Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 124 / Wednesday, June 27, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 38191 

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 rule 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). 

K. 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 27, 2012. Filing a 

petition for reconsideration by the 

Administrator of this final rule does not 

affect the finality of this rule 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 may not 

be challenged later in proceedings to 

enforce its requirements. See section 

307(b)(2). 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Nitrogen dioxide, Particulate matter, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile 

organic compounds. 

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

Dated: June 13, 2012. 

A. Stanley Meiburg, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4. 

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. 

Subpart II—North Carolina 

■ 2. Section 52.1770(c) is amended: 

■ a. By adding a new entry to Table 1 

in paragraph (c) for ‘‘Sect .0543’’ in 

numerical order, and 

■ b. By adding a new entry to the table 

in paragraph (e) for ‘‘Regional Haze 

Plan’’ at the end of the table. 

§ 52.1770 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

TABLE 1—EPA-APPROVED NORTH CAROLINA REGULATIONS

State citation Title/subject State effective 

date EPA approval date Explanation 

Subchapter 2D Air Pollution Control Requirements 

*******

Section .0500 Emission Control Standards 

*******

Sect .0543 ............... Best Available Retrofit Technology ................................. 9/6/2006 6/27/2012 [Insert citation of 

publication].

* * * * * * * 

(e) * * * 

EPA-APPROVED NORTH CAROLINA NON-REGULATORY PROVISIONS

Provision State effective 

date 

EPA approval 

date Federal Register citation 

*******

Regional Haze Plan ................................................................................... 11/17/2007 6/27/2012 [Insert citation of publication]. 

[FR Doc. 2012–15468 Filed 6–26–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R04–OAR–2009–0784; FRL–9691–9] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans; State of 

Mississippi; Regional Haze State 

Implementation Plan 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is finalizing a limited 

approval of revisions to the Mississippi 

State Implementation Plan (SIP) 

submitted by the State of Mississippi 

through the Mississippi Department of 

Environmental Management (MDEQ) on 

September 22, 2008, and May 9, 2011. 

Mississippi’s SIP revisions address 

regional haze for the first 

implementation period. Specifically, 

these SIP revisions address the 

requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES
38192 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 124 / Wednesday, June 27, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

1 In a separate action, published June 7, 2012 (77 

FR 33642), EPA finalized a limited disapproval of 

the Mississippi regional haze SIP because of 

deficiencies in the State’s regional haze SIP 

submittal arising from the State’s reliance on CAIR 

to meet certain regional haze requirements. This 

final limited disapproval triggers a 24-month clock 

by which a Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) or 

EPA-approved SIP must be in place to address the 

deficiencies. 

or Act) and EPA’s rules that require 

states to prevent any future and remedy 

any existing anthropogenic impairment 

of visibility in mandatory Class I areas 

(national parks and wilderness areas) 

caused by emissions of air pollutants 

from numerous sources located over a 

wide geographic area (also referred to as 

the ‘‘regional haze program’’). States are 

required to assure reasonable progress 

toward the national goal of achieving 

natural visibility conditions in Class I 

areas. EPA is finalizing a limited 

approval of Mississippi’s SIP revisions 

to implement the regional haze 

requirements for Mississippi on the 

basis that these SIP revisions, as a 

whole, strengthen the Mississippi SIP. 

In a separate action published on June 

7, 2012, EPA finalized a limited 

disapproval of this same SIP revision 

because of the deficiencies in the State’s 

regional haze SIP revision arising from 

the remand by the U.S. Court of Appeals 

for the District of Columbia Circuit (D.C. 

Circuit) to EPA of the Clean Air 

Interstate Rule (CAIR). 

DATES: Effective Date: This rule will be 

effective July 27, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket 

Identification No. EPA–R04–OAR– 

2009–0784. All documents in the docket 

are listed on the www.regulations.gov 

Web site. Although listed in the index, 

some information is not publicly 

available, i.e., Confidential Business 

Information 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 at 

the Regulatory Development Section, 

Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and 

Toxics Management Division, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., 

Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. EPA 

requests that if at all possible, you 

contact the person listed in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section 

for further information. The Regional 

Office’s official hours of business are 

Monday through Friday, 8:30 to 4:30, 

excluding federal holidays. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Michele Notarianni, Regulatory 

Development Section, Air Planning 

Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics 

Management Division, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., 

Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. Michele 

Notarianni can be reached at telephone 

number (404) 562–9031 and by 

electronic mail at notarianni.michele@

epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents 

I. What is the background for this final 

action? 

II. What is EPA’s response to comments 

received on this action? 

III. What is the effect of this final action? 

IV. Final Action 

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. What is the background for this final 

action? 

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 (e.g., sulfates, nitrates, 

organic carbon, elemental carbon, and 

soil dust), and their precursors (e.g., 

sulfur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen oxides 

(NOX), and in some cases, ammonia and 

volatile organic compounds. Fine 

particle precursors react in the 

atmosphere to form fine particulate 

matter (PM2.5) which impairs visibility 

by scattering and absorbing light. 

Visibility impairment reduces the 

clarity, color, and visible distance that 

one can see. PM2.5 can also cause 

serious health effects and mortality in 

humans and contributes to 

environmental effects such as acid 

deposition and eutrophication. 

In section 169A of the 1977 

Amendments to the CAA, Congress 

created a program for protecting 

visibility in the nation’s national parks 

and wilderness areas. This section of the 

CAA establishes as a national goal the 

‘‘prevention of any future, and the 

remedying of any existing, impairment 

of visibility in mandatory Class I areas 

which impairment results from 

manmade air pollution.’’ On December 

2, 1980, EPA promulgated regulations to 

address visibility impairment in Class I 

areas that is ‘‘reasonably attributable’’ to 

a single source or small group of 

sources, i.e., ‘‘reasonably attributable 

visibility impairment.’’ See 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 35713), the Regional Haze Rule 

(RHR). The RHR revised the existing 

visibility regulations to integrate into 

the regulation provisions addressing 

regional haze impairment and 

established a comprehensive visibility 

protection program for Class I areas. The 

requirements for regional haze, found at 

40 CFR 51.308 and 51.309, are included 

in EPA’s visibility protection 

regulations at 40 CFR 51.300–309. 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) requires states to submit 

the first implementation plan 

addressing regional haze visibility 

impairment no later than December 17, 

2007. 

On September 22, 2008, and May 9, 

2011, MDEQ submitted revisions to 

Mississippi’s SIP to address regional 

haze in the State’s and other states’ 

Class I areas. On February 28, 2012, EPA 

published an action proposing a limited 

approval of Mississippi’s SIP revisions 

to address the first implementation 

period for regional haze.1 See 77 FR 

11879. EPA proposed a limited approval 

of Mississippi’s SIP revisions to 

implement the regional haze 

requirements for Mississippi on the 

basis that this revision, as a whole, 

strengthens the Mississippi SIP. See 

section II of this rulemaking for a 

summary of the comments received on 

the proposed actions and EPA’s 

responses to these comments. Detailed 

background information and EPA’s 

rationale for the proposed action is 

provided in EPA’s February 28, 2012, 

proposed rulemaking. See 77 FR 11879. 

Following the remand of CAIR, EPA 

issued a new rule in 2011 to address the 

interstate transport of NOX and SO2 in 

the eastern United States. See 76 FR 

48208 (August 8, 2011) (‘‘the Transport 

Rule,’’ also known as the Cross-State Air 

Pollution Rule (CSAPR)). On December 

30, 2011, EPA proposed to find that the 

trading programs in the Transport Rule 

would achieve greater reasonable 

progress towards the national goal of 

achieving natural visibility conditions 

than would Best Available Retrofit 

Technology (BART) in the states in 

which the Transport Rule applies. See 

76 FR 82219. Based on this proposed 

finding, EPA also proposed to revise the 

RHR to allow states to substitute 

participation in the trading programs 

under the Transport Rule for sourceVerDate Mar<15>2010 13:12 Jun 26, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\27JNR1.SGM 27JNR1

emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 124 / Wednesday, June 27, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 38193 

specific BART. EPA finalized this 

finding and RHR revision on June 7, 

2012 (77 FR 33642). 

Also on December 30, 2011, the D.C. 

Circuit stayed the Transport Rule 

(including the provisions that would 

have sunset CAIR and the CAIR FIPs) 

and instructed the EPA to continue to 

administer CAIR pending the outcome 

of the court’s decision on the petitions 

for review challenging the Transport 

Rule. EME Homer City v. EPA, No. 11– 

1302. 

II. What is EPA’s response to comments 

received on this action? 

EPA received three sets of comments 

on the February 28, 2012, rulemaking 

proposing a limited approval of 

Mississippi’s regional haze SIP 

revisions. Specifically, the comments 

were received from the National Park 

Service, Sierra Club, and the Chevron 

Products Company. Full sets of the 

comments provided by all of the 

aforementioned entities (hereinafter 

referred to as ‘‘the Commenter’’) are 

provided in the docket for today’s final 

action. A summary of the comments and 

EPA’s responses are provided below. 

Comment 1: The Commenter believes 

that Mississippi’s regional haze SIP is 

inadequate because it does not properly 

identify sources that should be subject 

to a reasonable progress analysis and 

disagrees with MDEQ’s decision to not 

subject Mississippi Power Company— 

Plant Watson (Plant Watson) and the 

DuPont Delisle facility to a reasonable 

progress control evaluation on the basis 

that Louisiana did not identify these 

plants as potentially impacting the 

Breton Wilderness Area (Breton). The 

Commenter recognizes that it should be 

the responsibility of the state in which 

a federal Class I area is located to 

determine which sources should be 

evaluated for reasonable progress but 

also states its belief that, when a state 

fails to adequately address the federal 

Class I areas within its borders, the 

responsibility for protecting visibility at 

that federal Class I area shifts to those 

states who have identified sources 

within their boundaries that impact that 

federal Class I area. Therefore, the 

Commenter contends that MDEQ should 

consider applying some level of control 

to the two aforementioned facilities 

even though the Louisiana regional haze 

SIP submittal did not specifically 

identify them in its control strategy for 

Breton. The Commenter also states that 

there is no evidence that Mississippi 

consulted or corresponded with 

Louisiana regarding the potential 

visibility impacts from these two 

facilities. 

Response 1: EPA disagrees with the 

Commenter’s conclusion that the 

responsibility for developing an 

adequate long-term strategy (LTS) shifts 

from states with federal Class I areas 

within their boundaries to neighboring 

states. EPA’s regulations are clear that 

‘‘[w]here the State has emissions that 

are reasonably anticipated to contribute 

to visibility impairment in any 

mandatory Class I Federal area located 

in another State or States, the State must 

consult with the other State(s) in order 

to develop coordinated emission 

management strategies.’’ 40 CFR 

52.308(d)(3)(i). 

MDEQ has met its obligation to 

consult with Louisiana. In December 

2006 and in May 2007, the State Air 

Directors from the Visibility 

Improvement State and Tribal 

Association of the Southeast (VISTAS) 

states held formal interstate 

consultation meetings to discuss the 

methodology proposed by VISTAS for 

identifying sources to evaluate for 

reasonable progress. The states invited 

Federal Land Managers (FLMs) and EPA 

representatives to participate and to 

provide additional feedback, and the 

State Air Directors discussed the results 

of analyses showing contributions to 

visibility impairment from states to each 

of the federal Class I areas in the 

VISTAS region. Mississippi received 

letters from Louisiana and Alabama 

transmitting prehearing drafts of their 

regional haze SIPs and provided 

documentation of this correspondence 

and summaries of formal consultation 

meetings in Appendix J of the 

September 2008 Mississippi SIP 

submittal. MDEQ concurred on the 

reasonable progress goals (RPGs) for 

Breton and the Sipsey Wilderness Area 

and committed to continue 

collaboration with these states in the 

preparation of future VISTAS studies 

and analyses and in addressing regional 

haze issues in future implementation 

periods. 

In addition, 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(ii) 

requires each state that causes or 

contributes to impairment in a 

mandatory federal Class I area to 

demonstrate that it has included in its 

implementation plan all measures 

necessary to obtain its share of the 

emissions reductions needed to meet 

the progress goals for the area. MDEQ 

has met its obligations with regard to 

obtaining emissions reductions since no 

additional control measures specific to 

Mississippi were identified by the 

Louisiana reasonable progress analysis. 

As noted in the proposal, after the time 

of Mississippi’s original 2008 SIP 

submittal, Louisiana completed and 

submitted a regional haze SIP to address 

visibility at Breton. Neither Plant 

Watson nor the DuPont DeLisle facility 

were identified by Louisiana, either 

through consultations with Mississippi 

or in the Louisiana regional haze SIP, as 

sources potentially impacting Breton for 

which a reasonable progress control 

evaluation would be needed. Thus, EPA 

believes it is appropriate for Mississippi 

to determine that no further control 

analysis was necessary at these facilities 

at this time. Since Breton is in 

Louisiana, EPA believes that Mississippi 

appropriately relied on Louisiana’s 

determination of which sources to 

prioritize for reasonable progress control 

evaluation during this implementation 

period. Mississippi has committed to 

continue to consult with Louisiana to 

assess the potential impact of facilities 

in Mississippi to help meet the visibility 

goals for Breton for future 

implementation periods. 

Comment 2: The Commenter states 

that MDEQ improperly estimated 

emissions reductions for 2018 and that 

Mississippi’s projection of future 

visibility conditions for 2018 is based 

on ‘‘uncertain federal and state 

pollution control projects, including, in 

large part, on the emissions reductions 

anticipated from CAIR.’’ The 

Commenter also believes that 

anticipated emissions reductions 

resulting from the other control 

programs considered by Mississippi 

(e.g., Industrial Boiler Maximum 

Achievable Control Technology, the 

Atlanta/Birmingham/Northern 

Kentucky 1997 8-hour ozone 

nonattainment area SIP) are just as 

uncertain as those resulting under CAIR 

and the Transport Rule, and that 

Mississippi ‘‘need[s] to base its LTS on 

concrete, definite emissions 

reductions.’’ The Commenter requests 

that, at a minimum, EPA should ensure 

that MDEQ follows through on its 

commitment to re-evaluate its ability to 

meet its RPGs in the five-year progress 

review. 

Response 2: The technical 

information provided in the record 

demonstrates that the emissions 

inventory in the SIP adequately reflects 

projected 2018 conditions and that the 

LTS meets the requirements of the RHR 

and is approvable. Mississippi’s 2018 

projections are based on the State’s 

technical analysis of the anticipated 

emissions rates and level of activity for 

electric generating units (EGUs), other 

point sources, nonpoint sources, onroad sources, and off-road sources based 

on their emissions in the 2002 base year, 

considering growth and additional 

emissions controls to be in place and 

federally enforceable by 2018. The 

emissions inventory used in the regional 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES
38194 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 124 / Wednesday, June 27, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

2 In a final action published on July 6, 2005, EPA 

addressed similar comments related to CAIR and 

determined that CAIR makes greater reasonable 

progress than BART for certain EGUs and pollutants 

(70 FR 39138). EPA did not reopen comment on 

that issue through this rulemaking. 

3See EPA, Response to Comments Document, 

Regional Haze: Revisions to Provisions Governing 

Alternatives to Source-Specific Best Available 

Retrofit Technology (BART) Determinations, 

Limited SIP Disapprovals, and Federal 

Implementation Plans (76 FR 82219; December 30, 

2011), Docket Number EPA–HQ–OAR–2011–0729 

(May 30, 2012), pages 49–51 (noting that EPA 

‘‘disagree[s] with comments that we cannot evaluate 

the BART requirements in isolation from the 

reasonable progress requirements. We have on 

several occasions undertaken evaluations of a 

state’s BART determination or promulgated a FIP 

separately from our evaluation of whether the SIP 

as a whole will ensure reasonable progress.’’). 

haze technical analyses that was 

developed by VISTAS with assistance 

from Mississippi projected 2002 

emissions (the latest region-wide 

inventory available at the time the 

submittal was being developed) and 

applied reductions expected from 

federal and state regulations affecting 

the emissions of volatile organic 

compounds and the visibility impairing 

pollutants NOX, PM, and SO2. 

To minimize the differences between 

the 2018 projected emissions used in 

the Mississippi regional haze submittal 

and what actually occurs in 2018, the 

RHR requires that the five-year review 

address any expected significant 

differences due to changed 

circumstances from the initial 2018 

projected emissions, provide updated 

expectations regarding emissions for the 

implementation period, and evaluate 

the impact of these differences on RPGs. 

It is expected that individual projections 

within a statewide inventory will vary 

from actual emissions over a 16-year 

period. For example, some facilities may 

shut down whereas others may expand 

operations. Furthermore, economic 

projections and population changes 

used to estimate growth often differ 

from actual events; new rules are 

modified, changing their expected 

effectiveness; and methodologies to 

estimate emissions improve, modifying 

emissions estimates. The five-year 

review is a mechanism to assure that 

these expected differences from 

projected emissions are considered and 

their impact on the 2018 RPGs is 

evaluated. In the regional haze program, 

uncertainties associated with modeled 

emissions projections into the future are 

addressed through the requirement 

under the RHR to submit periodic 

progress reports in the form of a SIP 

revision. Specifically, 40 CFR 51.308(g) 

requires each state to submit a report 

every five years evaluating progress 

toward the RPGs for each mandatory 

federal Class I area located in the state 

and for each federal Class I area outside 

the state that may be affected by 

emissions from the state. Since this fiveyear progress re-evaluation is a 

mandatory requirement, it is 

unnecessary for EPA to take additional 

measures to ‘‘ensure’’ that the State 

meets its reporting obligation. In the 

specific instances of uncertainty of 

future reductions cited by the 

Commenter, the State’s analysis of 

projected emissions and its reliance on 

these projections to address its share of 

the emissions reductions needed to 

meet the RPGs for Breton in accordance 

with 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(ii) satisfy EPA 

guidance and the requirements of the 

regional haze regulations. 

Comment 3: The Commenter does not 

believe that MDEQ can rely on CAIR or 

the Transport Rule to exempt the seven 

power plants with BART-eligible EGUs 

from an SO2 and NOX BART analysis. 

The Commenter enclosed letters that it 

submitted to EPA on February 28, 2012, 

with its comments on the Agency’s 

proposed December 30, 2011, 

rulemaking to find that the Transport 

Rule is ‘‘Better than BART’’ and to use 

the Transport Rule as an alternative to 

BART for Mississippi and other states 

subject to the Transport Rule. See 76 FR 

82219. The Commenter incorporates the 

comments in these letters by reference 

and repeats a subset of those comments, 

including the following: The Transport 

Rule cannot serve as the BARTalternative for the regional haze SIP 

process in Mississippi; EPA has not 

demonstrated that the Transport Rule 

assures greater reasonable progress than 

source-specific BART; EPA failed to 

account for the geographical and 

temporal uncertainties in emissions 

reductions inherent in a cap-and-trade 

program such as the Transport Rule; 

EPA underestimated the visibility 

improvements from BART using 

‘‘presumptive BART rather than actual 

BART;’’ EPA did not consider 

subsequent revisions to the Transport 

Rule budget that increase emission 

allocations for EGUs in Mississippi; and 

EPA has not accounted for the 

differences in averaging time under 

BART, the Transport Rule, and in 

measuring visibility impacts. 

Response 3: These comments are 

beyond the scope of this rulemaking. In 

today’s action, EPA is finalizing a 

limited approval of Mississippi’s 

regional haze SIP. EPA did not propose 

to find that participation in the 

Transport Rule is an alternative to 

BART in this action nor did EPA reopen 

discussions on the CAIR provisions as 

they relate to BART.2 As noted above, 

EPA proposed to find that the Transport 

Rule is ‘‘Better than BART’’ and to use 

the Transport Rule as an alternative to 

BART for certain states in a separate 

action on December 30, 2011, and the 

Commenter is merely reiterating and 

incorporating comments submitted on 

that separate action. EPA addressed the 

Commenter’s February 28, 2012, 

comments concerning the Transport 

Rule as a BART alternative in a final 

action that was published on June 7, 

2012, and has determined that they do 

not affect the Agency’s ability to finalize 

a limited approval of Mississippi’s 

regional haze SIP. EPA’s response to 

these comments can be found in Docket 

ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2011–0729 at 

www.regulations.gov. 

Comment 4: The Commenter asserts 

that because ‘‘the BART component of 

Mississippi’s RH SIP is an essential 

element to the state’s LTS for achieving 

its RPGs, Mississippi’s treatment of 

CAIR (and now EPA’s proposed 

substitution of CSAPR for CAIR) as an 

acceptable BART-alternative must be 

addressed in this present comment 

process. Separating the BART analysis 

from the remaining portion of the RH 

SIP would result in an inadequate SIP.’’ 

The Commenter supports its position by 

repeating statements made in its 

February 28, 2012, comments on the 

Agency’s proposed December 30, 2011, 

rulemaking to find that the Transport 

Rule is ‘‘Better than BART’’ and to use 

the Transport Rule as an alternative to 

BART for Mississippi and other states 

subject to the Transport Rule. For 

example, the Commenter states that 

‘‘EPA cannot exempt sources from the 

RHR’s BART requirements without full 

consideration of how that exemption 

would affect the overarching reasonable 

progress mandate.’’ 

Response 4: As discussed in the 

response to Comment 3, today’s action 

does not address reliance on CAIR or 

CSAPR to satisfy BART requirements. 

Comments related to the approvability 

of CAIR or CSAPR for the Mississippi 

regional haze SIP are therefore beyond 

the scope of this rulemaking and were 

addressed by EPA in a separate action 

published on June 7, 2012 (77 FR 

33642). EPA addressed the Commenter’s 

repeated statements regarding the 

interrelatedness of BART, the LTS, and 

RPGs in that final rulemaking action 

and those responses support this limited 

approval action.3

EPA believes the Commenter 

overstates the overarching nature of the 

changes due to CAIR or CSAPR. The 

reliance on CAIR in the Mississippi 

submittal was consistent with EPA 

policy at the time the submittal was 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 124 / Wednesday, June 27, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 38195 

4Regional Haze Regulations and Guidelines for 

Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) 

Determinations, EPA Memorandum from Joseph 

Paisie, Group Leader, Geographic Strategies Group, 

OAQPS, to Kay Prince, Branch Chief, EPA Region 

4, July 19, 2006, located at http://www.epa.gov/ 

visibility/pdfs/memo_2006_07_19.pdf. 

prepared. CSAPR is a replacement for 

CAIR, addressing the same regional EGU 

emissions, with many similar regulatory 

attributes. The need to address changes 

to the LTS resulting from the 

replacement of CAIR with CSAPR was 

acknowledged in the proposal, and as 

stated in the proposal, EPA believes that 

the five-year progress report is the 

appropriate time to address any changes 

to the RPG demonstration and, if 

necessary, the LTS. EPA expects that 

this demonstration will address the 

impacts on the RPG due to the 

replacement of CAIR with CSAPR as 

well as other adjustments to the 

projected 2018 emissions due to 

updated information on the emissions 

for other sources and source categories. 

If this assessment determines an 

adjustment to the regional haze plan is 

necessary, EPA regulations require a SIP 

revision within a year of the five-year 

progress report. 

Comment 5: The Commenter believes 

that EPA’s December 30, 2011, proposed 

substitution of CSAPR for sourcespecific BART is uniquely problematic 

in Mississippi since CSAPR only covers 

ozone season NOX emissions in the 

State. According to the Commenter, EPA 

should require year-round NOX controls 

since any controls that might be 

installed to meet CSAPR will not protect 

Breton, the Sipsey Wilderness Area, or 

other nearby federal Class I areas during 

the seven months outside of the ozone 

season. The Commenter reiterates that 

Mississippi must address BART for SO2

and PM since the State is no longer 

included in a trading program for SO2. 

One of the Commenters also expressed 

concern with EPA’s statement that the 

disapproval of the BART provisions for 

SO2 will trigger a 24-month clock for 

EPA to either implement a FIP to 

address those requirements or approve a 

revised SIP from the State that addresses 

SO2 BART. The Commenter believes 

that this approach allows the State to 

further delay conducting SO2 BART 

analyses for its BART-eligible EGUs and 

that these analyses must be conducted 

immediately. 

Response 5: As discussed in the 

response to Comment 3, today’s rule 

takes final action on the limited 

approval of Mississippi’s regional haze 

SIP revisions. EPA did not propose to 

find that participation in the Transport 

Rule is an alternative to BART in this 

rulemaking. As noted above, EPA made 

this proposed finding in a separate 

action on December 30, 2011. These 

comments are therefore beyond the 

scope of this rulemaking and were 

addressed, as appropriate, by EPA in its 

final action (published on June 7, 2012) 

on the December 30, 2011, proposed 

rule. EPA has determined that the 

comments do not affect the Agency’s 

ability to finalize a limited approval of 

Mississippi’s regional haze SIP. 

Regarding the timing of a FIP, the EPA 

statement identified by the Commenter 

is a summary of the statutory 

requirements in section 110(c) of the 

CAA. 

Comment 6: According to the 

Commenter, Mississippi should have 

considered the cumulative impacts of 

the PM emissions from the Moselle and 

D Morrow facilities when performing 

BART determinations and should not 

have modeled these sources in isolation 

of one another or without regard to PM 

emissions from sources in other states 

impacting any federal Class I area. The 

Commenter also believes that MDEQ 

should have considered both filterable 

and condensable PM when conducting 

its modeling. 

Response 6: As discussed in the 

proposal, (see section IV.C.6.B.2, 

February 28, 2012, 77 FR 11889), 

Mississippi adequately justified its 

contribution threshold of 0.5 deciview. 

While states have the discretion to set 

an appropriate contribution threshold 

considering the number of emissions 

sources affecting the federal Class I area 

at issue and the magnitude of the 

individual sources’ impacts, the states’ 

analysis must be consistent with the 

CAA, the Regional Haze regulations and 

EPA’s Guidelines for BART 

Determinations Under the Regional 

Haze Rule at Appendix Y to 40 CFR Part 

51 (BART Guidelines). Consistent with 

the regulations and EPA’s guidance, 

‘‘the contribution threshold should be 

used to determine whether an 

individual source is reasonably 

anticipated to contribute to visibility 

impairment. You should not aggregate 

the visibility effects of multiple sources 

and compare their collective effects 

against your contribution threshold 

because this would inappropriately 

create a ‘contribution to contribution’ 

test.’’ See also 70 FR 39121. 

Mississippi’s analyses in its regional 

haze SIP revisions were consistent with 

EPA’s regulations and guidance on the 

issue of cumulative analyses. 

It is unclear what condensable PM 

emissions the Commenter believes that 

the State should have included in its 

visibility modeling. Each of the units 

evaluated for BART in Mississippi’s 

regional haze SIP submittal followed the 

VISTAS modeling protocol and 

considered the contribution of total 

PM10 and PM2.5 (as a subset of the total 

PM10) as well as condensable PM 

(primarily sulfuric acid mist) (see 

Appendix L of Mississippi’s regional 

haze SIP submittal). Regarding modeling 

in Mississippi’s submittal that uses PM 

only for its BART-eligible EGUs, EPA 

previously determined that this 

approach is appropriate for EGUs where 

the State proposed to rely on CAIR to 

satisfy the BART requirements for SO2

and NOX.4

Comment 7: The Commenter states 

that Mississippi’s BART analyses for 

Chevron Products’ Pascagoula refinery 

(Chevron) and Mississippi Phosphates 

Corporation (MPC) are insufficient, and 

therefore, EPA cannot approve the 

State’s regional haze SIP. Regarding 

Chevron, the Commenter disagrees with 

MDEQ’s determination that significant 

visibility improvement could not be 

gained at reasonable cost over the 

improvements already attained through 

the facility’s air permits and a June 7, 

2005, consent decree. The Commenter 

contends that a more robust cost 

analysis is necessary to assure that the 

costs outweigh the visibility benefits 

from the evaluated pollution controls 

and that Mississippi should have 

considered additional pollution control 

technologies in its analysis such as 

selective catalytic reduction and 

selective non-catalytic reduction for 

NOX. Regarding MPC, the Commenter 

believes that the best available control 

technology (BACT) emissions limits for 

SO2 (determined to be BART) are not 

sufficiently stringent because it believes 

that emissions limits determined to be 

BACT for sulfuric acid plants at other 

facilities have been set at lower levels. 

The Commenter does not believe that 

Mississippi provided an adequate 

explanation as to why it did not set its 

BACT level as low as those set for 

similar facilities. The Commenter is also 

concerned that Mississippi’s regional 

haze SIP does not discuss enforceable 

limits for NOX, particulates, or sulfuric 

acid mist at the facility and states that 

MDEQ should have analyzed emissions 

limits at other facilities when evaluating 

BART. 

Response 7: As stated in Appendix Y 

of 40 CFR part 51, available retrofit 

control options are those air pollution 

control technologies with a practical 

potential for application to the 

emissions unit and the regulated 

pollutant under evaluation. In 

identifying ‘‘all’’ options, a state must 

identify the most stringent option and a 

reasonable set of options for analysis 

that reflects a comprehensive list of 

available technologies. It is not 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES
38196 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 124 / Wednesday, June 27, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

5EPA’s BART Guidelines at 70 FR 39164. 

necessary to list all permutations of 

available control levels that exist for a 

given technology; the list is complete if 

it includes the maximum level of 

control that each technology is capable 

of achieving.5

For Chevron, MDEQ concluded that 

all the planned controls in the 

aforementioned consent decree for the 

Chevron facility were BART. The State 

then evaluated additional control 

options for BART for the most 

significant units that remain 

uncontrolled after the planned 

emissions controls were installed. The 

costs and visibility impacts were 

assessed in accordance with EPA 

guidance. Emissions reductions from 

the evaluated control options are 

projected to provide limited visibility 

improvements ranging from 0.043 

deciview to 0.16 deciview, which are 

beyond those expected from the already 

planned emissions reductions. For each 

option, the total cost effectiveness and 

incremental cost effectiveness exceed 

$29 million per deciview; therefore, 

Mississippi determined that these 

options are not BART. A detailed 

analysis is provided in Appendix L10 of 

Mississippi’s regional haze SIP 

submittal. 

Regarding MPC, BACT and BART are 

both case-specific determinations. 

MDEQ determined BACT to be the 

replacement of vanadium catalyst with 

cesium catalyst in the third and fourth 

converter passes, yielding emissions of 

3.0 pounds of SO2 per ton of sulfuric 

acid produced. MDEQ believes that this 

BACT determination is sufficient 

because sulfuric acid plants with more 

stringent limits had a 3/1 converter 

design as compared to MPC’s current 

2/2 converter design. Even though the 

technology being applied is identical to 

that applied to other facilities, the 3/1 

design achieves a higher conversion rate 

resulting in approximately a 50 percent 

reduction of SO2 in the exhaust 

compared to the exhaust from a 2/2 

converter design. MPC identified mist 

eliminators as the most effective sulfuric 

acid mist control technology, and 

MDEQ determined BART to be vertical 

tube mist eliminators in the interpass 

absorption tower. The final absorption 

tower already has these mist eliminators 

installed. MPC also proposed to replace 

the economizer prior to the final 

absorption tower with a larger one 

which will have the effect of lowering 

the exhaust gas temperature and thus 

reducing sulfuric acid mist emissions. 

Since the vertical tube mist eliminators 

are the most efficient add-on control 

technology, no additional control 

technologies were considered. MPC has 

determined a sulfuric acid mist limit of 

0.10 pound sulfuric acid mist per ton of 

sulfuric acid produced, and MDEQ 

considers this limit consistent with 

recent BACT determinations since it is 

among the most stringent achieved in 

practice. Concerning NOX and 

particulates, sulfuric acid plants are not 

a primary source of NOX or PM 

emissions. See Mississippi’s May 9, 

2011, regional haze SIP submittal for a 

detailed discussion of the determination 

and the permit to construct. 

EPA has reviewed MDEQ’s analyses 

and concluded they were conducted in 

a manner that is consistent with EPA’s 

BART Guidelines and reflect a 

reasonable application of EPA’s 

guidance to these sources. 

Comment 8: The Commenter contends 

that Mississippi’s regional haze SIP 

must be revised to address Reasonably 

Attributable Visibility Impairment 

(RAVI) within three years of a FLM 

certifying visibility impairment and that 

the State’s commitment to address 

RAVI, should a FLM certify visibility 

impairment, is not enough. 

Response 8: The State’s regional haze 

SIP revisions do not address RAVI 

requirements since RAVI is addressed 

by a different regulation than the RHR. 

EPA’s visibility regulations direct states 

to coordinate their RAVI LTS provisions 

with those for regional haze and require 

the RAVI portion of a SIP to address any 

integral vistas identified by the FLMs. 

However, as stated in the March 28, 

2012, proposed rulemaking, there are no 

federal Class I areas in Mississippi. 

There are no integral vistas in 

Mississippi or nearby federal Class I 

areas, no federal Class I areas near 

Mississippi are experiencing RAVI, nor 

are any Mississippi sources affected by 

the RAVI provisions. Thus, the 

Mississippi regional haze SIP revisions 

did not explicitly address the 

coordination of the regional haze with 

the RAVI LTS, although Mississippi did 

commit to ongoing consultation with 

the FLMs throughout the 

implementation process. EPA finds that 

Mississippi’s regional haze SIP 

appropriately addresses the RAVI 

visibility provisions in its LTS. The 

commitments in Mississippi’s SIP are 

consistent with the regulatory 

requirements for this provision. 

Comment 9a: The Commenter claims 

that EPA must disapprove Mississippi’s 

regional haze SIP because the SIP does 

not explain how monitoring data and 

other information will be used to 

determine the contribution of emissions 

from within the State to regional haze 

visibility impairment at Class I areas 

(see combined response below for 

comments 9a and 9b). 

Comment 9b: The Commenter states 

that the SIP must clearly identify the 

method by which the State intends to 

report visibility monitoring to the EPA. 

If Mississippi plans to rely on the 

referenced Visibility Information 

Exchange Web System (VIEWS) Web 

site for reporting, the Commenter 

believes that the SIP must clearly state 

that Mississippi intends to use the Web 

site as its way of reporting visibility 

monitoring data and that ‘‘it is not 

sufficient for Mississippi to ‘encourage’ 

VISTAS to maintain the web site.’’ The 

Commenter also believes that 

Mississippi’s SIP needs to have an 

enforceable mechanism to transmit the 

Interagency Monitoring of Protected 

Visual Environments (IMPROVE) data to 

EPA as well as an enforceable 

mechanism to ensure that the IMPROVE 

data is continually gathered by 

Mississippi ‘‘unless it is gathered by 

other entities such as VISTAS and the 

National Park Service’’ or EPA ‘‘must 

disapprove the SIP submittal in this 

regard.’’ 

Responses 9a, b: As noted by the 

Commenter, the primary monitoring 

network for federal Class I areas 

potentially affected by sources in 

Mississippi is the IMPROVE network. 

The responsibility for assuring that 

there is adequate monitoring and 

reporting of this data is with the state 

where the federal Class I area is located, 

and there are no IMPROVE sites in 

Mississippi since it has no federal Class 

I areas. In the SIP submittal, Mississippi 

states its intention to continue to 

consult with the FLMs annually on 

monitoring data from the IMPROVE 

network for federal Class I areas in 

adjacent states that might be affected by 

Mississippi sources. Monitoring data is 

different from emissions data or 

analyses conducted to attribute 

contribution, and these analyses are 

therefore part of the ten-year 

implementation period updates 

conducted by the states. 

In its SIP revisions, Mississippi states 

its intention to rely on the IMPROVE 

network for complying with the regional 

haze monitoring requirement in EPA’s 

RHR for the current and future regional 

haze implementation periods. Data 

produced by the IMPROVE monitoring 

network will be used nearly 

continuously for preparing the five-year 

progress reports and the 10-year SIP 

revisions, each of which relies on 

analysis of the preceding five years of 

data. The VIEWS Web site has been 

maintained by VISTAS and the other 

regional planning organizations (RPOs) 

to provide ready access to the IMPROVE 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 124 / Wednesday, June 27, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 38197 

6Processing of State Implementation Plan (SIP) 

Revisions, EPA Memorandum from John Calcagni, 

Director, Air Quality Management Division, 

OAQPS, to Air Division Directors, EPA Regional 

Offices I–X, September 7, 1992, (‘‘1992 Calcagni 

Memorandum’’) located at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/ 

caaa/t1/memoranda/siproc.pdf. 

data and data analysis tools. Mississippi 

is encouraging VISTAS and the other 

RPOs to maintain the VIEWS or a 

similar data management system to 

facilitate analysis of the IMPROVE data. 

Mississippi cannot legally bind federal 

and state legislatures to continue to 

fund the monitoring program for 

regional haze. Mississippi’s SIP 

adequately addresses this provision and 

explains how monitoring data and other 

information has been and will be used 

to determine the contribution of 

emissions from within the State to 

regional haze visibility impairment at 

federal Class I areas. 

III. What is the effect of this final 

action? 

Under CAA sections 301(a) and 

110(k)(6) and EPA’s long-standing 

guidance, a limited approval results in 

approval of the entire SIP revision, even 

of those parts that are deficient and 

prevent EPA from granting a full 

approval of the SIP revision.6 Today, 

EPA is finalizing a limited approval of 

Mississippi’s regional haze SIP 

revisions. This limited approval results 

in approval of Mississippi’s entire 

regional haze SIP and all its elements. 

EPA is taking this approach because 

Mississippi’s SIP will be stronger and 

more protective of the environment with 

the implementation of those measures 

by the State and having federal approval 

and enforceability than it would 

without those measures being included 

in its SIP. 

IV. Final Action 

EPA is finalizing a limited approval of 

revisions to the Mississippi SIP 

submitted by the State of Mississippi on 

September 22, 2008, and May 9, 2011, 

as meeting some of the applicable 

regional haze requirements as set forth 

in sections 169A and 169B of the CAA 

and in 40 CFR 51.300–308. 

V. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory 

Planning and Review 

The Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) has exempted this regulatory 

action from Executive Order 12866, 

entitled ‘‘Regulatory Planning and 

Review.’’ 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act 

Under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 

44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., OMB must 

approve all ‘‘collections of information’’ 

by EPA. The Act defines ‘‘collection of 

information’’ as a requirement for 

answers to ‘‘* * * identical reporting or 

recordkeeping requirements imposed on 

ten or more persons * * *’’. 44 U.S.C. 

3502(3)(A). The Paperwork Reduction 

Act does not apply to this action. 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 

The RFA generally requires an agency 

to conduct a regulatory flexibility 

analysis of any rule subject to notice 

and comment rulemaking requirements 

unless the agency certifies that the rule 

will not have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities. Small entities include small 

businesses, small not-for-profit 

enterprises, and small governmental 

jurisdictions. 

This rule will not have a significant 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities because SIP approvals under 

section 110 and subchapter I, part D of 

the CAA do not create any new 

requirements but simply approve 

requirements that the State is already 

imposing. Therefore, because the federal 

SIP approval does not create any new 

requirements, I certify that this action 

will not have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities. 

Moreover, due to the nature of the 

federal-state relationship under the 

CAA, preparation of flexibility analysis 

would constitute federal inquiry into 

the economic reasonableness of state 

action. The CAA forbids EPA to base its 

actions concerning SIPs on such 

grounds. Union Electric Co., v. EPA, 427 

U.S. 246, 255–66 (1976); 42 U.S.C. 

7410(a)(2). 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

(UMRA) 

Under sections 202 of the UMRA of 

1995 (‘‘Unfunded Mandates Act’’), 

signed into law on March 22, 1995, EPA 

must prepare a budgetary impact 

statement to accompany any proposed 

or final rule that includes a federal 

mandate that may result in estimated 

costs to state, local, or tribal 

governments in the aggregate; or to the 

private sector, of $100 million or more. 

Under section 205, EPA must select the 

most cost-effective and least 

burdensome alternative that achieves 

the objectives of the rule and is 

consistent with statutory requirements. 

Section 203 requires EPA to establish a 

plan for informing and advising any 

small governments that may be 

significantly or uniquely impacted by 

the rule. 

EPA has determined that today’s 

action does not include a federal 

mandate that may result in estimated 

costs of $100 million or more to either 

state, local, or tribal governments in the 

aggregate, or to the private sector. This 

federal action approves pre-existing 

requirements under state or local law, 

and imposes no new requirements. 

Accordingly, no additional costs to 

state, local, or tribal governments, or to 

the private sector, result from this 

action. 

E. Executive Order 13132, Federalism 

Federalism (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999) revokes and replaces Executive 

Orders 12612 (Federalism) and 12875 

(Enhancing the Intergovernmental 

Partnership). Executive Order 13132 

requires EPA to develop an accountable 

process to ensure ‘‘meaningful and 

timely input by State and local officials 

in the development of regulatory 

policies that have Federalism 

implications.’’ ‘‘Policies that have 

federalism implications’’ is defined in 

the Executive Order to include 

regulations that have ‘‘substantial direct 

effects on the states, on the relationship 

between the national government and 

the states, or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities among the 

various levels of government.’’ Under 

Executive Order 13132, EPA may not 

issue a regulation that has Federalism 

implications, that imposes substantial 

direct compliance costs, and that is not 

required by statute, unless the federal 

government provides the funds 

necessary to pay the direct compliance 

costs incurred by state and local 

governments, or EPA consults with state 

and local officials early in the process 

of developing the proposed regulation. 

EPA also may not issue a regulation that 

has Federalism implications and that 

preempts state law unless the Agency 

consults with state and local officials 

early in the process of developing the 

proposed regulation. 

This rule will not have substantial 

direct effects on the states, on the 

relationship between the national 

government and the states, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government, as specified in 

Executive Order 13132, because it 

merely approves a state rule 

implementing a federal standard, and 

does not alter the relationship or the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities established in the CAA. 

Thus, the requirements of section 6 of 

the Executive Order do not apply to this 

rule. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES
38198 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 124 / Wednesday, June 27, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

F. Executive Order 13175, Coordination 

With Indian Tribal Governments 

Executive Order 13175, entitled 

‘‘Consultation and Coordination with 

Indian Tribal Governments’’ (65 FR 

67249, November 9, 2000), requires EPA 

to develop an accountable process to 

ensure ‘‘meaningful and timely input by 

tribal officials in the development of 

regulatory policies that have tribal 

implications.’’ This rule does not have 

tribal implications, as specified in 

Executive Order 13175. It will not have 

substantial direct effects on tribal 

governments. Thus, Executive Order 

13175 does not apply to this rule. 

G. Executive Order 13045, Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks 

Protection of Children From 

Environmental Health Risks and Safety 

Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), 

applies to any rule that: (1) Is 

determined to be ‘‘economically 

significant’’ as defined under Executive 

Order 12866, and (2) concerns an 

environmental health or safety risk that 

EPA has reason to believe may have a 

disproportionate effect on children. If 

the regulatory action meets both criteria, 

the Agency must evaluate the 

environmental health or safety effects of 

the planned rule on children, and 

explain why the planned regulation is 

preferable to other potentially effective 

and reasonably feasible alternatives 

considered by the Agency. 

This rule is not subject to Executive 

Order 13045 because it does not involve 

decisions intended to mitigate 

environmental health or safety risks. 

H. Executive Order 13211, Actions That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

This rule is not subject to Executive 

Order 13211, ‘‘Actions Concerning 

Regulations That Significantly Affect 

Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use’’ (66 

FR 28355, May 22, 2001) because it is 

not a significant regulatory action under 

Executive Order 12866. 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act (NTTAA) 

Section 12 of the NTTAA of 1995 

requires federal agencies to evaluate 

existing technical standards when 

developing a new regulation. To comply 

with NTTAA, EPA must consider and 

use ‘‘voluntary consensus standards’’ 

(VCS) if available and applicable when 

developing programs and policies 

unless doing so would be inconsistent 

with applicable law or otherwise 

impractical. 

EPA believes that VCS are 

inapplicable to this action. Today’s 

action does not require the public to 

perform activities conducive to the use 

of VCS. 

J. Congressional Review Act 

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 rule 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). 

K. 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 27, 2012. Filing a 

petition for reconsideration by the 

Administrator of this final rule does not 

affect the finality of this rule 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 may not 

be challenged later in proceedings to 

enforce its requirements. See section 

307(b)(2). 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Nitrogen dioxide, Particulate matter, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile 

organic compounds. 

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

Dated: June 13, 2012. 

A. Stanley Meiburg, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4. 

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. 

Subpart Z—Mississippi 

■ 2. Section 52.1270 is amended by 

adding two entries for Regional Haze 

Plan and Regional Haze Plan Update— 

E. I. Dupont Reasonable Progress and 

Mississippi Phosphates BART 

Determinations at the end of the table in 

paragraph (e) to read as follows: 

§ 52.1270 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(e) * * * 

EPA-APPROVED MISSISSIPPI NON-REGULATORY PROVISIONS

Name of non-regulatory SIP provision Applicable geographic or 

nonattainment area 

State submittal 

date/effective 

date 

EPA approval date Explanation 

*******

Regional Haze Plan ........................................... Statewide ............................... 9/22/2008 6/27/2012 [Insert citation of 

publication].

Regional Haze Plan Update—E. I. Dupont Reasonable Progress and Mississippi 

Phosphates BART Determinations.

Statewide ............................... 5/9/2011 6/27/2012 [Insert citation of 

publication].

[FR Doc. 2012–15470 Filed 6–26–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 124 / Wednesday, June 27, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 38199 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 93 

Determining Conformity of Federal 

Actions to State or Federal 

Implementation Plans 

CFR Correction 

■ In Title 40 of the Code of Federal 

Regulations, parts 87 to 95, revised as of 

July 1, 2011, on page 579, in § 93.118, 

paragraph (e)(2) is corrected to read as 

follows: 

§ 93.118 Criteria and procedures: Motor 

vehicle emissions budget. 

* * * * * 

(e) * * * 

* * * * * 

(2) If EPA has not declared an 

implementation plan submission’s 

motor vehicle emissions budget(s) 

adequate for transportation conformity 

purposes, the budget(s) shall not be 

used to satisfy the requirements of this 

section. Consistency with the previously 

established motor vehicle emissions 

budget(s) must be demonstrated. If there 

are no previously approved 

implementation plans or 

implementation plan submissions with 

adequate motor vehicle emissions 

budgets, the interim emissions tests 

required by § 93.119 must be satisfied. 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2012–15869 Filed 6–26–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 1505–01–D 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 180 

[EPA–HQ–OPP–2011–0397; FRL–9350–9] 

Propiconazole; Pesticide Tolerances 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: This regulation establishes 

tolerances for residues of propiconazole 

in or on multiple commodities which 

are identified and discussed later in this 

document. This regulation additionally 

removes an established tolerance on 

stone fruit crop group 12, as it will be 

superseded by the new tolerance for 

stone fruit crop group 12, except plum. 

Interregional Research Project Number 4 

(IR–4) requested these tolerances under 

the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic 

Act (FFDCA). 

DATES: This regulation is effective June 

27, 2012. Objections and requests for 

hearings must be received on or before 

August 27, 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–2011–0397, is 

available either electronically through 

http://www.regulations.gov or in hard 

copy 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. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Andrew Ertman, Registration Division, 

Office of Pesticide Programs, 

Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 

Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, 

DC 20460–0001; telephone number: 

(703) 308–9367; email address: 

ertman.andrew@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 those engaged in the 

following activities: 

• 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 to provide 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 EPA’s tolerance 

regulations at 40 CFR part 180 through 

the Government Printing Office’s e-CFR 

site at http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/ 

text/text-idx?&c=ecfr&tpl=/ecfrbrowse/ 

Title40/40tab_02.tpl. 

C. How can I file an objection or hearing 

request? 

Under FFDCA section 408(g), 21 

U.S.C. 346a, 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–2011–0397 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 27, 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–2011–0397, 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. 

Additional instructions on 

commenting or visiting the docket, 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES