Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 114 / Wednesday, June 13, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 35287 

1The word ‘‘today’’ in the text refers to the date 

of the comment letter, February 24, 2012. 

PART 52—[AMENDED] 

■ 1. The authority citation for Part 52 

continues to read as follows: 

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

Subpart D—Arizona 

■ 2. Section 52.120 is amended by 

adding paragraph (c)(149) to read as 

follows: 

§ 52.120 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(149) The following plan was 

submitted on June 13, 2007 by the 

Governor’s designee. 

(i) [Reserved] 

(ii) Additional Materials. (A) Arizona 

Department of Environmental Quality. 

(1) Letter dated June 13, 2007 from 

Stephen A. Owens, Director, ADEQ, to 

Wayne Nastri, Regional Administrator, 

United States Environmental Protection 

Agency, Region IX. 

(2) Eight-Hour Ozone Plan for the 

Maricopa Nonattainment Area, dated 

June 2007, including Appendices, 

Volumes One and Two. 

[FR Doc. 2012–13817 Filed 6–12–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R03–OAR–2011–0091, EPA–R03– 

OAR–2011–0584; FRL–9685–2] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; Virginia; 

Regional Haze State Implementation 

Plan 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is finalizing the limited 

approval of the Commonwealth of 

Virginia’s Regional Haze State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) revision. 

EPA is taking this action because 

Virginia’s SIP revision, as a whole, 

strengthens the Virginia SIP. This action 

is being taken in accordance with the 

requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA) 

and EPA’s rules for states to prevent and 

remedy future and existing 

anthropogenic impairment of visibility 

in mandatory Class I areas through a 

regional haze program. EPA is also 

approving this revision as meeting the 

infrastructure requirements relating to 

visibility protection for the 1997 8-hour 

ozone National Ambient Air Quality 

Standard (NAAQS) and the 1997 and 

2006 fine particulate matter (PM2.5) 

NAAQS. 

DATES: This final rule is effective on July 

13, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket ID 

Number EPA–R03–OAR–2011–0091, 

EPA–R03–OAR–2011–0584. All 

documents in the docket are listed in 

the www.regulations.gov Web site. 

Although listed in the electronic docket, 

some information is not publicly 

available, i.e., confidential business 

information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Certain other material, such as 

copyrighted material, is not placed on 

the Internet and will be publicly 

available only in hard copy form. 

Publicly available docket materials are 

available either electronically through 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy for 

public inspection during normal 

business hours at the Air Protection 

Division, U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, 

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. 

Copies of the State submittal are 

available at the Virginia Department of 

Environmental Quality, 629 East Main 

Street, Richmond, Virginia 23219. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Melissa Linden, (215) 814–2096, or by 

email at linden.melissa@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

Throughout this document, whenever 

‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or ‘‘our’’ is used, we mean 

EPA. On January 25, 2012 (77 FR 3691), 

EPA published a notice of proposed 

rulemaking (NPR) for the 

Commonwealth of Virginia. The NPR 

proposed limited approval and limited 

disapproval of Virginia’s Regional Haze 

SIP. The formal SIP revisions were 

submitted by the Virginia Department of 

Environmental Quality (VADEQ) on July 

17, 2008, March 6, 2009, January 14, 

2010, October 4, 2010, November 19, 

2010, and May 6, 2011. This revision 

also meets the requirements of CAA 

sections 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) and 110 

(a)(2)(J), relating to visibility protection 

for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS and 

the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. 

II. Summary of SIP Revision 

The SIP revision includes a long term 

strategy with enforceable measures 

ensuring reasonable progress towards 

meeting the reasonable progress goals 

for the first planning period through 

2018. Virginia’s Regional Haze Plan 

contains the emission reductions 

needed to achieve Virginia’s share of 

emission reductions and sets the 

reasonable progress goals for other states 

to achieve reasonable progress at the 

two Class I Areas within Virginia, 

Shenandoah National Park and James 

River Face Wilderness Area. The 

specific requirements of the CAA and 

EPA’s Regional Haze Rule (RH rule) (64 

FR 35732, July 1, 1999) and the 

rationale for EPA’s proposed action are 

explained in the NPR and will not be 

restated here. EPA received numerous 

adverse comments on the January 25, 

2012 NPR. A summary of the comments 

submitted and EPA’s responses are 

provided in section III of this document. 

