at all sources subject to BART in the state must be based on the following:

(1) A list of all BART-eligible sources within the State.

(2) A list of all BART-eligible sources and all BART source categories covered by the alternative program.

(3) Determination of the BART benchmark. If the alternative program has been designed to meet a requirement other than BART, as in the case of Massachusetts, the State may determine the best system of continuous emission control technology and associated emission reductions for similar types of sources within a source category based on both source specific and category-wide information, as appropriate.

(4) An analysis of the projected emission reductions achieved through the alternative program.

(5) A determination based on a clear weight of evidence that the alternative program achieves greater reasonable progress than would be achieved through the installation and operation of BART at the covered sources.

As allowed by the Regional Haze Rule, Massachusetts opted to pursue source by source BART determinations for select sources and demonstrate an Alternative to BART for other sources.

Determining BART-eligible sources is the first step in the BART process. BART-eligible sources in Massachusetts were identified in accordance with the methodology in Appendix Y of the Regional Haze Rule, Guidelines for BART Determinations Under the Regional Haze Rule, Part II, How to Identify BART-Eligible Sources. See 70 FR 39158. This guidance consists of the following criteria:

• The unit falls into one of the listed source categories;

• The unit was constructed or reconstructed between 1962 and 1977; and

• The unit has the potential to emit over 250 tons per year of sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, particulate matter, volatile organic compounds, or ammonia.

The BART Guidelines require States to address SO 2 , NO X , and particulate matter. States are allowed to use their best judgment in deciding whether VOC or ammonia emissions from a source are likely to have an impact on visibility in the area. The State of Massachusetts addressed SO 2 , NO X , and used particulate matter less than 10 microns in diameter (PM 10 ) as an indicator for particulate matter to identify BART eligible units, as the BART Guidelines require.

The identification of BART sources in Massachusetts was undertaken as part of a multi-State analysis conducted by the NESCAUM. NESCAUM worked with MassDEP licensing engineers to review all sources and determine their BART eligibility. MassDEP identified twenty-nine sources as BART-eligible. The Massachusetts BART eligible sources are listed in Table 1. Three of the sources are petroleum storage facilities (Exxon Mobile-Everett, Global Petroleum—Revere, and Gulf Oil—Chelsea) with VOC emissions.

Consistent with the BART Guidelines, the State of Massachusetts did not evaluate emissions of VOCs in BART determinations due to the lack of impact on visibility in the area due to anthropogenic sources. The majority of VOC emissions in Massachusetts are biogenic in nature. Therefore, the ability to further reduce total ambient VOC concentrations at Class I areas is limited. Point, area, and mobile sources of VOCs in Massachusetts are already comprehensively controlled as part of an ozone attainment and maintenance strategy.

Nor did Massachusetts evaluate ammonia. The overall ammonia inventory is very uncertain, but the amount of anthropogenic emissions at sources that were BART-eligible is relatively small, and no additional sources were identified that had greater than 250 tons per year ammonia and required a BART analysis. 5

1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit CBI to EPA through http://www.regulations.gov or email. Clearly mark the part or all of the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or CD-ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket. Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.

2. Tips for Preparing Your Comments. When submitting comments, remember to:

a. Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other identifying information (subject heading, Federal Register date and page number).

b. Follow directions—The agency may ask you to respond to specific questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part or section number.

c. Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and substitute language for your requested changes.

d. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information and/or data that you used.

e. If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be reproduced.

f. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and suggest alternatives.

g. Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of profanity or personal threats.

h. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline identified.

In this action, EPA is proposing to approve Wyoming SIP revisions submitted on January 12, 2011 and April 19, 2012 that address the regional haze rule (RHR) for the mandatory Class I areas under 40 CFR 51.309. EPA is proposing that the January 12, 2011 and April 19, 2012 SIPs meet the requirements of 40 CFR 51.309, with the exception of 40 CFR 51.309(d)(4)(vii), and 40 CFR 51.309(g), as explained below.

As part of the January 12, 2011 and April 19, 2012 SIPs, the State submitted revisions to the Wyoming Air Quality Standards and Regulations (WAQSR). The State submitted WAQSR Chapter 14, Sections 2 and 3— Emission Trading Program Regulations. WAQSR Chapter 14, in conjunction with the SIP, implements the backstop trading program provisions in accordance with the applicable requirements of 40 CFR 51.308 and 40 CFR 51.309. We are proposing to approve WAQSR Chapter 14, Section 2 and Section 3. The State also submitted WAQSR Chapter 10, Section 4— Smoke Management. WAQSR Chapter 10, Section 4, in conjunction with the SIP, implements the requirements for smoke management under 40 CFR 51.309(d)(6). We are proposing to approve WAQSR Chapter 10, Section 4.

The State's submitted another SIP revision dated January 12, 2011 that addresses the requirements under 40 CFR 51.309(d)(4)(vii) and 40 CFR 51.309(g) pertaining to best available retrofit technology (BART) for particulate matter (PM) and nitrogen oxides (NO X ) and additional Class I areas, respectively. EPA will be taking action on this SIP at a later date. In addition, the January 12, 2011 and April 19, 2012 submittals we are proposing to act on in this notice supersede and replace regional haze SIPs submitted on December 24, 2003, May 27, 2004, and November 21, 2008.

As explained in further detail below, 40 CFR 51.309 (section 309) allows western states an optional way to fulfill the RHR requirements as opposed to adopting the requirements under 40 CFR 51.308. Three states have elected to submit a SIP under 40 CFR 51.309. Those states are Wyoming, Utah, and New Mexico. 1 In this action, EPA is proposing to approve the Wyoming section 309 SIP submittal. As required by 40 CFR 51.309, the participating states must adopt a trading program, or what has been termed the Western Backstop Sulfur Dioxide Trading Program (backstop trading program or trading program). The 309 backstop trading program will not be effective until EPA has finalized action on all section 309 SIPs as the program is dependent on the participation of the three states. Utah submitted its 309 SIP to EPA on May 26, 2011 and New Mexico submitted its 309 SIP to EPA on June 30, 2011. EPA will be taking action on Utah and New Mexico's 309 SIPs separately. If EPA takes action approving the necessary components of the 309 backstop trading program to operate in all of the jurisdictions electing to submit 309 SIPs, the trading program will become effective.

Regional haze is visibility impairment that is produced by a multitude of sources and activities which are located across a broad geographic area and emit fine particles (PM 2.5 ) (e.g., sulfates, nitrates, organic carbon (OC), elemental carbon (EC), and soil dust), and their precursors (e.g., SO 2 , NO X , and in some cases, ammonia (NH 3 ) and volatile organic compounds (VOC)). Fine particle precursors react in the atmosphere to form PM 2.5 , which impairs visibility by scattering and absorbing light. Visibility impairment reduces the clarity, color, and visible distance that one can see. PM 2.5 can also cause serious health effects and mortality in humans and contributes to environmental effects such as acid deposition and eutrophication.

Data from the existing visibility monitoring network, the “Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual Environments” (IMPROVE) monitoring network, show that visibility impairment caused by air pollution occurs virtually all the time at most national park and wilderness areas. The average visual range  2 in many Class I areas (i.e., national parks and memorial parks, wilderness areas, and international parks meeting certain size criteria) in the western United States is 100-150 kilometers, or about one-half to two-thirds of the visual range that would exist without anthropogenic air pollution. In most of the eastern Class I areas of the United States, the average visual range is less than 30 kilometers, or about one-fifth of the visual range that would exist under estimated natural conditions. 64 FR 35715 (July 1, 1999).

In section 169A of the 1977 Amendments to the CAA, Congress created a program for protecting visibility in the nation's national parks and wilderness areas. This section of the CAA establishes as a national goal the “prevention of any future, and the remedying of any existing, impairment of visibility in mandatory Class I Federal areas  3 which impairment results from manmade air pollution.” On December 2, 1980, EPA promulgated regulations to address visibility impairment in Class I areas that is “reasonably attributable” to a single source or small group of sources, i.e., “reasonably attributable visibility impairment.” 45 FR 80084. These regulations represented the first phase in addressing visibility impairment. EPA deferred action on regional haze that emanates from a variety of sources until monitoring, modeling and scientific knowledge about the relationships between pollutants and visibility impairment were improved.

Congress added section 169B to the CAA in 1990 to address regional haze issues. EPA promulgated a rule to address regional haze on July 1, 1999. 64 FR 35714 (July 1, 1999, codified at 40 CFR part 51, subpart P). The RHR revised the existing visibility regulations to integrate into the regulation provisions addressing regional haze impairment and established a comprehensive visibility protection program for Class I areas. The requirements for regional haze, found at 40 CFR 51.308 and 51.309, are included in EPA's visibility protection regulations at 40 CFR 51.300-309. Some of the main elements of the regional haze requirements under 40 CFR 51.309 are summarized in sections III and IV of this preamble. The requirement to submit a regional haze SIP applies to all 50 states, the District of Columbia and the Virgin Islands. 40 CFR 51.308(b) and 40 CFR 51.309(c) require states to submit the first implementation plan addressing regional haze visibility impairment no later than December 17, 2007. 4

Few states submitted a regional haze SIP prior to the December 17, 2007 deadline, and on January 15, 2009, EPA found that 37 states, including Wyoming and the District of Columbia, and the Virgin Islands, had failed to submit SIPs addressing the regional haze requirements. 74 FR 2392. Once EPA has found that a state has failed to make a required submission, EPA is required to promulgate a FIP within two years unless the state submits a SIP and the Agency approves it within the two year period. CAA § 110(c)(1).

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

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

The Western Regional Air Partnership (WRAP) RPO is a collaborative effort of state governments, tribal governments, and various federal agencies established to initiate and coordinate activities associated with the management of regional haze, visibility and other air quality issues in the western United States. WRAP member state governments include: Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oregon, South Dakota, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming. Tribal members include Campo Band of Kumeyaay Indians, Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes, Cortina Indian Rancheria, Hopi Tribe, Hualapai Nation of the Grand Canyon, Native Village of Shungnak, Nez Perce Tribe, Northern Cheyenne Tribe, Pueblo of Acoma, Pueblo of San Felipe, and Shoshone-Bannock Tribes of Fort Hall.

EPA's RHR provides two paths to address regional haze. One is 40 CFR 51.308, requiring states to perform individual point source BART determinations and evaluate the need for other control strategies. These strategies must be shown to make “reasonable progress” in improving visibility in Class I areas inside the state and in neighboring jurisdictions. The other method for addressing regional haze is through 40 CFR 51.309, and is an option for nine states termed the “Transport Region States” which include: Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, and Wyoming, and the 211 tribes located within those states. By meeting the requirements under 40 CFR 51.309, states are making reasonable progress toward the national goal of achieving natural visibility conditions for the 16 Class I areas on the Colorado Plateau.

Section 309 requires participating states to adopt regional haze strategies that are based on recommendations from the Grand Canyon Visibility Transport Commission (GCVTC) for protecting the 16 Class I areas on the Colorado Plateau. 5 The EPA established the GCVTC on November 13, 1991. The purpose of the GCVTC was to assess information about the adverse impacts on visibility in and around the 16 Class I areas on the Colorado Plateau and to provide policy recommendations to EPA to address such impacts. Section 169B of the CAA called for the GCVTC to evaluate visibility research, as well as other available information, pertaining to adverse impacts on visibility from potential or projected growth in emissions from sources located in the region. The GCVTC determined that all transport region states could potentially impact the Class I areas on the Colorado Plateau. The GCVTC submitted a report to EPA in 1996 with its policy recommendations for protecting visibility for the Class I areas on the Colorado Plateau. Provisions of the 1996 GCVTC report include: strategies for addressing smoke emissions from wildland fires and agricultural burning; provisions to prevent pollution by encouraging renewable energy development; and provisions to manage clean air corridors (CACs), mobile sources, and wind-blown dust, among other things. The EPA codified these recommendations as part of the 1999 RHR. 64 FR 35714 (July 1, 1999).

EPA determined that the GCVTC strategies would provide for reasonable progress in mitigating regional haze if supplemented by an annex containing quantitative emission reduction milestones and provisions for a trading program or other alternative measure (64 FR 35749 and 35756). Thus, the 1999 RHR required that western states submit an annex to the GCVTC report with quantitative milestones and detailed guidelines for an alternative program in order to establish the GCVTC recommendations as an alternative approach to fulfilling the section 308 requirements for compliance with the RHR. In September 2000, the WRAP, which is the successor organization to the GCVTC, submitted an annex to EPA. The annex contained SO 2 emission reduction milestones and the detailed provisions of a backstop trading program to be implemented automatically if voluntary measures failed to achieve the SO 2 milestones. EPA codified the annex on June 5, 2003 at 40 CFR 51.309(h). 68 FR 33764.

Five western states submitted implementation plans under section 309 in 2003. EPA was challenged by the Center for Energy and Economic Development (CEED) on the validity of the annex provisions. In CEED v. EPA, the DC Circuit vacated EPA's approval of the WRAP annex ( Center for Energy and Economic Development v. EPA, No. 03-1222 (DC Cir. Feb. 18, 2005)). In response to the court's decision, EPA vacated the annex requirements adopted as 40 CFR 51.309(h), but left in place the stationary source requirements in 40 CFR 51.309(d)(4). 71 FR 60612. The requirements under 40 CFR 51.309(d)(4) contain general requirements pertaining to stationary sources and market trading, and allow states to adopt alternatives to the point source application of BART.

The following is a summary and basic explanation of the regulations covered under section 51.309 of the RHR. See 40 CFR 51.309 for a complete listing of the regulations under which this SIP was evaluated.

For each of the 16 Class I areas located on the Colorado Plateau, the SIP must include a projection of the improvement in visibility expressed in deciviews. 40 CFR 51.309(d)(2). The RHR establishes the deciview as the principal metric or unit for expressing visibility. See 70 FR 39104, 39118. This visibility metric expresses uniform changes in the degree of haze in terms of common increments across the entire range of visibility conditions, from pristine to extremely hazy conditions. Visibility expressed in deciviews is determined by using air quality measurements to estimate light extinction and then transforming the value of light extinction using a logarithm function. The deciview is a more useful measure for tracking progress in improving visibility than light extinction itself because each deciview change is an equal incremental change in visibility perceived by the human eye. Most people can detect a change in visibility at one deciview. 6 States need to show the projected visibility improvement for the best and worst 20 percent days through the year 2018, based on the application of all section 309 control strategies.

Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309(d)(3), states must identify CACs. CACs are geographic areas located within transport region states that contribute to the best visibility days (least impaired) in the 16 Class I areas on the Colorado Plateau. The CAC as described in the 1996 GCVTC report covers nearly all of Nevada, large portions of Oregon, Idaho, and Utah, and encompasses several Indian nations. In order to meet the RHR requirements for CACs, states must adopt a comprehensive emissions tracking program for all visibility impairing pollutants within the CAC. Based on the emissions tracking, states must identify overall emissions growth or specific areas of emissions growth in and outside of the CAC that could be significant enough to result in visibility impairment at one or more of the 16 Class I areas. If there is visibility impairment in the CAC, states must conduct an analysis of the potential impact in the 16 Class I areas and determine if additional emission control measures are needed and how these measures would be implemented. States must also indicate in their SIP if any other CACs exist, and if others are found, provide necessary measures to protect against future degradation of visibility in the 16 Class I areas.

Section 169A of the CAA directs states to evaluate the use of retrofit controls at certain larger, often uncontrolled, older stationary sources in order to address their visibility impacts. Specifically, section 169A(b)(2)(A) of the CAA requires states to revise their SIPs to contain such measures as may be necessary to make reasonable progress towards the natural visibility goal, including a requirement that certain categories of existing major stationary sources built between 1962 and 1977 procure, install, and operate BART as determined by the state. Under the RHR, states are directed to conduct BART determinations for such “BART-eligible” sources that may be anticipated to cause or contribute to any visibility impairment in a Class I area.

Rather than requiring source-specific BART controls, states have the flexibility under section 309 to adopt an emissions trading program or other alternative program as long as the alternative provides greater reasonable progress than would be achieved by the application of BART pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309(e)(2). Under 40 CFR 51.309, states can satisfy the section 308 SO 2 BART requirements by adopting SO 2 emission milestones and a backstop trading program. 40 CFR 51.309(d)(4). Under this approach, states must establish declining SO 2 emission milestones for each year of the program through 2018. The milestones must be consistent with the GCTVC's goal of 50 to 70 percent reduction in SO 2 emissions by 2040. If the milestones are exceeded in any year, the backstop trading program is triggered.

Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309(d)(4)(ii)-(iv), states must include requirements in the SIP that allow states to determine whether the milestone has been exceeded. These requirements include documentation of the baseline emission calculation, monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting (MRR) of SO 2 emissions, and provisions for conducting an annual evaluation to determine whether the milestone has been exceeded. SIPs must also contain requirements for implementing the backstop trading program in the event that the milestone is exceeded and the program is triggered. 40 CFR 51.309(d)(4)(v).

The WRAP, in conjunction with EPA, developed a model for a backstop trading program. In order to ensure consistency between states, states opting to participate in the 309 program need to adopt rules that are substantively equivalent to the model rules for the backstop trading program to meet the requirements of 40 CFR 51.309(d)(4). The trading program must also be implemented no later than 15 months after the end of the first year that the milestone is exceeded, require that sources hold allowances to cover their emissions, and provide a framework, including financial penalties, to ensure that the 2018 milestone is met.

Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309(d)(4)(vii), a section 309 SIP must contain any necessary long term strategies and BART requirements for PM and NO X . Section 169A of the CAA directs states to evaluate the use of retrofit controls at certain larger, often uncontrolled, older stationary sources in order to address visibility impacts from these sources. Specifically, section 169A(b)(2)(A) of the CAA requires states to revise their SIPs to contain such measures as may be necessary to make reasonable progress towards the natural visibility goal, including a requirement that certain categories of existing major stationary sources 7 built between 1962 and 1977 procure, install, and operate the “Best Available Retrofit Technology” as determined by the state.

On July 6, 2005, EPA published the Guidelines for BART Determinations Under the Regional Haze Rule at appendix Y to 40 CFR part 51 (hereinafter referred to as the “BART Guidelines”) to assist states in determining which of their sources should be subject to the BART requirements and in determining appropriate emission limits for each applicable source. 70 FR 39104. In making a BART determination for a fossil fuel-fired electric generating plant with a total generating capacity in excess of 750 megawatts (MW), a state must use the approach set forth in the BART Guidelines. A state is encouraged, but not required, to follow the BART Guidelines in making BART determinations for other types of sources. Regardless of source size or type, a state must meet the requirements of the CAA and our regulations for selection of BART, and the state's BART analysis and determination must be reasonable in light of the overarching purpose of the regional haze program.

The process of establishing BART emission limitations can be logically broken down into three steps: first, states identify those sources which meet the definition of “BART-eligible source” set forth in 40 CFR 51.301  8 ; second, states determine which of such sources “emits any air pollutant which may reasonably be anticipated to cause or contribute to any impairment of visibility in any such area” (a source which fits this description is “subject-to-BART”); and third, for each source subject-to-BART, states then identify the best available type and level of control for reducing emissions.

States must address all visibility-impairing pollutants emitted by a source in the BART determination process. The most significant visibility impairing pollutants are SO 2 , NO X , and PM. EPA has stated that states should use their best judgment in determining whether VOC or NH 3 compounds impair visibility in Class I areas.

Under the BART Guidelines, states may select an exemption threshold value for their BART modeling, below which a BART-eligible source would not be expected to cause or contribute to visibility impairment in any Class I area. The state must document this exemption threshold value in the SIP and must state the basis for its selection of that value. Any source with emissions that model above the threshold value would be subject to a BART determination review. The BART Guidelines acknowledge varying circumstances affecting different Class I areas. States should consider the number of emission sources affecting the Class I areas at issue and the magnitude of the individual sources' impacts. Any exemption threshold set by the state should not be higher than 0.5 deciview. 40 CFR part 51, appendix Y, section III.A.1.

In their SIPs, states must identify the sources that are subject-to-BART and document their BART control determination analyses for such sources. In making their BART determinations, section 169A(g)(2) of the CAA requires that states consider the following factors when evaluating potential control technologies: (1) The costs of compliance; (2) the energy and non-air quality environmental impacts of compliance; (3) any existing pollution control technology in use at the source; (4) the remaining useful life of the source; and (5) the degree of improvement in visibility which may reasonably be anticipated to result from the use of such technology.

A regional haze SIP must include source-specific BART emission limits and compliance schedules for each source subject-to-BART. Once a state has made its BART determination, the BART controls must be installed and in operation as expeditiously as practicable, but no later than five years after the date of EPA approval of the regional haze SIP. CAA section 169(g)(4) and 40 CFR 51.308(e)(1)(iv). In addition to what is required by the RHR, general SIP requirements mandate that the SIP must also include all regulatory requirements related to MRR for the BART controls on the source. See CAA section 110(a). As noted above, the RHR allows states to implement an alternative program in lieu of BART so long as the alternative program can be demonstrated to achieve greater reasonable progress toward the national visibility goal than would BART.

Under 40 CFR 51.309(d)(5), states must provide inventories of on-road and non-road mobile source emissions of VOCs, NO X , SO 2 , PM 2.5 , EC, and OC for the years 2003, 2008, 2013, and 2018. The inventories must show a continuous decline in total mobile source emissions of each of the above pollutants. If the inventories show a continuous decline in total mobile source emissions of each of these pollutants over the period 2003-2018, a state is not required to take further action in their SIP. If the inventories do not show a continuous decline in mobile source emissions of one or more of these pollutants over the period 2003-2018, a state must submit a SIP that contains measures that will achieve a continuous decline.

The SIP must also contain any long-term strategies necessary to reduce emissions of SO 2 from non-road mobile sources, consistent with the goal of reasonable progress. In assessing the need for such long-term strategies, the state may consider emissions reductions achieved or anticipated from any new federal standards for sulfur in non-road diesel fuel. Section 309 SIPs must provide an update on any additional mobile source strategies implemented within the state related to the GCVTC 1996 recommendations on mobile sources.

Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309(d)(6), SIPs must contain requirements for programs related to fire. The SIP must show that the state's smoke management program, and all federal or private programs for prescribed fire in the state, have a mechanism in place for evaluating and addressing the degree of visibility impairment from smoke in their planning and application of burning. The state must also ensure that its prescribed fire smoke management programs have at least the following seven elements: (1) Actions to minimize emissions; (2) evaluation of smoke dispersion; (3) alternatives to fire; (4) public notification; (5) air quality monitoring; (6) surveillance and enforcement; and (7) program evaluation. The state must be able to track statewide emissions of VOC, NO X , EC, OC, and PM 2.5 emissions from prescribed burning in its state.

Other requirements states must meet in their 309 plan related to fire include the adoption of a statewide process for gathering post-burn activity information to support emissions inventory and tracking systems. States must identify existing administrative barriers to the use of non-burning alternatives and adopt a process for continuing to identify and remove administrative barriers where feasible. The SIP must include an enhanced smoke management program that considers visibility effects in addition to health objectives and is based on the criteria of efficiency, economics, law, emission reduction opportunities, land management objectives, and reduction of visibility impairment. Finally, a state must establish annual emission goals to minimize emission increases from fire.

Under 40 CFR 51.309(d)(7), states must submit a SIP that assesses the impact of dust emissions on regional haze in the 16 Class I areas on the Colorado Plateau and to include a projection of visibility conditions through 2018 for the least and most impaired days. If dust emissions are determined to be a significant contributor to visibility impairment, the state must include emissions management strategies in the SIP to address their impact.

The requirements under the RHR for pollution prevention only require the state to provide an assessment of the energy programs as outlined in 40 CFR 51.309(d)(8) and does not require a state to adopt any specific energy-related strategies or regulations for regional haze. In order to meet the requirements related to pollution prevention, the state's plan must include an initial summary of all pollution prevention programs currently in place, an inventory of all renewable energy generation capacity and production in use or planned as of the year 2002, the total energy generation capacity and production for the state, and the percent of the total that is renewable energy.

The state's plan must include a discussion of programs that provide incentives for efforts that go beyond compliance and/or achieve early compliance with air-pollution related requirements and programs to preserve and expand energy conservation efforts. The state must identify specific areas where renewable energy has the potential to supply power where it is now lacking and where renewable energy is most cost-effective. The state must include projections of the short and long-term emissions reductions, visibility improvements, cost savings, and secondary benefits associated with renewable energy goals, energy efficiency, and pollution prevention activities. The state must also provide its anticipated contribution toward the GCVTC renewable energy goals for 2005 and 2015. The GCVTC goals are that renewable energy will comprise 10 percent of the regional power needs by 2005 and 20 percent by 2015.

Section 309 requires states to determine if any of the other recommendations not codified by EPA as part of 40 CFR 51.309, should be implemented in their SIP. 40 CFR 51.309(d)(9). States are not required to adopt any additional control measures unless the state determines they are appropriate and can be practicably included as enforceable measures to remedy regional haze in the 16 Class I areas. Any measures adopted by a state would need to be enforceable. States must also submit a report to EPA and the public in 2013 and 2018 showing there has been an evaluation of the additional recommendations and the progress toward developing and implementing any such recommendations.

Under 40 CFR 51.309(d)(10), states must submit progress reports in the form of SIP revisions in 2013 and 2018. The SIP revisions must comply with the procedural requirements of 40 CFR 51.102 for public hearings and 40 CFR 51.103 for submission of plans. The assessment in the progress report must include an evaluation of Class I areas located within the state and Class I areas outside the state that are affected by emissions from the state. EPA views these SIP revisions as a periodic check on progress, rather than a thorough revision of regional strategies. The state should focus on significant shortcomings of the original SIP from sources that were not fully accounted for or anticipated when the SIP was initially developed. The specifics of what each progress report must contain can be found at 40 CFR 51.509(d)(10)(i)(A)-(G).

At the same time that the state submits its progress report to EPA, it must also take an action based on the outcome of the assessment in the report. If the assessment shows that the SIP is adequate and requires no substantive revision, the state must submit to EPA a “negative declaration” statement saying that no further SIP revisions are necessary at this time. If the assessment shows that the SIP is or may be inadequate due to emissions from outside the state, the state must notify EPA and other regional planning states and work with them to develop additional control strategies. If the assessment shows that the SIP is or may be inadequate due to emissions from another country, the state must include appropriate notification to EPA in its SIP revision. In the event the assessment shows that the SIP is or may be inadequate due to emissions from within the state, the state shall develop additional strategies to address the deficiencies and revise the SIP within one year from the due date of the progress report.

In complying with the requirements of 40 CFR 51.309(d)(11), states may include emission reductions strategies that are based on coordinated implementation with other states. The SIP must include documentation of the technical and policy basis for the individual state apportionment (or the procedures for apportionment throughout the trans-boundary region), the contribution addressed by the state's plan, how it coordinates with other state plans, and compliance with any other appropriate implementation plan approvability criteria. States may rely on the relevant technical, policy, and other analyses developed by a regional entity, such as the WRAP in providing such documentation.

States opting to submit an alternative program, such as the backstop trading program under section 309, must also meet requirements under 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2) and (e)(3). These requirements for alternative programs relate to the “better-than-BART” test and fundamental elements of any alternative program that establishes a cap on emissions.

In order to demonstrate that the alternative program achieves greater reasonable progress than source-specific BART, states must provide a demonstration in their SIP that meets the requirements in 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(i)-(v). States submitting section 309 SIPs or other alternative programs are required to list all BART-eligible sources and categories covered by the alternative program. States are then required to determine which BART-eligible sources are “subject-to-BART.” The SIP must provide an analysis of the best system of continuous emission control technology available and the associated reductions for each source subject-to-BART covered by the alternative program, or what is termed a “BART benchmark.” Where the alternative program, such as the 309 backstop trading program, has been designed to meet requirements other than BART, states may use simplifying assumptions in establishing a BART benchmark. These assumptions can provide the baseline to show that the alternative program achieves greater reasonable progress than BART (71 FR 60619). Under this approach, states should use the presumptive limits for EGUs in the BART Guidelines to establish the BART benchmark used in the comparison, unless the state determines that such presumptions are not appropriate for particular EGUs (70 FR 60619).

The SIP must provide an analysis of the projected emissions reductions achievable through the trading program or other alternative measure and a determination that the trading program or other alternative measure achieves greater reasonable progress than would be achieved through the installation and operation of BART pursuant to 40 CFR 51.308(e)(1). 40 CFR 308(e)(2)(i)(D)-(E). Under 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(iii)-(iv), all emission reductions for the alternative program must take place by 2018, and all the emission reductions resulting from the alternative program must be surplus to those reductions resulting from measures adopted to meet requirements of the CAA as of the baseline date of the SIP. Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309(e)(2)(v), states have the option of including a provision that the emissions trading program or other alternative measure include a geographic enhancement to the program to address the requirement under 40 CFR 51.302(c) related to BART for reasonably attributable visibility impairment from the pollutants covered under the emissions trading program or other alternative measure.

States must also address the distribution of emissions under the BART alternative as part of the better-than-BART demonstration. 40 CFR 51.308(e)(3). If a state can show that with the alternative program the distribution of emissions is not substantially different from source-specific BART, and the alternative program results in greater emission reductions than source-specific BART, then the alternative measure may be deemed to achieve greater reasonable progress. If the distribution of emissions is significantly different, the state must conduct dispersion modeling to determine differences in visibility between source-specific BART and the alternative program for each impacted Class I area for the 20% worst and best days. The modeling must show that visibility does not decline at any Class I area and that visibility overall is greater than what would be achieved with source-specific BART.

Under 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(vi)(A)-(L), EPA established fundamental requirements for trading or alternative programs that have an emissions cap and require sources to hold allowances that they can sell, buy, or trade, as in the case for the 309 backstop trading program. These requirements are summarized below.

The alternative program must have applicability provisions that define the sources subject to the program. In the case of a program covering sources in multiple states, the states must demonstrate that the applicability provisions in each state cover essentially the same size facilities and, if source categories are specified, cover the same source categories.

Allowances are a key feature of a cap and trade program. An allowance is a limited authorization for a source to emit a specified amount of a pollutant, as defined by the specific trading program, during a specified period. Allowances are fully marketable commodities. Once allocated, allowances may be bought, sold, traded, or banked for use in future years. EPA has not included in the rule detailed requirements on how states and tribes can allocate allowances. A state or tribe can determine how to allocate allowances as long as the allocation of the tonnage value of allowances does not exceed the total number of tons of emissions capped by the budget. The trading program must include allowance provisions ensuring that the total value of allowances issued each year under the program will not exceed the emissions cap on total annual emissions from the sources in the program.

MRR of a source's emissions are integral parts of any cap and trade program. Consistent and accurate measurement of emissions ensures that each allowance actually represents its specified tonnage value of emissions and that one ton of reported emissions from one source is equivalent to one ton of reported emissions at another source. The MRR provisions must require that boilers, combustion turbines, and cement kilns in the alternative program that are allowed to sell or transfer allowances comply with the requirements of 40 CFR part 75. The MRR provisions must require that other sources in the program allowed to sell or transfer allowances provide emissions information with the same precision, reliability, accessibility, and timeliness as information required by 40 CFR part 75.

An accurate and efficient tracking system is critical to the functioning of an emissions trading market. The tracking system must also be transparent, allowing all interested parties access to the information contained in the accounting system. Thus, alternative programs must have requirements for a tracking system that is publicly available in a secure, centralized database to track in a consistent manner all allowances and emissions in the program.

Each source owner or operator covered by the alternative program must designate an individual account representative who is authorized to represent the owner or operator in all matters pertaining to the trading program and who is responsible for the data reported for that source. The account representative will be responsible for, among other things, permitting, compliance, and allowance related actions.

SIPs must contain provisions detailing a uniform process for transferring allowances among all sources covered by the program and other possible participants. The provisions must provide procedures for sources to request an allowance transfer, for the request and transfer to be recorded in the allowance tracking system, for notification to the source that the transfer has occurred, and for notification to the public of each transfer and request.

Cap and trade programs must include compliance provisions that prohibit a source from emitting more emissions than the total tonnage value of allowances the source holds for that year. A cap and trade program must also contain the specific methods and procedures for determining compliance on an annual basis.

In order to provide sources with a strong incentive to comply with the requirement to hold sufficient allowances for their emissions on an annual basis and to establish an immediate minimum economic consequence for non-compliance, the program must include a system for mandatory allowance deductions. SIPs must contain a provision that if a source has excess emissions in a given year, allowances allocated for the subsequent year will be deducted from the source's account in an amount at least equal to three times the excess emissions.

The banking of allowances occurs when allowances that have not been used for compliance are set aside for use in a later compliance period. Alternative programs can include provisions for banked allowances, so long as the SIP clearly identifies how unused allowances may be used in future years and whether there are any restrictions on the use of any such banked allowances.

The alternative program must include provisions for periodic assessment of the program. Such periodic assessments are a way to retrospectively assess the performance of the trading program in meeting the goals of the regional haze program and determining whether the trading program needs any adjustments or changes. At a minimum, the program evaluation must be conducted every five years to coincide with the periodic report describing progress towards the reasonable progress goals required under 40 CFR 51.308(g) and must be submitted to EPA.

The following summarizes how Wyoming's January 12, 2011 submittal meets the requirements of 40 CFR 51.309, with the exception of 40 CFR 51.309(d)(4)(iii), 40 CFR 51.309(d)(4)(vii), and 40 CFR 51.309(g), which as discussed above, EPA plans to propose action on in a future notice.

Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309(d)(2), Wyoming provided a comparison of the monitored 2000-2004 baseline visibility conditions in deciviews for the 20 percent best and 20 percent worst days to the projected visibility improvement for 2018 for the Class I areas on the Colorado Plateau (see section K.2 of the SIP). Table 1 shows the State's baseline monitoring data and projected visibility improvement for 2018 from the WRAP photochemical modeling (for details on the WRAP emission inventories and photochemical modeling refer to the WRAP Technical Support Document (TSD)  9 and our review of the technical products developed by the WRAP for the states in the western region, in support of their regional haze SIPs). 10 The projected visibility improvement for the 2018 Base Case (referred to as the Base18b emission inventory and modeled projections) reflects growth plus all controls “on the books” as of December 2004. The projected visibility improvement for the Preliminary Reasonable Progress Case (referred to as the PRP18b emission inventory and modeled projections) reflects refined growth estimates, all controls “on the books” as of 2007, and includes presumptive or known SO 2 BART controls. The modeling results show projected visibility improvement for the 20 percent worst days in 2018 and no degradation in visibility conditions on the 20 percent best days at all 16 Class I areas on the Colorado Plateau. We are proposing to determine the State's SIP satisfies the requirements of 40 CFR 51.309(d)(2).

Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309(d)(3), Wyoming is using a comprehensive emissions tracking system established by WRAP to track emissions within portions of Oregon, Idaho, Nevada and Utah that have been identified as part of the CAC (see section B.1(a) of the SIP). The emission tracking is to ensure that visibility does not degrade on the least-impaired days in any of the 16 Class I areas of the Colorado Plateau. For a complete description of the emission tracking system and the process by which the annual emission trends will be summarized in order to identify any significant emissions growth that could lead to visibility degradation in the 16 Class I areas, see Description of Comprehensive Emissions Tracking System in the Wyoming Technical Support Document (TSD). The TSD can be found in the docket for this notice.

Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309(d)(3)(i), the State has provided the geographic boundaries of the CAC (a map of the CAC can be found in Section B of the SIP). The WRAP identified the CAC using studies conducted by the Meteorological Subcommittee of the GCVTC and then updated the CAC based on an assessment described in the WRAP Policy on Clean Air Corridors located in the Wyoming TSD. The technical studies and findings supporting the WRAP Policy on Clean Air Corridors are located in Chapter 3 of the WRAP TSD.

Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309(d)(3)(ii)-(iii), the State has determined, based on the WRAP Policy on Clean Air Corridors and technical analysis conducted by the WRAP, that inside and outside the CAC there is no significant emissions growth occurring at this time that is causing visibility impairment in the 16 Class I areas of the Colorado Plateau. The WRAP will summarize annual emission trends within and outside of the CAC and will assess whether any significant emissions growth is occurring that could result in visibility impairment in any of the 16 Class I areas (see section B.1(c) of the SIP).

The State, in coordination with other transport region states and tribes, will review the annual summary of emission trends within the CAC and determine whether any significant emissions growth has occurred. If the State identifies significant emissions growth, the State, in coordination with other transport region states and tribes, will conduct an analysis of the effects of this emissions growth. Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309(d)(3)(iv), if this analysis finds that the emissions growth is causing visibility impairment in the 16 Class I areas, the State will evaluate the need for additional emission reduction measures and identify an implementation schedule for such measures. The State will report on the need for additional reduction measures to EPA in accordance with the periodic progress reports required under 40 CFR 51.309(d)(10)(i) (see section B.1(d) and (e) of the SIP).

Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309(d)(3)(v), the State has concluded that no other CACs can be identified at this time. The State's conclusion is based on the WRAP Policy on Clean Air Corridors, which determined that no other CACs could be identified (see section B.1(f) of the SIP).

We are proposing to determine that the State's SIP meets the requirements of 40 CFR 51.309(d)(3).

As required by 40 CFR 51.309(d)(4)(i), the State has adopted SO 2 milestone numbers for each year of the program until 2018 (see section C.A1.1of the SIP). 11 Table 2 shows the milestone numbers and how compliance with the annual milestones will be determined.

SO 2 emissions from sources in 1990 totaled 358,364 tpy and the 2018 milestone is 141,849 tpy. 12 The difference is a 60 percent reduction in SO 2 emissions from 1990 to 2018. Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309(d)(4)(i), the State has concluded that the emission reductions are on target to achieve the GCVTC goal of a 50 to 70 percent reduction of SO 2 emissions by 2040.

We are proposing to determine the State's SIP meets the requirements of 40 CFR 51.309(d)4)(i).

Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309(d)(4)(ii), the SIP includes documentation of the specific methodology used to calculate SO 2 emissions during the 2006 base year for each emitting unit included in the program (see Appendix E of the SIP). A detailed spreadsheet report that provides the baseline numbers and methodology used to calculate emissions for sources covered by the program is included in this docket. 13

Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309(d)(4)(ii), the SIP requires the State to document any change to the specific methodology used to calculate emissions at any emitting unit for any year after the base year. Until the program has been triggered and source compliance is required, the State will submit an annual emissions report to EPA that documents prior year emissions for Wyoming sources covered by the 309 program to all participating states by September 30 of each year. The State will adjust actual emission inventories for sources that change the method of monitoring or calculating their emissions to be comparable to the emission monitoring or calculation method used to calculate the 2006 base year inventory (see section C.A3 of the SIP).

We are proposing to determine the State's SIP meets the requirements of 40 CFR 51.309(d)(4)(ii).

In order to meet the emission reporting requirements of 40 CFR 51.309(d)(4)(iii), the SIP includes provisions requiring the monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting of actual stationary source SO 2 emissions within the State to determine if the milestone has been exceeded. The pre-trigger emission inventory requirements are covered by WAQSR Chapter 14, Section 3, which was included in Wyoming's April 19, 2012 submittal.

We are proposing to determine the State's SIP meets the requirements of 40 CFR 51.309(d)(4)(iii), and we are proposing to approve WAQSR Chapter 14, Section 3.

Until the backstop trading program has been triggered and source compliance is required, the State shall submit an annual emissions report for Wyoming sources to all participating states by September 30th of each year. The report shall document actual SO 2 emissions during the previous calendar year for all sources subject to the section 309 program. The WRAP will compile reports from all participating states into a draft regional emission report for SO 2 by December 31st of each year. This report will include actual regional SO 2 emissions, adjustments to account for changes in monitoring/calculation methods or enforcement/settlement agreements, and adjusted average emissions for the last three years for comparison to the regional milestone. As required by 40 CFR 51.309(d)(4)(iv), based on this compilation of reports from all states participating in the 309 program, states will determine if the milestone has been exceeded and will include a determination in a final regional emissions report that is submitted to EPA. This final report and determination will be submitted to EPA by the end of March, 15 months following the milestone year (see section C.A.3 of the SIP).

We are proposing to determine the State's SIP meets the requirements of 40 CFR 51.309(d)(4)(iv).

Per 40 CFR 51.309(d)(4)(v), the SIP provides that if the 309 backstop trading program is triggered, the regional emissions report will contain a common trigger date. In the absence of a common trigger date, the default date will be March 31st of the applicable year, but no later than 15 months after the end of the milestone year where the milestone was exceeded (see section C.3.10 of the SIP). The State's SIP requires that sources comply, as soon as practicable, with the requirement to hold allowances covering their emissions. Because the backstop trading program does not allow allocations to exceed the milestone, the program is sufficient to achieve the milestones adopted pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309(d)(4)(i) as discussed above. The backstop trading program is also consistent with the elements for such programs outlined in 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(vi). The analysis found in Section V.E. of this notice shows that the backstop trading program is consistent with the elements for trading programs outlined in 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(vi).

We are proposing to determine the State's SIP meets the requirements of 40 CFR 309(d)(4)(v).

Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309(d)(vi)(A), the SIP has provisions to ensure that, until a revised implementation plan is submitted in accordance with 40 CFR 51.308(f) and approved by EPA, emissions from covered stationary sources in any year beginning in 2018 do not exceed the 2018 milestone. In order to meet this requirement, the State has included special provisions for what will be required as part of their 2013 SIP revision required under 40 CFR 51.309(d)(10). The State's SIP provides that the 2013 SIP revision required by 40 CFR 51.309(d)(10) will contain either the provisions of a program designed to achieve reasonable progress for stationary sources of SO 2 beyond 2018 or a commitment to submit a SIP revision containing the provisions of such a program no later than December 31, 2016 (see section D.2 of the SIP).

We are proposing to determine the State's SIP meets the requirements of 40 CFR 51.309(d)(4)(vi)(A).

Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309(d)(vi)(B), the SIP includes special penalty provisions to ensure that the 2018 milestone is met. If the backstop trading program is triggered and it will not start until after the year 2018, a special penalty shall be assessed to sources that exceed the 2018 milestone. Wyoming shall seek at least the minimum financial penalty of $5,000 per ton of SO 2 emissions in excess of a source's allowance limitation. Any source may resolve its excess emissions violation by agreeing to a streamlined settlement approach where the source pays a penalty of $5,000 per ton or partial ton of excess emissions and the source makes the payment within 90 calendar days after the issuance of a notice of violation.

Any source that does not resolve its excess emissions violation in accordance with the streamlined settlement approach will be subject to civil enforcement action, in which the State shall seek a financial penalty for the excess emissions based on the State's statutory maximum civil penalties. The special penalty provisions for 2018 will apply for each year after 2018 until the State determines that the 2018 milestone has been met. The State will evaluate the amount of the minimum monetary penalty during each five-year SIP review and the penalty will be adjusted to ensure that penalties per ton substantially exceed the expected cost of allowances, and are thus stringent penalties (see Chapter 14, Section 2(l) and section A.5 of the SIP).

We are proposing to determine the State's SIP meets the requirements of 40 CFR 51.309(d)(4)(vi)(B).

As discussed in Section IV.A of this preamble, if a state adopts an alternative program designed to replace source-specific BART controls, the state must be able to demonstrate that the alternative program achieves greater reasonable progress than would be achieved by BART. Wyoming has included a demonstration of how the 309 program achieves greater reasonable progress than BART as discussed in the document titled Demonstration that the SO 2 Milestones Provide for Greater Reasonable Progress than BART (“better-than-BART” demonstration). Section V.D.5 below contains a discussion on how the 309 backstop trading program achieves greater reasonable progress than BART. New Mexico and Utah have also submitted SIPs with the same better-than-BART demonstration as Wyoming, and thus, are relying on a consistent demonstration across the states.

Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(i)(A), the State's better-than-BART demonstration lists the BART-eligible sources covered by the program (see Table 3 below). BART eligible sources are identified as those sources that fall within one of the 26 specific source categories, were built between 1962 and 1977 and have potential emissions of 250 tons per year of any visibility impairing air pollutant.

We are proposing that this satisfies the requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(i)(A).

Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(i)(B), the State has determined which sources are subject-to-BART. Each of the section 309 states provided source modeling that determined which of the BART-eligible sources within their states to determine which sources cause or contribute to visibility impairment and are thus subject-to-BART. The State of New Mexico and Utah relied on modeling by the WRAP to identify sources subject to BART. Based on the list of identified sources, the WRAP performed the initial BART modeling for the State of New Mexico and Utah. The procedures used are outlined in the WRAP Regional Modeling Center (RMC) BART Modeling Protocol. 14 The State of Wyoming performed separate modeling to identify sources subject-to-BART. 15

The states established a contribution threshold of 0.5 deciviews for determining if a single source causes or contributes to visibility impairment. If the modeling shows that a source has a 0.5 deciview impact at any Class I area, that source causes or contributes to visibility impairment and is subject-to-BART. Table 3 shows the BART-eligible sources covered by the 309 backstop program and whether they are subject-to-BART.

We are proposing to determine that the State's SIP meets the requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(i)(B).

As required by 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(i)(C), the State determined what BART would be for each subject-to-BART source covered by the 309 backstop trading program. In the State's better-than-BART demonstration, all subject-to-BART EGUs were assumed to be operating at the presumptive SO 2 emission rate of 0.15 lb/MMBtu established in the BART Guidelines (70 FR 39171). The 309 program also includes non-EGU subject-to-BART units. As explained in the better-than-BART demonstration, the non-EGU subject-to-BART units are four boilers located at two trona plants in Wyoming: FMC Westvaco and General Chemical Green River. Wyoming made a determination of what BART would be for these non-EGU units. FMC Westvaco recently installed pollution control projects achieving a 63% reduction in SO 2 from its two boilers. Wyoming determined this control level would serve as a BART benchmark for all trona boilers. Thus, a 63% reduction in emissions from these sources was included in the BART benchmark in calculating emission reductions assuming the application of BART at these sources. Emission reductions or the BART benchmark for all subject-to-BART sources covered by the 309 program was calculated to be 48,807 tons of SO 2 (all supporting calculations for the “better-than-BART” demonstration are located in the State's TSD under the title 10-6-10_milestone.xls ).

We are proposing to determine the State's SIP meets the requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(i)(C).

As required by 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(i)(D), the State has provided the expected emission reductions that would result from the 309 backstop trading program. The better-than-BART demonstration projects that 2018 baseline emissions would be 190,656 tpy of SO 2 for the sources covered by the 309 program in the participating states. The reductions achieved by the program are 48,807 tpy of SO 2 , resulting in remaining emissions of 141,849 tpy of SO 2 in 2018.

We are proposing to determine the State's SIP meets the requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(i)(D).

The State's better-than-BART demonstration provides numerous reasons why the SO 2 backstop trading program is better than BART. First, additional sources beyond BART sources are included. The backstop trading program includes all stationary sources with emissions greater than 100 tpy of SO 2, and thus, encompasses 63 non-subject-to-BART sources, which are identified in the better-than-BART demonstration. BART applied on a source-specific basis would not affect these sources, and there would be no limitation on their future operations under their existing permit conditions, or allowable emissions. The milestones will cap these sources at 2002 actual emissions, which are less than current allowable emissions.

The program also provides for a cap on new source growth. Future impairment is prevented by capping emissions growth from sources covered by the program and also by including entirely new sources in the region under the cap. BART applied on a source-specific basis would have no impact on future growth. The backstop trading program also provides a mass-based cap that has inherent advantages over applying BART to each individual source. The baseline emission projections and assumed reductions due to the assumption of BART-level emission rates on all sources subject-to-BART are all based on actual emissions, using 2006 as the baseline. If the BART process were applied on a source-specific basis to individual sources, emission limitations would typically be established as an emission rate (lbs/hr or lbs/MMBtu) that would account for variations in the sulfur content of fuel and alternative operating scenarios, or allowable emissions. A mass-based cap that is based on actual emissions is more stringent because it does not allow a source to consistently use this difference between current actual and allowable emissions.

We are proposing to determine the State's 309 backstop trading program achieves greater reasonable progress than would be achieved through the installation and operation of BART, and thus, meets the requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(i)(E).

The first planning period ends in 2018. As discussed above, the reductions from the 309 program will occur by 2018. We are therefore proposing to determine the State's SIP meets the requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(iii).

The detailed description of the backstop trading program are provided in Section C—Stationary Sources of the State's SIP and WAQSR Chapter 14 Section 2. The details of the backstop trading program are discussed in section V.E of this notice. We are proposing to determine that the State's SIP meets the detailed description requirement in 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(iii).

We propose to approve the determination in the State's 309 SIP submittal that all emission reductions resulting from the emissions trading program are surplus as of the baseline date of the SIP, as required by 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(iv).

Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.308(e)(3), the State used modeling conducted by the WRAP to compare the visibility improvement expected from source-by-source BART to the backstop trading program for the Class I areas on the Colorado Plateau. A summary of the modeling results can be found in Section K of the State's SIP, which refers to data from modeling included in Tables 2 and 3 of Attachment C to the Annex. 16   17 This modeling was conducted during the development of the Annex to examine if the geographic distribution of emissions under the trading program would be substantially different and disproportionately impact any Class I area due to a geographic concentration of emissions. The modeled visibility improvement for the best and worst days at the Class I areas for the 309 program is similar to improvement anticipated from the BART scenario (within 0.1 deciview) on the worst and best visibility days. Thus, if we assume participation and milestones consistent with the model, the model demonstrates that the distribution of emissions between the BART scenario and the 309 trading program are not substantially different. We note this modeling demonstration included nine states, many of which are not participating in the backstop trading program. This modeling demonstration adds support to our proposed determination, discussed above in this section, that the regional haze 309 SIP submittal appropriately shows the trading program will achieve greater reasonable progress than would be achieved through the installation and operation of BART, as required by 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(i)(E).

The following analysis shows that the State's SIP is consistent with the elements for trading programs required by 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(vi). The backstop trading program contains milestones, which are in effect a cap. Under a backstop trading program, the provisions of a trading program are enacted only if the milestone has been exceeded. Since the 309 trading program is a backstop trading program, the provisions outlined below will only apply if the milestone is exceeded and the program is triggered.

Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(vi)(A), the backstop trading program has the same applicability requirements in all states opting to participate in the program. WAQSR Chapter 14, Section 2(c) contains the applicability provisions and provides that the backstop trading program applies to all stationary sources that emit 100 tons per year or more of SO 2 in the program trigger year.

We are proposing to approve that the State's SIP meets the requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(vi)(A).

Section C.1.C1 of the SIP and WAQSR Chapter 14, Section 2(g) contain the allowance allocation provisions as required by 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(vi)(B). The rule requires sources to open a compliance account in order to track allowances and contains other requirements associated with those accounts. The SIP contains the provisions on how the State will allocate allowances and requires that the total number of allowances distributed cannot exceed the milestone for any given year.

We are proposing to determine the State's SIP meets the requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(vi)(B).

Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(vi)(C)-(E), WAQSR Chapter 14, Section 2(h)(i)(A) provides that sources subject to 40 CFR part 75 under a separate requirement from the backstop trading program shall meet the requirements contained in 40 CFR part 75 with respect to MRR of SO 2 emissions. If a unit is not subject to 40 CFR part 75 under a requirement separate from the trading program, the State requires that a source use one of the following monitoring methods: (1) Continuous emission monitoring system for SO 2 and flow that complies with all applicable monitoring provisions in 40 CFR part 75; (2) if the unit is a gas- or oil-fired combustion device, the monitoring methodology in Appendix D to 40 CFR part 75, or, if applicable, the low mass emissions provisions (with respect to SO 2 mass emissions only) of section 75.19(c) of 40 CFR part 75; (3) one of the optional protocols, if applicable, in Appendix A to WAQSR Chapter 14; 18 or (4) a petition for site-specific monitoring that the source submits for approval by the State and EPA. All the above sources are required to comply with the reporting and recordkeeping requirements in 40 CFR part 75.

Although most sources covered by the backstop trading program will be able to meet the monitoring requirements stated above, there are some emission units that are either not physically able to install the needed equipment or do not emit enough SO 2 to justify the expense of installing these systems. As discussed in section C5.3 of the SIP, the trading program allows these emission units to continue to use their pre-trigger monitoring methodology, but does not allow the source to transfer any allocation to that unit to another source. The program requires that the allowances associated with emission units that continue to use their pre-trigger monitoring methodology be placed in a special reserve compliance account, while allowances for other emission units are placed in a regular compliance account. Sources may not trade allowances out of a special reserve compliance account, even for use by emission units at the same source, but can use the allowances to show compliance for that particular unit.

WAQSR Chapter 14, Section 2(h)(i)(B) allows sources with any of the following emission units to apply to establish a special reserve compliance account: (1) Any smelting operation where all of the emissions from the operation are not ducted to a stack; (2) any flare, except to the extent such flares are used as a fuel gas combustion device at a petroleum refinery; or (3) any other type of unit without add-on SO 2 control equipment, if the unit belongs to one of the following source categories: cement kilns, pulp and paper recovery furnaces, lime kilns, or glass manufacturing. Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(vi)(E), sources with a special reserve compliance account are required to submit to the State an annual emissions statement and sources are required to maintain operating records sufficient to estimate annual emissions consistent with the baseline emission inventory submitted in 1998.

We are proposing to determine the State's SIP meets the requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(vi)(C)-(E).

As required by 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(vi)(F), section C2 of the SIP provides the overarching specifications for an Emissions and Allowance Tracking System (EATS). According to the SIP, the EATS must provide that all necessary information regarding emissions, allowances, and transactions is publicly available in a secure, centralized database. The EATS must ensure that each allowance is uniquely identified, allow for frequent updates, and include enforceable procedures for recording data. If the program is triggered, the State will work with other states and tribes participating in the trading program to implement this system. More detailed specifications for the EATS are provided in the WEB Emission and Allowance Tracking System (EATS) Analysis in the State's TSD. The State assumes responsibility for ensuring that all the EATS provisions are completed as described in its SIP and TSD.

In addition, the State will work with the other participating states to designate one tracking system administrator (TSA). The SIP provides that the TSA shall be designated as expeditiously as possible, but no later than six months after the program trigger date. The State will enter into a binding contract with the TSA that shall require the TSA to perform all TSA functions described in the SIP, such as transferring and recording allowances (see section A2.2 of the SIP).

We are proposing to determine that the State's SIP meets the requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(iv)(F).

Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(vi)(G), WAQSR Chapter 14, Section 2(d) contains provisions for the establishment of an account representative. The rule requires each source to identify one account representative. The account representative shall submit to the State and the TSA a signed and dated certificate that contains a certification statement verifying that the account representative has all the necessary authority to carry out the account representative responsibilities under the trading program on behalf of the owners and operators of the sources. The certification statement also needs to indicate that each such owner and operator shall be fully bound by the account representatives representations, actions, inactions, or submissions and by any decision or order issued to the account representative by the State regarding the trading program.

We are proposing to determine the State's SIP meets the requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(vi)(G).

The State has established procedures pertaining to allowance transfers to meet the requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(vi)(H). WAQSR Chapter 14, Section 2(i) contains requirements sources must follow for allowance transfers. To transfer or retire allowances, the account representative shall submit the transfer account number(s) identifying the transferor account, the serial number of each allowance to be transferred, the transferor's account representative's name and signature, and date of submission. The allowance transfer deadline is midnight Pacific Standard Time on March 1 of each year following the end of the control period. Sources must correctly submit transfers by this time in order for a source to be able to use the allowance to demonstrate compliance.

Section C3 of the SIP provides the procedures the TSA must follow to transfer allowances. The TSA will record an allowance transfer by moving each allowance from the transferor account to the transferee account as specified by the request from the source, if the transfer is correctly submitted, and the transferor account includes each allowance identified in the transfer. Within five business days of the recording of an allowance transfer, the TSA shall notify the account representatives of both the transferor and transferee accounts, and make the transfer information publicly available on the Internet. Within five business days of receipt of an allowance transfer that fails to meet the requirements for transfer, the TSA will notify the account representatives of both accounts of the decision not to record the transfer, and the reasons for not recording the transfer.

We are proposing to determine that the State's SIP meets the requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(vi)(H).

Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(vi)(I), the State has provided the procedures for determining compliance in WAQSR Chapter 14, Section 2(k). Per this section, the source must hold allowances as of the allowance transfer deadline in the source's compliance account (together with any current control year allowances held in the source's special reserve compliance account) in an amount not less than the total SO 2 emissions for the control period from the source. The State determines compliance by comparing allowances held by the source in their compliance account(s) with the total annual SO 2 emissions reported by the source. If the comparison of the allowances to emissions results in emissions exceeding allowances, the source's excess emissions are subject to the allowance deduction penalty discussed in further detail below.

We are proposing to determine that the State's SIP meets the requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(vi)(I).

WAQSR Chapter 14, Section 2(k)(iii) provides the penalty provisions required by 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(vi)(J). Per this section, a source's allowances will be reduced by an amount equal to three times the source's tons of excess emissions if they are unable to show compliance. Allowances allocated for the following control period will be the original allowance minus the allowance penalty. If the compliance account does not have sufficient allowances allocated for that control period, the required number of allowances will be deducted from the source's compliance account regardless of the control period for which they were allocated.

We are proposing to determine that the State's SIP meets the requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(vi)(J).

As allowed by 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(vi)(K), WAQSR Chapter 14, Section 2(j) allows sources to use allowances from current and prior years to demonstrate compliance, with some restrictions. Sources can only use 2018 allowances to show compliance with the 2018 milestone and may not use allowances from prior years. In order to ensure that the use of banked allowances does not interfere with the attainment or maintenance of reasonable progress goals, the backstop trading program includes flow-control provisions. The flow-control provisions are triggered if the TSA determines that the banked allowances exceed ten percent of the milestone for the next control year, and thereby ensure that too many banked emissions are not used in any one year (see section C4 of the SIP).

We are proposing to determine the State's SIP meets the requirements of 40 CFR 51.309(e)(2)(vi)(J).

Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(vi)(L), the SIP contains provisions for a 2013 assessment and SIP revision. For the 2013 assessment, the State will work with other participating states to develop a projected emission inventory for SO 2 through the year 2018. The State will then evaluate the projected inventory and assess the likelihood of meeting the regional milestone for the year 2018. The State shall include this assessment as part of the 2013 progress report that must be submitted under 40 CFR 51.309(d)(10) (see section D1 of the SIP).

We are proposing to determine the State's SIP meets the requirements of 40 CFR 308(e)(2)(vi)(L).

Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309(d)(4)(vii), the State submitted another SIP dated January 12, 2011 that contains the requirements for PM and NO X BART. EPA plans to act on this submittal in a separate notice.

Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309(d)(5)(i), the State, in collaboration with the WRAP, assembled a comprehensive statewide inventory of mobile source emissions. The inventory included on-road and non-road mobile source emissions inventories for western states for the 2003 base year and emission projections for the year 2018. 19 The inventory shows a continuous decline in emissions from mobile sources from VOC, NO X , PM 2.5 , EC, and OC emissions over the period of 2003-2018. Between 2003 and 2018, the inventory shows that there will be a 54 percent decrease in NO X emissions, a 39 percent decrease in OC, a 24 percent decrease in EC, a 38 percent decrease of PM 2.5 , and a 56 percent decrease of VOC. Per 40 CFR 51.309(d)(5)(i)(A), the inventory shows a decline in the required mobile source emissions categories and therefore no further action is required by the State to address mobile source emissions (see section D.1 of the SIP).

Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309(d)(5)(i)(B), the State reviewed SO 2 emissions from non-road mobile sources. The emission inventory projections show that there will be a 99 percent decrease in SO 2 emissions from non-road mobile sources for 2003-2018. The reduction will result from the implementation of EPA's rule titled Control of Emissions of Air Pollution from Non-road Diesel Engines and Fuel (see 69 FR 38958). The State determined that a 99 percent reduction in SO 2 from non-road mobile sources is consistent with the goal of reasonable progress and that no other long-term strategies are necessary to address SO 2 emissions from non-road mobile sources (see section D.1.c of the SIP).

We are proposing to determine the State's SIP meets the requirements of 40 CFR 51.309(d)(5).

Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309(d)(6)(i), the State has evaluated its existing open burning regulations and all existing federal and private prescribed fire smoke management programs in the State. The State evaluated the potential for fire to contribute to visibility impairment in the 16 Class I areas of the Colorado Plateau, and how visibility protection is addressed by different entities in planning and operation. The state of Wyoming relied upon the WRAP report Assessing Status of Incorporating Smoke Effects into Fire Planning and Operation, as well as EPA's Interim Air Quality Policy on Wildland and Prescribed Fire as guides for making this evaluation. (A full copy of these documents can be found in the Wyoming TSD and the Supporting and Related materials section of the docket, respectively).

The State determined that a new smoke management regulation, incorporated as WAQSR Chapter 10, Section 4 and submitted as part of the regional haze SIP, would be required to meet the requirements of 40 CFR 51.309(d)(6)(i). WAQSR Chapter 10, Section 4 establishes requirements for vegetative burners pertaining to the management of emissions and air quality impacts from smoke on public health and visibility. WAQSR Chapter 10, Section 4 applies to burns that will emit more than 0.25 tons of PM 2.5 per day. There are two types of burns specified by the rule. SMP-I burns are those burn projects expected to generate less than two tons per day of PM 10 and SMP-II burns are those burn projects expected to generate two tons per day or more of PM 10 . The following discusses how the requirements of WAQSR Chapter 10, Section 4 meet the requirements of 40 CFR 51.309(d)(6)(i). The four required program elements are discussed below and are contained in WAQSR Chapter 10, Section 4.

In order to minimize emissions, the State's SIP relies on the use of emission reduction techniques by burners. Any techniques used in conjunction with burning that reduce the actual amount of emissions produced from a planned burn project are considered emission reduction techniques. The SIP requires land managers burning SMP-II burns to use at a minimum one emission reduction technique for each planned burn project. SMP-II burners will indicate on the required State registration form the emission reduction technique(s) utilized for each planned burn project (WAQSR Chapter 10, Section 4(g)(i)(C)).

The SIP only allows SMP-I burns to be ignited during daytime hours when there is a slight breeze and there is no population within 0.5 mile of the burn project in the downwind direction. To comply with this requirement, the burner will document the time of day of the planned burn project, the wind direction and wind speed at the time of the burn project, as well as the distance to a population (WAQSR Chapter 10, Section 4(f)(iii)).

For SMP-II burns, the SIP provides the burner with two options pertaining to the dispersion of smoke and burning. A burner can ignite a planned burn project during times when the ventilation is classified as “Good” or better. 20 Also, a burner can ignite a planned burn project during times when the ventilation is classified as “Fair” and if there is no population within 10 miles of the planned burn project in the downwind trajectory (WAQSR Chapter 10, Section 4(g)(i)(D)).

The State SIP requires that burners generating over 100 tons per year of PM must consider the use of alternatives to burning. Burners must then document that the use of alternatives to burning were considered prior to the decision to utilize fire. The documentation includes citing the feasibility criterion that prevented the use of alternatives. This documentation must be included on the registration form provided by the State (WAQSR Chapter 10, Section 4(h)).

For SMP-I burns, the SIP requires that burners must make a good faith effort to utilize a minimum of one public notification method specified in the SIP to notify the populations that are located within one half mile of the planned burn project. The burner must conduct public notification no sooner than 30 days and no later than two days in advance of the ignition of the planned burn project. In addition, the burner will also notify the jurisdictional fire authority per the requirements of the jurisdictional fire authority, 21 or, absent any such requirements, immediately prior to ignition (WAQSR Chapter 10, Section 4(f)(ii)).

For SMP-II burns, the SIP requires that burners must make a good faith effort to utilize a minimum of one public notification method to notify populations within 10 miles of the planned burn project. The burner must conduct public notification no sooner than 30 days and no later than two days in advance of the ignition of the planned burn project, and will provide documentation of public notification on the State post burn reporting form. In addition, the burner will also notify the jurisdictional fire authority per the requirements of the jurisdictional fire authority or, absent any such requirements, immediately prior to ignition (WAQSR Chapter 10, Section 4(g)(iii)).

Burners of SMP-I burns are required to attend and observe their planned burn projects periodically (WAQSR Chapter 10, Section 4(f)(iv)). SMP-II burners are required to conduct and document visual monitoring on all planned burn projects. On a case-by-case basis, SMP-II burners may also be required by the State to conduct and document ambient air quality and/or visibility monitoring. The use of monitoring equipment will be based on the planned burn project's proximity to a population, nonattainment area, or Class I area (WAQSR Chapter 10, Section 4(g)(i)(E)).

The Wyoming Environmental Quality Act authorizes surveillance, inspection, and enforcement for the State's regulations. WAQSR Chapter 10, Section 4(e)(ii) specifies that burners and responsible jurisdictional fire authorities shall give permission to State staff to enter and inspect for the purpose of investigating a planned burn project or unplanned fire event and for determining compliance or non-compliance.

The State will evaluate the fire programs in the State as part of the future progress reports required by 40 CFR 51.309(d)(10). The State will use these evaluations to revise Chapter 10, Section 4, as needed. The provisions for program evaluation are included in the Wyoming Smoke Management Program Guidance Document, November 2004 (included in the Supporting and Related Materials section of the docket).

Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309(d)(6)(ii), the State maintains a fire emission inventory of the following pollutants: VOC, NO X , elemental carbon, organic carbon, and fine particulate for fire sources within the State (Section E.2 of the SIP). In order to maintain the emission inventory, Chapter 10, Section 4 requires both SMP-I and SMP-II burners to report to the State on emissions from their burns. To track fires, the State uses the WRAP Fire Emission Tracking System (FETS). The FETS is a web-enabled database for planned and unplanned fire events. The FETS is a planning tool for daily smoke management coordination, and retrospective analyses such as emission inventories and regional haze air quality planning tasks (see http://wrapfets.org ).

In section E.3 of the SIP, the State is required to work with key public and private entities to identify and remove administrative barriers to the use of alternatives to burning for prescribed fire on federal, State, and private lands, pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309(d)(6)(iii). The process is collaborative and provides for continuing identification and removal of administrative barriers, and considers economic, safety, technical and environmental feasibility criteria, and land management objectives. Should the State determine that an administrative barrier exists, the State will work collaboratively with the appropriate public and private entities to evaluate the administrative barrier, identify the steps necessary to remove the administrative barrier, and initiate the removal of the administrative barrier, where it is feasible to do so.

Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309(d)(6)(iv), the smoke management programs that operate within the State are consistent with the WRAP Policy on Enhanced Smoke Management Programs for Visibility (WRAP ESMP). A copy of this policy can be found in the Wyoming TSD. This policy calls for programs to be based on the criteria of efficiency, economics, law, emission reduction opportunities, land management objectives, and reduction of visibility impacts. The intent of the WRAP ESMP is to assist states to address visibility effects associated with fire in a way that is adequate for a SIP (section E.4 of the SIP).

Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309(d)(6)(v), the State will seek to minimize emission increases in fire through the use of annual emission goal using the policies set out by Western Regional Air Partnership Policy on Annual Emission Goals for Fire. A copy of this policy can be found in the Wyoming TSD. The State will use a collaborative mechanism for setting annual emission goals and developing a process for tracking their attainment on a yearly basis. The State will rely on emission reduction techniques, where appropriate, to minimize emission increases in fire (section E.5 of the SIP).

We are proposing that the Sate's SIP meets the requirements of 40 CFR 51.309(d)(6).

WRAP performed an assessment of the impact of dust emissions from paved and unpaved roads on the 16 Class I areas of the Colorado Plateau. The WRAP modeled and calculated the significance of road dust in terms of the impact on visibility on the worst 20 percent days. The modeled regional impact of road dust emissions ranged from 0.31 deciviews at the Black Canyon of the Gunnison National Park to 0.08 deciviews at the Weminuche Wilderness Area. (For more information on the WRAP modeling and assessment of road dust impacts, see Chapter 7 of the WRAP TSD). Based on the WRAP modeling, the State has concluded that road dust is not a significant contributor to visibility impairment in the 16 Class I areas. Since the State has found that road dust is not a significant contributor to visibility impairment, the State did not include road dust control strategies in the SIP pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309(d)(7) (section F.1(b) of the SIP).

The State will track road dust emissions with the assistance of the WRAP and provide an update on paved and unpaved road dust emission trends, including any modeling or monitoring information regarding the impact of these emissions on visibility in the 16 Colorado Plateau Class I Areas. These updates will include a reevaluation of whether road dust is a significant contributor to visibility impairment. These updates shall be part of the periodic implementation plan revisions pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309(d)(10) (section I.1(a) of the SIP).

We propose to determine the State's SIP meets the requirements of 40 CFR 51.309(d)(7).

Under 40 CFR 51.309(d)(8), states must provide information on renewable energy and other pollution prevention efforts in the state. 40 CFR 51.309(d)(8) does not require states to adopt any new measures or regulations. Thus, we find the information Wyoming provided adequate to meet the requirements of 40 CFR 51.309(d)(8) as discussed below.

Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309(d)(8)(i), Table G-1 of the SIP summarizes all pollution prevention and renewable energy programs currently in place in Wyoming. The State also determined the renewable energy generation capacity and production in the State and the State's total energy generation capacity and production.

Per 40 CFR 51.309(d)(8)(ii), section G.4 of the SIP states that the State has provided incentives for early compliance by participating in the 309 regional SO 2 backstop trading program. The backstop trading program allows for early reduction credits. Sources of SO 2 subject to the trading program that reduce emissions prior to the program trigger date shall receive additional emission allowances. The source may use such allowances for compliance purposes or may sell them to other parties.

Per 40 CFR 51.309(d)(8)(iii), the State provided a table that discusses the programs within the State that preserve and expand energy conservation efforts. Such programs include the “Energy Exchange Program” by PacifiCorp and “Rebuild America,” a Department of Energy resource network. For a complete list of programs in the State, see table G-5 of the SIP.

Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309(d)(8)(iv), the State has utilized data from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory to assess areas where there is the potential for renewable energy to supply power in a cost-effective manner. The SIP summarizes the potential for renewable energy development in Wyoming. See Figures G-1 through G-7 of the SIP for more detailed information.

Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309(d)(8)(v), the State has used projections made by the WRAP of the short and long-term emissions reductions, visibility improvements, cost savings, and secondary benefits associated with renewable energy goals, energy efficiency, and pollution prevention activities. (A complete description of these projections can be found in the Wyoming TSD in a document titled Economic Assessment of Implementing the 10/20 Goals and Energy Efficiency Recommendations. ) The document provides overall projections of visibility improvements for the 16 Class I areas. These projections include the combined effects of all measures in this SIP, including air pollution prevention programs. Although emission reductions and visibility improvements from air-pollution prevention programs are expected at some level, they were not explicitly calculated because the resolution of the regional air quality modeling system is not currently sufficient to show any significant visibility changes resulting from the marginal NO X emission reductions expected from air pollution prevention programs.

Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309(d)(8)(vi), the State will rely on current renewable energy programs as described in section G1 of the SIP to demonstrate progress in achieving the renewable energy goal of the GCVTC. The GCVTC's goal is that that renewable energy will comprise 10 percent of the regional power needs by 2005 and 20 percent by 2015. The State will submit progress reports in 2013 and 2018, describing the State's contribution toward meeting the GCVTC renewable energy goals. To the extent that it is not feasible for the State to meet its contribution to these goals, the State will identify what measures were implemented to achieve its contribution, and explain why meeting its contribution was not feasible.

Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309(d)(8)(i), Table G-1 of the State's SIP summarizes all pollution prevention and renewable energy programs currently in place in Wyoming. The State's SIP provides an estimate of renewable energy generating capacity in megawatts for each of the renewable energy categories (see Table 12 of the SIP). Total installed generation capacity within Wyoming in 2002 was 5,485 MW. Renewable energy generation capacity in Wyoming represented 0.77 percent of the total installed capacity.

As part of the 1996 GCVTC report to EPA, the Commission included additional recommendations that EPA did not adopt as part of 40 CFR 51.309. Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309(d)(9), the State has evaluated the additional recommendations of the GCVTC to determine if any of these recommendations could be practicably included in the SIP. The State's complete evaluation is included in the State's TSD in a document titled A Report on Additional Recommendations of the Grand Canyon Visibility Transport Commission. The State determined that no additional measures were practicable or necessary to demonstrate reasonable progress in the SIP.

We are proposing to determine that the State's SIP meets the requirements of 40 CFR 51.309(d)(9).

Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309(d)(10)(i), section I of the SIP requires the State to submit to EPA, as a SIP revision, periodic progress reports for the years 2013 and 2018. The State will assess whether current programs are achieving reasonable progress in Class I areas within Wyoming, and Class I areas outside Wyoming that are affected by emissions from Wyoming. The State will address the elements listed under 40 CFR 51.309(d)(10)(i)(A) through (G) as summarized below: (1) Implementation status of 2003 SIP measures; (2) summary of emissions reductions; (3) assessment of most/least impaired days; (4) analysis of emission reductions by pollutant; (5) significant changes in anthropogenic emissions; (6) assessment of 2003 SIP sufficiency; and (7) assessment of visibility monitoring strategy.

Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309(d)(10)(ii), the State will take one of the following actions based upon information contained in each periodic progress report. The State will provide a negative declaration statement to EPA saying that no SIP revision is needed if the State determines reasonable progress is being achieved. If the State finds that the SIP is inadequate to ensure reasonable progress due to emissions from outside the State, the State will notify EPA and the other contributing state(s), and initiate efforts through a regional planning process to address the emissions in question. If the State finds that the SIP is inadequate to ensure reasonable progress due to emissions from another country, Wyoming will notify EPA and provide information on the impairment being caused by these emissions. If the State finds that the SIP is inadequate to ensure reasonable progress due to emissions from within the State, the State will develop emission reduction strategies to address the emissions and revise the SIP no later than one year from the date that the progress report was due.

We propose to determine that the State's SIP meets the requirements of 40 CFR 51.309(d)(10).

Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309(d)(11), the State has participated in regional planning and coordination with other states by participating in the WRAP while developing its emission reduction strategies under 40 CFR 51.309. Appendix D of the SIP contains detailed information on the interstate coordination programs developed by the WRAP and the State's participation in those programs. The backstop trading program in the SIP and companion rules involved coordination of the three states (Wyoming, Utah, and New Mexico, including Albuquerque) in its development and will continue to involve coordination of the participants once it is implemented.

We propose to determine the State's SIP is consistent with the 40 CFR 51.309(d)(11).

On January 12, 2011, the State submitted a SIP pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309(g) in order to address the State's seven Class I areas not on the Colorado Plateau. EPA is acting on this submission separately.

In this action, EPA is proposing to approve Wyoming SIP revisions submitted on January 12, 2011 and April 19, 2012 that address the RHR for the mandatory Class I areas under 40 CFR 51.309. EPA is proposing that the January 12, 2011 and April 19, 2012 SIPs meet the requirements of 40 CFR 51.309, with the exception of 40 CFR 51.309(d)(4)(vii), and 40 CFR 51.309(g).

As part of the January 12, 2011 submittal, the State submitted revisions to WAQSR. The State submitted WAQSR Chapter 14, Sections 2 and 3— Emission Trading Program Regulations. WAQSR Chapter 14, in conjunction with the SIP, implements the backstop trading program provisions in accordance with the applicable requirements of 40 CFR 51.308 and 40 CFR 51.309. We are proposing to approve WAQSR Chapter 14, Section 2 and Section 3. The State also submitted WAQSR Chapter 10, Section 4— Smoke Management. WAQSR Chapter 10, Section 4, in conjunction with the SIP, implements the requirements for smoke management under 40 CFR 51.309(d)(6). We are proposing to approve WAQSR Chapter 10, Section 4.

The State submitted another SIP revision dated January 12, 2011 that addresses the requirements under 40 CFR 51.309(d)(4)(vii) and 40 CFR 51.309(g) pertaining to BART for PM and NO X and additional Class I areas, respectively. EPA will be taking action on this SIP at a later date. In addition, the January 12, 2011 and April 19, 2012 submittals we are proposing to act on in this notice supersede and replace regional haze SIPs submitted on December 24, 2003, May 27, 2004, and November 21, 2008.

Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable Federal regulations (42 U.S.C. 7410(k), 40 CFR 52.02(a)). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this proposed action merely approves some state law as meeting Federal requirements and disapproves other state law because it does not meet Federal requirements; this proposed action does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this proposed action:

• Is not a “significant regulatory action” subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);

• Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. );

• Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. );

• Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);

• Does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);

• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);

• Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the CAA; and,

• Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).

This document extends the public comment period established in the Federal Register of April 2, 2012 (77 FR 19862) (FRL-8889-3). In that document, EPA issued a proposed rule that would amend the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) section 5(a) Significant New Use Rule (SNUR) for certain polybrominated diphenylethers (PBDEs). That document also proposed a test rule under TSCA section 4(a) that would require any person who manufactures, imports, or processes any of three commercial PBDEs, including in articles, for any use after December 31, 2013, to conduct testing on their effects on health and the environment. The comment period is being extended in response to requests from the Aerospace Industries Association (AIA), Airlines for America (A4A), and the International Air Transport Association (IATA). EPA is hereby extending the comment period, which was set to end on June 1, 2012, to July 31, 2012. To submit comments, or access the docket, please follow the detailed instructions as provided under ADDRESSES in the April 2, 2012 Federal Register document. If you have questions, consult the technical person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.