III. Summary of Public Comments and 

EPA Responses 

Comment: The commenter argued that 

EPA’s proposed limited approval/ 

limited disapproval action based on 

Virginia’s reliance on clean air interstate 

rule (CAIR) is unwarranted and should 

be withdrawn. Instead, the commenter 

states that EPA should grant full and 

unconditional approval of the Virginia 

Regional Haze SIP. The commenter 

disagreed that CAIR renders the State’s 

SIP unable to satisfy all of the CAA’s 

regional haze SIP requirements. The 

commenter noted that Virginia’s SIP 

was submitted prior to the remand of 

CAIR and relied on the requirements 

under 40 CFR 51.308(e)(4), which 

remain in effect at this time. The 

commenter argued that as a result, the 

Virginia SIP is entirely consistent with 

the applicable law. The commenter also 

argued that if the D.C. Circuit 

invalidates the cross state air pollution 

rule (CSAPR), EPA’s limited 

disapprovals of regional haze SIPs due 

to their reliance on the CAIR equals best 

available retrofit technology (BART) 

provision of the regional haze rules will 

have created unnecessary complications 

for states that should properly be able to 

continue their reliance on CAIR. The 

commenter argued that EPA does not 

have a basis to propose or promulgate 

disapproval or limited disapproval of a 

Regional Haze SIP due to its reliance on 

CAIR and on 40 CFR 51.308(e)(4) 

because the SIP is fully compliant with 

the relevant regulations as they exist 

today.1 The commenter believes that the 

only proper course of action for EPA is 

to promptly promulgate a full and 

unconditional approval of the Virginia 

SIP. 

Response: EPA disagrees with the 

commenter and has determined the 

limited approval/limited disapproval is 

appropriate for this SIP. The 

requirements for a BART alternative 

program, specific to trading programs in 

40 CFR 51.308(e)(2) state that ‘‘such an 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
35288 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 114 / Wednesday, June 13, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

emissions trading program or other 

alternative measure must achieve 

greater reasonable progress than would 

be achieved through the installation and 

operation of BART.’’ EPA’s analysis, in 

2005, showing that CAIR would provide 

for greater reasonable progress than 

BART, was based on the then reasonable 

assumption that CAIR met the 

requirements of the CAA and would 

remain in place. EPA’s Transport Rule, 

commonly referred to as the CSAPR, 

sunset the requirements of CAIR. EPA’s 

decision to sunset CAIR is the result of 

a decision by the Court of Appeals for 

the D.C. Circuit remanding CAIR to EPA 

and leaving CAIR in place only 

‘‘temporarily,’’ as noted in our notice of 

proposed rulemaking and by the 

commenters. As such, notwithstanding 

the regulatory text in 40 CFR 

51.308(e)(4), we cannot fully approve 

the Virginia Regional Haze SIP which 

relies heavily on CAIR as part of its 

long-term strategy and to meet the 

BART requirements. 

The EPA has also completed an 

analysis and has proposed the Transport 

Rule as an alternative to BART for 

electrical generating units (EGUs) 

located in the Transport Rule states 

(which include Virginia). (76 FR 82219, 

December 30, 2011). Given the 

significance of the emissions reductions 

from CAIR to Virginia’s demonstration 

that it has met the requirements of the 

Regional Haze Rule, EPA proposed 

issuing a limited disapproval of the 

Virginia SIP. Although CAIR is 

currently being administered by EPA 

pursuant to an order by the Court of 

Appeals for the D.C. Circuit in EME 

Homer City Generation, L.P. v. EPA, it 

will not remain in effect indefinitely. 

For this reason, EPA cannot fully 

approve Regional Haze SIP revisions 

that rely on CAIR for emission reduction 

measures. 

Comment: The commenter stated that 

EPA’s proposal of approving the 

reasonable progress controls for Mead 

Westvaco is contrary to EPA’s position 

in the proposal of Arkansas’s Regional 

Haze SIP that the uniform rate of 

progress (URP) does not establish a 

‘‘safe harbor’’ and is not supported by 

the preamble to the RH rule (64 FR 

35732). The commenter also stated that 

VADEQ and EPA placed undue weight 

on the premise that the visibility 

improvements projected for the affected 

Class I areas are in excess of those 

needed to be on the URP glidepath, and 

therefore, a less-rigorous Reasonable 

Progress analysis was acceptable. 

Another commenter gave a similar 

comment but added that the 1 percent 

contribution to impairment before a 

source will be considered for control for 

reasonable progress purposes is 

arbitrary. 

Response: EPA disagrees with the 

commenter regarding the comments on 

the URP. The RH rule preamble states 

that ‘‘[i]f the State determines that the 

amount of progress identified through 

the [URP] analysis is reasonable based 

upon the statutory factors, the State 

should identify this amount of progress 

as its reasonable progress goal for the 

first long-term strategy, unless it 

determines that additional progress 

beyond this amount is also reasonable. 

If the State determines that additional 

progress is reasonable based on the 

statutory factors, the State should adopt 

that amount of progress as its goal for 

the first long-term strategy. Virginia did 

determine that the reasonable progress 

goals (RPG) for the first implementation 

period would be beyond the URP and 

developed the RPGs using the four 

factors required by the statute. As such, 

the URP glidepath was not a stopping 

point for analysis done by VADEQ. The 

analysis of reasonable measures 

evaluated by VISTAS can be found in 

Virginia’s appendices. The 1 percent 

contribution of impairment for 

reasonable progress is not arbitrary, but 

rather explained in Virginia’s submittal. 

Comment: The commenter stated that 

a 90 percent efficient scrubber at Mead 

Westvaco should be reasonable progress 

instead of the upgrade to the current 

flue gas desulfurization (FGD). The 

commenter stated that the new scrubber 

with 90 percent efficiency could have a 

cumulative improvement of visibility on 

four Class I areas of 0.8–1.3 deciview 

beyond the BART limit. The commenter 

also stated that the upgrade to the 

current FGD results in a cumulative 

improvement of visibility on four Class 

I areas of 0.3 deciview beyond BART. 

Response: The visibility improvement 

provided by the commenter is 

calculated using a cumulative impact, 

combining the improvement at all class 

I areas impacted by the source. The RH 

rule does not require the use of 

cumulative impact in reviews done by 

the state, and VADEQ chose not to 

assess visibility on a cumulative basis. 

Virginia did include in their 

determination for reasonable progress 

that the upgrade of the FGD at Mead 

Westvaco, along with the other 

measures in the long-term strategy 

ensure that the state is on the glidepath 

for achieving natural background for the 

20 percent worst days by 2064 and that 

there is no degradation to the 20 percent 

best days as required. Thus, EPA agrees 

that the upgrade to the FGD is 

acceptable for reasonable progress in the 

regional haze planning period. 

Comment: The commenter believes 

that VADEQ overestimated the costs of 

a New Caustic flue gas desulfurization 

(FGD) and new Spray Dryer with 

Baghouse, while the commenters 

analysis shows that the costs of a New 

Caustic FGD and new Spray Dryer with 

Baghouse are reasonable in terms of 

total and incremental costs per ton and 

per deciview. 

Response: EPA disagrees with the 

commenter’s analysis of costs of the 

FGD and baghouse. The approach used 

by the commenter to calculate the 

revised costs of the New Caustic FGD 

and Spray Dryer with Baghouse use a 

cumulative total visibility impact and 

this approach is not required by EPA, 

but rather recommended. The state has 

the option to use a cumulative approach 

for calculating the cost per deciview of 

a control technology. EPA therefore 

agrees with VADEQ in their reasoned 

cost analysis for BART controls for 

sulfur dioxide (SO2). 

Comment: The commenter stated 

VADEQ was incorrect and inconsistent 

in applying its cost thresholds, and its 

conclusions are inconsistent with BART 

determinations for paper mill power 

boilers in Virginia and in other states. 

Response: EPA disagrees that 

VADEQ’s BART determinations are 

incorrect, or inconsistent, or 

unreasonable. BART determinations are 

done on a case-by-case basis, so it is 

possible that a control technology for 

one power boiler may not be a 

reasonable option for another. The state 

has the discretion to rank the 

technologies of the BART determination 

in their analysis. Virginia has completed 

this analysis to show the upgrade of the 

current FGD is BART and EPA agrees. 

The commenter supplied other BART 

determinations which have different 

fuel types than that of the Mead 

Westvaco Facility in Virginia, and the 

power boiler number 9 is in a combined 

stack with three other power boilers that 

go through the FGD and will receive 

additional SO2 reductions as a result of 

the upgrade required for BART. 

Therefore, the commenter’s statements 

are not analogous, and EPA finds 

Virginia’s determinations reasonable. 

Comment: The commenter stated it 

believed that EPA must disapprove the 

Virginia Regional Haze SIP due to the 

reliance on CAIR as a BART substitute 

and as part of its reasonable progress 

demonstration. 

Response: EPA disagrees in general 

with this comment. EPA understands 

that CAIR has been remanded and that 

is the reason that the limited 

disapproval of the Virginia Regional 

Haze SIP is being promulgated. EPA has 

proposed that the Transport Rule is 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 114 / Wednesday, June 13, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 35289 

better than BART and proposed a 

Federal implementation plan (FIP) for 

Virginia to replace the CAIR reliance. 

(76 FR 82219) EPA does recognize that 

the other additional measures in the SIP 

submitted by Virginia help strengthen 

the Virginia SIP as a whole and are the 

basis for the limited approval portion of 

this action. 

Comment: The commenter stated that 

the Virginia Regional Haze SIP does not 

provide enough reductions to meet the 

uniform rate of progress for James River 

Face Wilderness Area on the 20 percent 

best days and does not provide a 

reasoned justification for failing to do 

so. The commenter stated the SIP is 

therefore, deficient and unapprovable. 

The Commonwealth has also not 

complied with the requirement of EPA’s 

rules that it provide an assessment of 

the number of years it would take to 

attain natural conditions of visibility 

improvement on the best days based on 

the reasonable progress goals selected 

by the Commonwealth. The commenter 

states that a uniform rate of progress to 

achieve a 9.8 deciview reduction would 

require reductions of 0.163 deciview per 

year (dv/yr), or a total of 2.29 deciview 

over the 14 years of the first planning 

period. 

Response: EPA disagrees with the 

commenter. 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1) states 

that ’’ the reasonable progress goals 

must provide for an improvement in 

visibility for the most impaired days 

over the period of the implementation 

plan and to ensure that no degradation 

in visibility for the least impaired days 

over the same period’’. The URP does 

not apply to the 20 percent best days, 

but only the 20 percent worst or most 

impaired days. The requirement is to 

demonstrate that the 20 percent best 

days show no degradation in visibility 

which VADEQ has done on page 55 of 

their October 4, 2010 submittal. EPA 

believes that Virginia has met these 

requirements. 

Comment: The commenter questioned 

EPA’s authority to grant ‘‘limited’’ 

approvals and disapprovals. The 

commenter also states that the final 

limited approval and limited 

disapproval of the Virginia Regional 

Haze SIP cannot lawfully discharge or 

restart the clock on a FIP obligation 

because EPA is already under a 

nondiscretionary duty to promulgate a 

regional haze FIP by virtue of the EPA’s 

findings of failure to submit for Virginia 

on January 15, 2009. 

Response: EPA disagrees with the 

commenter and finds that the limited 

approval, limited disapproval is 

appropriate for SIP strengthening and 

due to the status of CAIR. The final 

limited disapproval must be signed 

prior to EPA issuing a FIP to correct the 

reliance on CAIR in Virginia’s Regional 

Haze SIP. The explanation in the 

proposed notice explained the effects of 

a limited disapproval and the timeframe 

for a FIP to be promulgated. It is 

understood that EPA does not have 

those additional 2 years because EPA is 

obligated to finalize the actions on the 

Virginia Regional Haze SIP pursuant to 

a judicial consent decree entered by the 

National Park Conservation Association 

(NPCA). Also, EPA has statutory 

authority for limited approvals and 

limited disapprovals pursuant to 

Section 110(k)(3) of the CAA. 

Comment: The commenter noted that 

Virginia has arbitrarily rejected MidAtlantic Northeast Visibility Union’s 

(MANE–VU) requested measures as 

reasonable progress requirements to 

address Virginia’s contribution to 

Brigantine National Wildlife Refuge, 

Great Gulf Wilderness Area, and 

Presidential Range—Dry River 

Wilderness Area. Virginia made 

assertions using VISTAS analysis 

showing that no stack contributes 1 

percent or more to impairment at 

Brigantine, and that some of the units 

are temporarily shut down or predicted 

by the integrated planning model (IPM) 

model to be shut down by 2018. The 

commenter claimed these assertions are 

not federally enforceable and that EPA’s 

rule requires Virginia to consult with 

the states whose class I areas it impacts 

‘‘in order to develop coordinated 

emission management strategies.’’ 40 

CFR 51.308(d)(3)(i). The commenter 

believed that Virginia has not addressed 

its share of emission reductions 

required by 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(ii) in 

the SIP are needed to meet the progress 

goal for class I areas emissions impact 

and that the SIP should be disapproved. 

The commenter stated that Virginia did 

not comply with this requirement, nor 

did it provide the modeling required in 

40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(iii). The commenter 

stated that EPA’s approved regional 

haze SIP for New Jersey found the 

MANE–VU measures are ‘‘necessary to 

achieve the Reasonable Progress Goal’’ 

for Brigantine and other class I areas. 

The commenter stated that New Jersey 

and MANE–VU states considered the 

five factor analysis required and 

Virginia did not question those 

reasonable progress goals, or provide a 

reasoned basis for not doing them. See 

40 CFR 51.308(d)(1)(i)(A). 

Response: EPA disagrees with the 

comments regarding reasonable progress 

goals and finds the commenter’s 

comparisons not analogous to Virginia. 

There are only four factors required for 

the reasonable progress goals in 40 CFR 

51.308(d)(1)(i)(A) and they are cost of 

compliance, the time necessary for 

compliance, the energy and non-air 

quality environmental impacts of 

compliance, and remaining useful life of 

any potentially affected sources. 

Virginia has supplied a technical 

analysis of the reductions in emissions 

towards meeting the MANE–VU 

measures by using the emission 

inventory, ambient monitoring data and 

modeling done by the regional planning 

organizations (RPO) VISTAS, which is 

found in VADEQ’s appendices. EPA 

recommended that the states form RPOs 

for planning purposes of the regional 

haze SIPs, and both VISTAS and 

MANE–VU states did participate in 

coordination meetings for developing 

these SIPs. EPA has approved different 

approaches for establishing reasonable 

progress goals, and the states have the 

flexibility in doing so for their 

respective class I areas. Additionally, 

each RPO modeled using a separate set 

of assumptions to demonstrate the share 

of apportioned emission reductions. In 

using the VISTAS approach, as 

approved by EPA, Virginia has met its 

share of emission reductions for the 

class I areas it impacts. If the reasonable 

progress goals are not met or on track to 

be met for the 2018 targets, then the 

shortfall will be addressed in the 

midcourse review and a SIP revision to 

address any additional measures needed 

at that time to address the shortfall in 

emission reductions. 

IV. Final Action 

EPA is finalizing its limited approval 

of the revisions to the Virginia SIP 

submitted on July 17, 2008, March 6, 

2009, January 14, 2010, October 4, 2010, 

November 19, 2010, and May 6, 2011, 

address regional haze for the first 

implementation period. EPA is issuing a 

limited approval of the Virginia SIP 

since overall the SIP will be stronger 

and more protective of the environment 

with the implementation of those 

measures by Virginia and with having 

Federal approval and enforceability 

than it would without those measures 

being included in the Virginia’s SIP. 

The final limited disapproval and FIP 

will be in a separate rulemaking action 

done by EPA. EPA is also approving this 

revision as meeting the applicable 

visibility related requirements of section 

110(a)(2) of the CAA including, but not 

limited to sections 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) and 

110(a)(2)(J) of the CAA, relating to 

visibility protection for the 1997 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS and the 1997 and 2006 

PM2.5 NAAQS. 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
35290 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 114 / Wednesday, June 13, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

V. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

A. General Requirements 

Under the CAA, the Administrator is 

required to approve a SIP submission 

that complies with the provisions of the 

CAA 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 action 

merely approves state law as meeting 

Federal requirements and does not 

impose additional requirements beyond 

those imposed by state law. For that 

reason, this 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). 

In addition, this rule does not have 

tribal implications as specified by 

Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, 

November 9, 2000), because the SIP is 

not approved to apply in Indian country 

located in the state, and EPA notes that 

it will not impose substantial direct 

costs on tribal governments or preempt 

tribal law. 

B. Submission to Congress and the 

Comptroller General 

The Congressional Review Act, 5 

U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides 

that before a rule may take effect, the 

agency promulgating the rule must 

submit a rule report, which includes a 

copy of the rule, to each House of the 

Congress and to the Comptroller General 

of the United States. EPA will submit a 

report containing this action and other 

required information to the U.S. Senate, 

the U.S. House of Representatives, and 

the Comptroller General of the United 

States prior to publication of the rule in 

the Federal Register. A major rule 

cannot take effect until 60 days after it 

is published in the Federal Register. 

This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as 

defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). 

C. Petitions for Judicial Review 

Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, 

petitions for judicial review of this 

action must be filed in the United States 

Court of Appeals for the appropriate 

circuit by August 13, 2012. Filing a 

petition for reconsideration by the 

Administrator of this final rule does not 

affect the finality of this action for the 

purposes of judicial review nor does it 

extend the time within which a petition 

for judicial review may be filed, and 

shall not postpone the effectiveness of 

such rule or action. 

This action finalizing the limited 

approval of the Virginia Regional Haze 

SIP may not be challenged later in 

proceedings to enforce its requirements. 

(See section 307(b)(2) of the CAA.). 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Nitrogen dioxide, Particulate 

matter, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile 

organic compounds. 

Dated: May 30, 2012. 

W.C. Early, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region III. 

Therefore, 40 CFR part 52 is amended 

as follows: 

PART 52—[AMENDED] 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 52 

continues to read as follows: 

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

■ 2. Amend § 52.2420, in the table in 

paragraph (e) by adding an entry for 

‘‘Regional Haze Plan’’ at the end of the 

table to read as follows: 

§ 52.2420 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(e) * * * 

Name of non-regulatory 

SIP revision 

Applicable geographic 

area State submittal date EPA approval date Additional explanation 

*******

Regional Haze Plan ........... Statewide .......................... 7/17/08, 3/6/09, 1/14/12, 

10/4/10, 11/19/10, 5/6/ 

11.

6/13/2012 [Insert page 

number where the document begins].

§ 52.2452(d); Limited Approval. 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 114 / Wednesday, June 13, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 35291 

■ 3. Amend § 52.2452 by adding 

paragraph (d) to read as follows: 

§ 52.2452 Visibility protection. 

* * * * * 

(d) Limited approval of the Regional 

Haze Plan submitted by the 

Commonwealth of Virginia on July 17, 

2008, March 6, 2009, January 14, 2010, 

October 4, 2010, November 19, 2010, 

and May 6, 2011. 

[FR Doc. 2012–14270 Filed 6–12–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 180 

[EPA–HQ–OPP–2010–0078; FRL–9348–7] 

Killed, Nonviable Streptomyces 

acidiscabies Strain RL–110T; 

Exemption From the Requirement of a 

Tolerance 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: This regulation establishes an 

exemption from the requirement of a 

tolerance for residues of killed, 

nonviable Streptomyces acidiscabies 

strain RL–110T in or on all food 

commodities when applied as a pre- or 

post-emergent herbicide and used in 

accordance with good agricultural 

practices. Marrone Bio Innovations, Inc. 

submitted a petition to EPA under the 

Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act 

(FFDCA), requesting an exemption from 

the requirement of a tolerance. This 

regulation eliminates the need to 

establish a maximum permissible level 

for residues of killed, nonviable 

Streptomyces acidiscabies strain RL– 

110T under the FFDCA. 

DATES: This regulation is effective June 

13, 2012. Objections and requests for 

hearings must be received on or before 

August 13, 2012, and must be filed in 

accordance with the instructions 

provided in 40 CFR part 178 (see also 

Unit I.C. of the SUPPLEMENTARY

INFORMATION). 

ADDRESSES: The docket for this action, 

identified by docket identification (ID) 

number EPA–HQ–OPP–2010–0078, is at 

http://www.regulations.gov or at the 

OPP Docket in the Environmental 

Protection Agency Docket Center (EPA/ 

DC), located in EPA West, Rm. 3334, 

1301 Constitution Ave. NW., 

Washington, DC 20460–0001. The 

Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 

a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through 

Friday, excluding legal holidays. The 

telephone number for the Public 

Reading Room is (202) 566–1744, and 

the telephone number for the OPP 

Docket is (703) 305–5805. Please review 

the visitor instructions and additional 

information about the docket available 

at http://www.epa.gov/dockets. 

Some documents cited in this final 

rule are located in a different docket 

associated with a notice of receipt 

(NOR) of an application for a new 

pesticide, Streptomyces acidiscabies 

strain RL–110T, under the Federal 

Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide 

Act (FIFRA). That docket number is 

EPA–HQ–OPP–2010–0079. Such 

documents include the Biopesticides 

Registration Action Document (BRAD) 

provided as a reference in Unit IX. (Ref. 

1) of this final rule, and other 

documents listed Unit IX. of this final 

rule. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ann 

Sibold, Biopesticides and Pollution 

Prevention Division (7511P), Office of 

Pesticide Programs, Environmental 

Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania 

Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460–0001; 

telephone number: (703) 305–6502; 

email address: sibold.ann@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. General Information 

A. Does this action apply to me? 

You may be potentially affected by 

this action if you are an agricultural 

producer, food manufacturer, or 

pesticide manufacturer. Potentially 

affected entities may include, but are 

not limited to: 

• Crop production (NAICS code 111). 

• Animal production (NAICS code 

112). 

• Food manufacturing (NAICS code 

311). 

• Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS 

code 32532). 

This listing is not intended to be 

exhaustive, but rather provides a guide 

for readers regarding entities likely to be 

affected by this action. Other types of 

entities not listed in this unit could also 

be affected. The North American 

Industrial Classification System 

(NAICS) codes have been provided to 

assist you and others in determining 

whether this action might apply to 

certain entities. If you have any 

questions regarding the applicability of 

this action to a particular entity, consult 

the person listed under FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT. 

B. How can I get electronic access to 

other related information? 

You may access a frequently updated 

electronic version of 40 CFR part 180 

through the Government Printing 

Office’s e-CFR site at http:// 

ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/textidx?&c=ecfr&tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title40/ 

40tab_02.tpl. To access the harmonized 

test guidelines referenced in this 

document electronically, please go to 

http://www.epa.gov/ocspp and select 

‘‘Test Methods and Guidelines.’’ 

C. How can I file an objection or hearing 

request? 

Under FFDCA section 408(g), 21 

U.S.C. 346a(g), any person may file an 

objection to any aspect of this regulation 

and may also request a hearing on those 

objections. You must file your objection 

or request a hearing on this regulation 

in accordance with the instructions 

provided in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure 

proper receipt by EPA, you must 

identify docket ID number EPA–HQ– 

OPP–2010–0078 in the subject line on 

the first page of your submission. All 

objections and requests for a hearing 

must be in writing, and must be 

received by the Hearing Clerk on or 

before August 13, 2012. Addresses for 

mail and hand delivery of objections 

and hearing requests are provided in 40 

CFR 178.25(b). In addition to filing an 

objection or hearing request with the 

Hearing Clerk as described in 40 CFR 

part 178, please submit a copy of the 

filing that does not contain any CBI for 

inclusion in the public docket. 

Information not marked confidential 

pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be 

disclosed publicly by EPA without prior 

notice. Submit a copy of your non-CBI 

objection or hearing request, identified 

by docket ID number EPA–HQ–OPP– 

2010–0078, by one of the following 

methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the online 

instructions for submitting comments. 

Do not submit electronically any 

information you consider to be 

Confidential Business Information (CBI) 

or other information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. 

• Mail: OPP Docket, Environmental 

Protection Agency Docket Center (EPA/ 

DC), Mail Code: 28221T, 1200 

Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, 

DC 20460–0001. 

• Hand Delivery: To make special 

arrangements for hand delivery or 

delivery of boxed information, please 

follow the instructions at http:// 

www.epa.gov/dockets/contacts.htm. 

II. Background and Statutory Findings 

In the Federal Register of March 10, 

2010 (75 FR 11171) (FRL–8810–8), EPA 

issued a notice pursuant to section 

408(d)(3) of FFDCA, 21 U.S.C. 

346a(d)(3), announcing the filing of a 

pesticide tolerance petition (PP 0F7681) 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES