73926 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 239 / Wednesday, December 12, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

Subpart XX—West Virginia 

■ 2. In § 52.2520, the table in paragraph 

(e) is amended by adding at the end of 

the table an entry for 2002 Base Year 

Emissions Inventory for the 1997 fine 

particulate matter (PM2.5) standard to 

read as follows: 

§ 52.2520 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(e)* * * 

Name of non-regulatory 

SIP revision Applicable geographic area State submittal date EPA approval date Additional explanation 

*******

2002 Base Year Emissions Inventory for the 1997 fine particulate 

matter (PM2.5) standard.

West Virginia portion of the Parkersburg-Marietta, WV–OH nonattainment area.9/9/08 12/12/12 [Insert page number 

where the document begins].

52.2531(c) 

■ 3. Section 52.2531 is amended by 

adding paragraph (c) to read as follows: 

§ 52.2531 Base year emissions inventory. 

* * * * * 

(c) EPA approves as a revision to the 

West Virginia State Implementation 

Plan the 2002 base year emissions 

inventory for the Parkersburg-Marietta, 

WV–OH fine particulate matter (PM2.5) 

nonattainment area submitted by the 

West Virginia Department of 

Environmental Protection on September 

9, 2008. The 2002 base year emissions 

inventory includes emissions estimates 

that cover the general source categories 

of point sources, non-road mobile 

sources, area sources, on-road mobile 

sources, and biogenic sources. The 

pollutants that comprise the inventory 

are nitrogen oxides (NOX), volatile 

organic compounds (VOCs), PM2.5, 

coarse particles (PM10), ammonia (NH3) 

and sulfur dioxide (SO2). 

[FR Doc. 2012–29893 Filed 12–11–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R08–OAR–2011–0400; FRL–9756–9] 

Approval and Promulgation of State 

Implementation Plans; State of 

Wyoming; Regional Haze Rule 

Requirements for Mandatory Class I 

Areas Under 40 CFR 51.309 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is approving Wyoming 

State Implementation Plan (SIP) 

revisions submitted on January 12, 2011 

and April 19, 2012 that address regional 

haze. These SIP revisions were 

submitted to address the requirements 

of the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act) and 

our rules that require states to prevent 

any future and remedy any existing 

man-made impairment of visibility in 

mandatory Class I 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 taking this action pursuant 

to section 110 of the CAA. 

DATES: This final rule is effective 

January 11, 2013. 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket ID 

No. EPA–R08–OAR–2011–0400. All 

documents in the docket are listed on 

the www.regulations.gov Web site. 

Publicly available docket materials are 

available either electronically through 

www.regulations.gov, or in hard copy at 

the Air Program, Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, 

1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 

80202–1129. EPA requests that if, at all 

possible, you contact the individual 

listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT section to view the hard copy 

of the docket. You may view the hard 

copy of the docket Monday through 

Friday, 8 a.m. to 4 p.m., excluding 

Federal holidays. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Laurel Dygowski, Air Program, 

Mailcode 8P–AR, Environmental 

Protection Agency, Region 8, 1595 

Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 

80202–1129, (303) 312–6144, 

dygowski.laurel@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Definitions 

For the purpose of this document, we 

are giving meaning to certain words or 

initials as follows: 

i. The words or initials Act or CAA 

mean or refer to the Clean Air Act, 

unless the context indicates otherwise. 

ii. The initials BART mean or refer to 

Best Available Retrofit Technology. 

iii. The initials EGUs mean or refer to 

electric generating units. 

iv. The initials GCVTC mean or refer 

to the Grand Canyon Visibility 

Transport Commission. 

v. The initials NOX mean or refer to 

nitrogen oxides. 

vi. The initials PM mean or refer to 

particulate matter. 

vii. The initials SIP mean or refer to 

State Implementation Plan. 

viii. The initials URP mean or refer to 

uniform rate of progress. 

ix. The initials WAQSR mean or refer 

to Wyoming Air Quality Standards and 

Regulations. 

Table of Contents 

I. Background 

A. Regional Haze 

B. Lawsuits 

C. Our Proposal 

D. Public Participation 

II. Final Action 

III. Basis for Our Final Action 

IV. Issues Raised by Commenters and EPA’s 

Responses 

A. Backstop Trading Program 

B. General Comments 

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. Background 

The CAA requires each state to 

develop plans, referred to as SIPs, to 

meet various air quality requirements. A 

state must submit its SIPs and SIP 

revisions to us for approval. Once 

approved, a SIP is enforceable by the 

EPA and citizens under the CAA, also 

known as being federally enforceable. 

This action involves the requirement 

that states have SIPs that address 

regional haze. 

A. Regional Haze 

In 1990, Congress added section 169B 

to the CAA to address regional haze 

issues, and we promulgated regulations 

addressing regional haze in 1999. 64 FR 

35714 (July 1, 1999), codified at 40 CFR 

part 51, subpart P. The requirements for 

regional haze, found at 40 CFR 51.308 

and 51.309, are included in our 

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. States were required 

to submit a SIP addressing regional haze 

visibility impairment no later than 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with 
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 239 / Wednesday, December 12, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 73927 

1The State submitted another SIP revision dated 

January 12, 2011 that addresses the requirements of 

40 CFR 51.309(g) and 40 CFR 51.309(d)(4)(vii). We 

are under a consent decree deadline to take final 

action on this SIP by December 14, 2012. We will 

be taking final action on this SIP in a separate 

action. 

December 17, 2007. 40 CFR 51.308(b) 

and 40 CFR 51.309(c). 

Wyoming submitted SIPs addressing 

regional haze on January 12, 2011 and 

April 19, 2012 (these superseded and 

replaced prior SIP submittals dated 

December 24, 2003, May 7, 2004, and 

November 21, 2008). 

B. Lawsuits 

In a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court 

for the District of Colorado, 

environmental groups sued us for our 

failure to take timely action with respect 

to the regional haze requirements of the 

CAA and our regulations for the State of 

Wyoming. As a result of this lawsuit, we 

entered into a consent decree. The 

consent decree requires that we sign a 

notice of final rulemaking addressing 

the regional haze requirements of 40 

CFR 51.309 for Wyoming by November 

14, 2012.1 We are meeting that 

requirement with the signing of this 

notice of final rulemaking. 

C. Our Proposal 

We signed our notice of proposed 

rulemaking on May 9, 2012, and it was 

published in the Federal Register on 

May 24, 2012 (77 FR 30953). In that 

notice, we provided a detailed 

description of the various regional haze 

requirements. We are not repeating that 

description here; instead, the reader 

should refer to our notice of proposed 

rulemaking for further detail. 

In our proposal, we proposed to 

approve Wyoming SIP revisions 

submitted on January 12, 2011 and 

April 19, 2012 that address the regional 

haze rule (RHR) for the mandatory Class 

I areas under 40 CFR 51.309. EPA 

proposed that the January 12, 2011 and 

April 19, 2012 SIPs meet the 

requirements of 40 CFR 51.309, with the 

exception of 40 CFR 51.309(d)(4)(vii), 

and 40 CFR 51.309(g), as explained 

below. 

As part of the January 12, 2011 and 

April 19, 2012 SIPs, the State submitted 

revisions to the Wyoming Air Quality 

Standards and Regulations (WAQSR). 

The State submitted WAQSR Chapter 

14, Sections 2 and 3—Emission Trading 

Program Regulations. WAQSR Chapter 

14, in conjunction with the SIP, 

implements the backstop trading 

program provisions in accordance with 

the applicable requirements of 40 CFR 

51.308 and 40 CFR 51.309. We proposed 

to approve WAQSR Chapter 14, Section 

2 and Section 3. The State also 

submitted WAQSR Chapter 10, Section 

4—Smoke Management. WAQSR 

Chapter 10, Section 4, in conjunction 

with the SIP, implements the 

requirements for smoke management 

under 40 CFR 51.309(d)(6). We 

proposed to approve WAQSR Chapter 

10, Section 4. 

The State’s submitted another SIP 

revision dated January 12, 2011 that 

addresses the requirements under 40 

CFR 51.309(d)(4)(vii) and 40 CFR 

51.309(g) pertaining to best available 

retrofit technology (BART) for 

particulate matter (PM) and nitrogen 

oxides (NOX) and additional Class I 

areas, respectively. EPA proposed action 

on this SIP in a separate notice (77 FR 

33022). In addition, the January 12, 

2011 and April 19, 2012 submittals we 

proposed to act on supersede and 

replace regional haze SIPs submitted on 

December 24, 2003, May 27, 2004, and 

November 21, 2008. 

D. Public Participation 

We requested comments on all 

aspects of our proposed action and 

provided a sixty-day comment period, 

with the comment period closing on 

July 23, 2012. We received comments on 

our proposed rule that supported our 

proposed action and that were critical of 

our proposed action. In this action, we 

are responding to the comments we 

have received, taking final rulemaking 

action, and explaining the bases for our 

action. 

II. Final Action 

In this action, EPA is approving 

Wyoming SIP revisions submitted on 

January 12, 2011 and April 19, 2012 that 

address the RHR requirements for the 

mandatory Class I areas under 40 CFR 

51.309. EPA taking final action to find 

that the January 12, 2011 and April 19, 

2012 SIPs meet the requirements of 40 

CFR 51.309, with the exception of 40 

CFR 51.309(d)(4)(vii), and 40 CFR 

51.309(g). 

As part of the January 12, 2011 

submittal, the State submitted revisions 

to WAQSR. The State submitted 

WAQSR Chapter 14, Sections 2 and 3— 

Emission Trading Program Regulations. 

We are approving WAQSR Chapter 14, 

Section 2 and Section 3. The State also 

submitted WAQSR Chapter 10, Section 

4—Smoke Management. We are 

approving WAQSR Chapter 10, Section 

4. We are also approving Wyoming’s 

April 19, 2012 SIP submittal that 

contains the pre-trigger emission 

inventory requirements, which are 

covered by WAQSR Chapter 14, Section 

3—Emission Inventory. 

III. Basis for Our Final Action 

We have fully considered all 

significant comments on our proposal 

and have concluded that no changes 

from our proposal are warranted. Our 

action is based on an evaluation of 

Wyoming’s regional haze SIP submittal 

against the regional haze requirements 

at 40 CFR 51.300–51.309 and CAA 

sections 169A and 169B. All general SIP 

requirements contained in CAA section 

110, other provisions of the CAA, and 

our regulations applicable to this action 

were also evaluated. The purpose of this 

action is to ensure compliance with 

these requirements. Our authority for 

action on Wyoming’s SIP submittal is 

based on CAA section 110(k). 

We are approving the State’s regional 

haze SIP provisions because they meet 

the relevant regional haze requirements. 

The adverse comments we received 

concerning our proposed approval of 

the regional haze SIP pertained to our 

proposed approval of the SO2 backstop 

trading program. However, the 

comments have not convinced us that 

the State did not meet the requirements 

of 40 CFR 51.309 that we proposed to 

approve. 

IV. Issues Raised by Commenters and 

EPA’s Responses 

A. Backstop Trading Program 

EPA has proposed to approve the SO2

backstop trading program components 

of the RH SIPs for all participating states 

and has done so through four separate 

proposals: For the Bernalillo County 

proposal see 77 FR 24768 (April 25, 

2012); for the Utah proposal see 77 FR 

28825 (May 15, 2012); for the Wyoming 

proposal see 77 FR 30953 (May 24, 

2012); finally, for the New Mexico 

proposal see 77 FR 36043 (June 15, 

2012). National conservation 

organizations paired with organizations 

local to each state have together 

submitted very similar, if not identical, 

comments on various aspects of EPA’s 

proposed approval of these common 

program components. These comment 

letters may be found in the docket for 

each proposal and are dated as follows: 

May 25, 2012 for Bernalillo County; July 

16, 2012 for Utah; July 23, 2012 for 

Wyoming; and July 16, 2012 for New 

Mexico. Each of the comment letters has 

attached a consultant’s report dated May 

25, 2012, and titled: ‘‘Evaluation of 

Whether the SO2 Backstop Trading 

Program Proposed by the States of New 

Mexico, Utah and Wyoming and 

Albuquerque-Bernalillo County Will 

Result in Lower SO2 Emissions than 

Source-Specific BART.’’ In this section, 

we address and respond to those 

comments we identified as being 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with 
73928 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 239 / Wednesday, December 12, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

2The Grand Canyon Visibility Transport 

Commission, Recommendations for Improving 

Western Vistas at 32 (June 10, 1996). 

consistently submitted and specifically 

directed to the component of the 

published proposals dealing with the 

SO2 backstop trading program. For our 

organizational purposes, any additional 

or unique comments found in the 

conservation organization letter that is 

applicable to this proposal (i.e., for the 

State of Wyoming) will be addressed in 

the next section where we also address 

all other comments received. 

Comment: The commenter 

acknowledges that prior case law 

affirms EPA’s regulatory basis for having 

‘‘better than BART’’ alternative 

measures, but nevertheless asserts that it 

violates Congress’ mandate for an 

alternative trading program to rely on 

emissions reductions from non-BART 

sources and excuse electric generating 

units (EGUs) from compliance with 

BART. 

Response: The CAA requires BART 

‘‘as may be necessary to make 

reasonable progress toward meeting the 

national goal’’ of remedying existing 

impairment and preventing future 

impairment at mandatory Class I areas. 

See CAA Section 169A(b)(2) (emphasis 

added). In 1999, EPA issued regulations 

allowing for alternatives to BART based 

on a reading of the CAA that focused on 

the overarching goal of the statute of 

achieving progress. EPA’s regulations 

provided states with the option of 

implementing an emissions trading 

program or other alternative measure in 

lieu of BART so long as the alternative 

would result in greater reasonable 

progress than BART. We note that this 

interpretation of CAA Section 

169A(B)(2) was determined to be 

reasonable by the D.C. Circuit in Center 

for Energy and Economic Development 

v. EPA, 398 F.3d 653, 659–660 (D.C. Cir. 

2005) in a challenge to the backstop 

market trading program under Section 

309, and again found to be reasonable 

by the D.C. Circuit in Utility Air 

Regulatory Group v. EPA, 471 F.3d 

1333, 1340 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (‘‘* * * 

[W]e have already held in CEED that 

EPA may leave states free to implement 

BART-alternatives so long as those 

alternatives also ensure reasonable 

progress.’’). Our regulations for 

alternatives to BART, including the 

provisions for a backstop trading 

program under Section 309, are 

therefore consistent with the CAA and 

not in issue in this action approving a 

SIP submitted under those regulations. 

We have reviewed the submitted 309 

trading program SIPs to determine 

whether each has the required backstop 

trading program (see 40 CFR 

51.309(d)(4)(v)), and whether the 

features of the program satisfy the 

requirements for trading programs as 

alternatives to BART (see 40 CFR 

51.308(e)(2)). Our regulations make 

clear that any market trading program as 

an alternative to BART contemplates 

market participation from a broader list 

of sources than merely those sources 

that are subject to BART. See 40 CFR 

51.308(e)(2)(i)(B). 

Comment: The submitted 309 trading 

program is defective because only three 

of nine transport states remain in the 

program. The Grand Canyon Visibility 

Transport Commission (GCVTC) Report 

clearly stated that the program must be 

‘‘comprehensive.’’ The program fails to 

include the other western states that 

account for the majority of sulfate 

contribution in the Class I areas of 

participating states, and therefore, Class 

I areas on the Colorado Plateau will see 

little or no visibility benefit. Nonparticipation by other transport region 

states compounds the program’s 

deficiencies. 

Response: We disagree that the 309 

trading program is defective because 

only three states remain in the program. 

EPA’s regulations do not require a 

minimum number of Transport Region 

States to participate in the 309 trading 

program, and there is no reason to 

believe that the limited participation by 

the 9 Transport Region States will limit 

the effectiveness of the program in the 

three states that have submitted 309 

SIPs. The commenter’s argument is not 

supported by the regional haze 

regulations and is demonstrably 

inconsistent with the resource 

commitments of the Transport Region 

States that have worked for many years 

in the WRAP to develop and submit 

SIPs to satisfy 40 CFR 51.309. At the 

outset, our regulations affirm that 

‘‘certain States * * * may choose’’ to 

comply with the 40 CFR 51.309 

requirements and conversely that ‘‘[a]ny 

Transport Region State [may] elect not 

to submit an implementation plan’’ to 

meet the optional requirements. 40 CFR 

51.309(a); see also 40 CFR 51.309(f). We 

have also previously observed how the 

WRAP, in the course of developing its 

technical analyses as the framework for 

a trading program, ‘‘understood that 

some States and Tribes may choose not 

to participate in the optional program 

provided by 40 CFR 51.309.’’ 68 FR 

33,769 (June 5, 2003). Only five of nine 

Transport Region States initially opted 

to participate in the backstop trading 

program in 2003, and of those initial 

participants only Oregon and Arizona 

later elected not to submit 309 SIPs. 

We disagree with the commenter’s 

assertion that Class I areas on the 

Colorado Plateau will see little or no 

visibility benefit. Non-participating 

states must account for sulfate 

contributions to visibility impairment at 

Class I areas by addressing all 

requirements that apply under 40 CFR 

51.308. To the extent Wyoming, New 

Mexico and Utah sources ‘‘do not 

account for the majority of sulfate 

contribution’’ at the 16 class I areas on 

Colorado Plateau, there is no legal 

requirement that they account for SO2

emissions originating from sources 

outside these participating states. Aside 

from this, the modeling results detailed 

in the proposed rulemaking show 

projected visibility improvement for the 

20 percent worst days in 2018 and no 

degradation in visibility conditions on 

the 20 percent best days at all 16 of the 

mandatory Class I areas under the 

submitted 309 plan. 

Finally, we do not agree with the 

commenter’s characterization of the 

GCVTC Report, which used the term 

‘‘comprehensive’’ only in stating the 

following: ‘‘It is the intent of [the 

recommendation for an incentive-based 

trading program] that [it] include as 

many source categories and species of 

pollutants as is feasible and technically 

defensible. This preference for a 

‘comprehensive’ market is based upon 

the expectation that a comprehensive 

program would be more effective at 

improving visibility and would yield 

more cost-effective emission reduction 

strategies for the region as a whole.’’ 2

It is apparent that the GCVTC 

recommended comprehensive source 

coverage to optimize the market trading 

program. This does not necessitate or 

even necessarily correlate with 

geographic comprehensiveness as 

contemplated by the comment. We note 

that the submitted backstop trading 

program does in fact comprehensively 

include ‘‘many source categories,’’ as 

may also be expected for any intrastate 

trading program that any state could 

choose to develop and submit under 40 

CFR 51.308(e)(2). As was stated in our 

proposal, section 51.309 does not 

require the participation of a certain 

number of states to validate its 

effectiveness. 

Comment: The submitted 309 trading 

program is defective because the 

pollutant reductions from participating 

states have little visibility benefit in 

each other’s Class I areas. The states that 

have submitted 309 SIPs are ‘‘largely 

non-contiguous’’ in terms of their 

physical borders and their air shed 

impacts. Sulfate emissions from each of 

the participating states have little effect 

on Class I areas in other participating 

states. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with 
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 239 / Wednesday, December 12, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 73929 

Response: We disagree. The 309 

program was designed to address 

visibility impairment for the sixteen 

Class I areas on the Colorado Plateau. 

New Mexico, Wyoming and Utah are 

identified as Transport Region States 

because the GCVTC had determined 

they could impact the Colorado Plateau 

class I areas. The submitted trading 

program has been designed by these 

transport region states to satisfy their 

requirements under 40 CFR 51.309 to 

address visibility impairment at the 

sixteen Class I areas. The strategies in 

these plans are directed toward a 

designated clean-air corridor that is 

defined by the placement of the 16 Class 

I areas, not the placement of state 

borders. ‘‘Air sheds’’ that do not relate 

to haze at these Class I areas or that 

relate to other Class I areas are similarly 

not relevant to whether the 

requirements for an approvable 309 

trading program are met. As applicable, 

any transport region state, with Class I 

areas not on the Colorado Plateau, 

implementing the provisions of section 

309 must also separately demonstrate 

reasonable progress for any additional 

mandatory Class I areas other than the 

16 Class I areas located within the state. 

See 40 CFR 51.309(g). More broadly, the 

state must submit a long-term strategy to 

address these additional Class I areas as 

well as those Class I areas located 

outside the state, which may be affected 

by emissions from the state. 40 CFR 

51.309(g) and 51.308(d)(2). In 

developing long-term strategies, the 

Transport Region States may take full 

credit for visibility improvements that 

would be achieved through 

implementation of the strategies 

required by 51.309(d). A state’s 

satisfaction of the requirements of 

51.309(d), and specifically the 

requirement for a backstop trading 

program, is evaluated independently 

from whether a state has satisfied the 

requirements of 51.309(g). In neither 

case, however, does the approvability 

inquiry center on the location or 

contiguousness of state borders. 

Comment: The emission benchmark 

used in the submitted 309 trading 

program is inaccurate. The ‘‘better-thanBART’’ demonstration needs to analyze 

BART for each source subject to BART 

in order to evaluate the alternative 

program. The submitted 309 trading 

program has no BART analysis. The 

‘‘better-than-BART’’ demonstration does 

not comply with the regional haze 

regulations when it relies on the 

presumptive SO2 emission rate of 0.15 

lb/MMBtu for most coal-fired EGUs. The 

presumptive SO2 limits are 

inappropriate because EPA has 

elsewhere asserted that ‘‘presumptive 

limits represented control capabilities at 

the time the BART Rule was 

promulgated, and that [EPA] expected 

that scrubber technology would 

continue to improve and control costs 

would continue to decline.’’ 77 FR 

14614 (March 12, 2012). 

Response: We disagree that the 

submitted 309 trading program requires 

an analysis that determines BART for 

each source subject to BART. Source 

specific BART determinations are not 

required to support the better-thanBART demonstration when the 

‘‘alternative measure has been designed 

to meet a requirement other than 

BART.’’ See 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(i)(C). 

The requirements of Section 309 are 

meant to implement the 

recommendations of the Grand Canyon 

Visibility Transport Commission and 

are regulatory requirements ‘‘other than 

BART’’ that are part of a long-term 

strategy to achieve reasonable progress. 

As such, in its analysis, the State may 

assume emission reductions ‘‘for similar 

types of sources within a source 

category based on both source-specific 

and category-wide information, as 

appropriate.’’ See id. The 309 states 

used this approach in developing their 

emission benchmark, and we view it to 

be consistent with what we have 

previously stated regarding the 

establishment of a BART benchmark. 

Specifically, we have explained that 

states designing alternative programs to 

meet requirements other than BART 

‘‘may use simplifying assumptions in 

establishing a BART benchmark based 

on an analysis of what BART is likely 

to be for similar types of sources within 

a source category.’’ 71 FR 60619 (Oct. 

13, 2006). 

We also previously stated that ‘‘we 

believe that the presumptions for EGUs 

in the BART guidelines should be used 

for comparisons to a trading program or 

other alternative measure, unless the 

State determines that such 

presumptions are not appropriate.’’ Id. 

Our reasoning for this has also long 

been clear. While EPA recognizes that a 

case-by-case BART analysis may result 

in emission limits more stringent than 

the presumptive limits, the presumptive 

limits are reasonable and appropriate for 

use in assessing regional emissions 

reductions for the better than BART 

demonstration. See 71 FR 60619 (‘‘the 

presumptions represent a reasonable 

estimate of a stringent case BART 

because they would be applied across 

the board to a wide variety of units with 

varying impacts on visibility, at power 

plants of varying size and distance from 

Class I areas’’). The submitted SIP 

revisions from the 309 states have 

accordingly and appropriately, followed 

our advice that the presumptions for 

EGUs in the BART guidelines, generally 

‘‘should’’ be used for comparisons to the 

trading program unless the state 

determines otherwise. 

EPA’s expectation that scrubber 

technology would continue to improve 

and that control costs would continue to 

decline is a basis for not regarding 

presumptive limits as a default or safe 

harbor BART determination when the 

BART Guidelines otherwise call for a 

complete, case-by-case analysis. We 

believe it was reasonable for the 

developers of the submitted trading 

program to use the presumptive limits 

for EGUs in establishing the emission 

benchmark, particularly since the 

methodology used to establish the 

emission benchmark was established 

near in time to our promulgation of the 

presumptive limits as well as our 

guidance that they should be used. We 

do not think the assumptions used at 

the time the trading program was 

developed, including the use of 

presumptive limits, were unreasonable. 

Moreover, the commenter has not 

demonstrated how the use of 

presumptive limits as a simplifying 

assumption at that time, or even now, 

would be flawed merely because EPA 

expects that scrubber technology and 

costs will continue to improve. 

Comment: The presumptive SO2

emission rate overstates actual 

emissions from sources that were 

included in the BART benchmark 

calculation. In addition, states in the 

transport region have established or 

proposed significantly more stringent 

BART limits for SO2. Using actual SO2

emission data for EGUs, SO2 emissions 

would be 130,601 tons per year (tpy), 

not the benchmark of 141,859 tpy 

submitted in the 309 trading program. 

Using a combination of actual emissions 

and unit-specific BART determinations, 

the SO2 emissions would be lower still 

at 123,529 tpy. Finally, the same data 

EPA relied on to support its 

determination that reductions under the 

Cross State Air Pollution Rule are 

‘‘better-than-BART’’ would translate to 

SO2 emissions of 124,740 tpy. These 

analyses show the BART benchmark is 

higher than actual SO2 emissions 

reductions achievable through BART. It 

follows that the submitted 309 trading 

program is flawed because it cannot be 

deemed to achieve ‘‘greater reasonable 

progress’’ than BART. 

Response: The BART benchmark 

calculation does not overstate emissions 

because it was not intended to assess 

actual emissions at BART subject 

sources nor was it intended to assess the 

control capabilities of later installed 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with 
73930 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 239 / Wednesday, December 12, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

controls. Instead, the presumptive SO2

emission rate served as a necessary 

simplifying assumption. When the 

states worked to develop the 309 trading 

program, they could not be expected to 

anticipate the future elements of caseby-case BART determinations made by 

other states (or EPA, in the case of a 

BART determination through any 

federal implementation plan), nor could 

they be expected to anticipate the 

details of later-installed SO2 controls or 

the future application of enforceable 

emission limits to those controls. The 

emissions projections by the WRAP 

incorporated the best available 

information at the time from the states, 

and utilized the appropriate methods 

and models to provide a prediction of 

emissions from all source categories in 

this planning period. In developing a 

profile of planning period emissions to 

support each state’s reasonable progress 

goals, as well as the submitted trading 

program, it was recognized that the final 

control decisions by all of the states 

were not yet complete, as decisions as 

they may pertain to emissions from 

BART eligible sources. Therefore, we 

believe it is appropriate that the analysis 

and demonstration is based on data that 

was available to the states at the time 

they worked to construct the SO2

trading program. The states did make 

appropriate adjustments based on 

information that was available to them 

at the time. Notably, the WRAP 

appropriately adjusted its use of the 

presumptive limits in the case of 

Huntington Units 1 and 2 in Utah, 

because those units were already subject 

to federally enforceable SO2 emission 

rates that were lower than the 

presumptive rate. The use of actual 

emissions data after the 2006 baseline is 

not relevant to the demonstration that 

has been submitted. 

Comment: SO2 emissions under the 

309 trading program would be 

equivalent to the SO2 emissions if 

presumptive BART were applied to each 

BART-subject source. Because the 

reductions are equivalent, the submitted 

309 trading program does not show, by 

‘‘the clear weight of the evidence,’’ that 

the alternative measure will result in 

greater reasonable progress than would 

be achieved by requiring BART. In view 

of the reductions being equivalent, it is 

not proper for EPA to rely on ‘‘nonquantitative factors’’ in finding that the 

SO2 emissions trading program achieves 

greater reasonable progress. 

Response: We recognize that the 2018 

SO2 milestone equals the BART 

benchmark and that the benchmark 

generally utilized the presumptive 

limits for EGUs, as was deemed 

appropriate by the states who worked 

together to develop the trading program. 

If the SO2 milestone is exceeded, the 

trading program will be activated. 

Under this framework, sources that 

would otherwise be subject to the 

trading program have incentives to 

make independent reductions to avoid 

activation of the trading program. We 

cannot discount that the 2003 309 SIP 

submittal may have already influenced 

sources to upgrade their plants before 

any case-by-case BART determination 

under Section 308 may have required it. 

In addition, the trading program was 

designed to encourage early reductions 

by providing extra allocations for 

sources that made reductions prior to 

the program trigger year. Permitting 

authorities that would otherwise permit 

increases in SO2 emissions for new 

sources would be equally conscious of 

the potential impacts on the 

achievement of the milestone. We note 

that the most recent emission report for 

the year 2010 shows a 35% reduction in 

emissions from 2003. The 309 trading 

program is designed as a backstop such 

that sources would work to accomplish 

emission reductions through 2018 that 

would be superior to the milestone and 

the BART benchmark. If instead the 

backstop trading program is triggered, 

the sources subject to the program 

would be expected to make any 

reductions necessary to achieve the 

emission levels consistent with each 

source’s allocation. We do not believe 

that the ‘‘clear weight of the evidence’’ 

determination referenced in 40 CFR 

51.308(e)(2)(E)—in short, a 

determination that the alternative 

measure of the 309 trading program 

achieves greater reasonable progress 

than BART—should be understood to 

prohibit setting the SO2 milestone to 

equal the BART benchmark. Our 

determination that the 2018 SO2

milestone and other design features of 

the 309 SIP will achieve greater 

reasonable progress than would be 

achieved through BART is based on our 

understanding of how the SIP will 

promote and sustain emission 

reductions of SO2 as measured against a 

milestone. Sources will be actively 

mindful of the participating states’ 

emissions inventory and operating to 

avoid exceeding the milestone, not 

trying to maximize their emissions to be 

equivalent to the milestone, as this 

comment suggests. We note the 2018 

milestone constitutes an emissions cap 

that persists after 2018 unless the 

trading program can be replaced via 

future SIP revisions submitted for EPA 

approval that will meet the BART and 

reasonable progress requirements of 

51.308. See 40 CFR 51.309(d)(4)(vi)(A). 

Comment: In proposing to find that 

the SO2 trading program achieves 

greater reasonable progress than BART, 

EPA’s reliance on the following features 

of the 309 trading program is flawed: 

Non-BART emission reductions, a cap 

on new growth, and a mass-based cap 

on emissions. The reliance on nonBART emission reductions is ‘‘a hollow 

promise’’ because there is no evidence 

that the trading program will be 

triggered for other particular emission 

sources, and if the program is never 

triggered there will be no emission 

reductions from smaller non-BART 

sources. The reliance on a cap on future 

source emissions is also faulty because 

there is no evidence the trading program 

will be triggered, and thus the cap may 

never be implemented. Existing 

programs that apply to new sources will 

already ensure that SO2 emissions from 

new sources are reduced to the 

maximum extent. EPA’s discussion of 

the advantages of a mass-based cap is 

unsupported and cannot be justified. 

EPA wrongly states that a mass-based 

cap based on actual emissions is more 

stringent than BART. There should not 

be a meaningful gap between actual and 

allowable emissions under a proper 

BART determination. A mass-based cap 

does not effectively limit emissions 

when operating at lower loads and, as 

an annual cap, does not have restrictive 

compliance averaging. EPA’s argument 

implies that BART limits do not apply 

during startup, shutdown or 

malfunction events, which is not 

correct. The established mass-based cap 

would allow sources to operate their 

SO2 controls less efficiently, because 

some BART-subject EGUs already 

operate with lower emissions than the 

presumptive SO2 emission rate of 0.15 

lb/MMBtu and because some EGUs were 

assumed to be operating at 85% 

capacity when their capacity factor (and 

consequently their SO2 emissions in 

tpy) was lower. 

Response: We disagree that it is 

flawed to assess the benefits found in 

the distinguishing features of the trading 

program. The backstop trading program 

is not specifically designed so that it 

will be activated. Instead, sources that 

are covered by the program are on 

notice that it will be triggered if the 

regulatory milestones are not achieved. 

Therefore, the backstop trading program 

would be expected to garner reductions 

to avoid its activation. It also remains 

true that if the trading program is 

activated, all sources subject to the 

program, including smaller non-BART 

sources would be required to secure 

emission reductions as may be 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with 
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 239 / Wednesday, December 12, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 73931 

3This particular comment was not submitted in 

response to the proposal to approve Albuquerque’s 

309 trading program, the earliest published 

proposal. It was consistently submitted in the 

comment periods for the proposals to approve the 

309 trading programs for NM, WY and UT, which 

were later in time. 

necessary to meet their emission 

allocations under the program. 

We also disagree that the features of 

the 2018 milestone as a cap on future 

source emissions and as a mass-based 

cap has no significance. As detailed in 

our proposal, the submitted SIP is 

consistent with the requirement that the 

2018 milestone does indeed continue as 

an emission cap for SO2 unless the 

milestones are replaced by a different 

program approved by EPA as meeting 

the BART and reasonable progress 

requirements under 40 CFR 51.308. 

Future visibility impairment is 

prevented by capping emissions growth 

from those sources not eligible under 

the BART requirements, BART sources, 

and from entirely new sources in the 

region. The benefits of a milestone are 

therefore functionally distinct from the 

control efficiency improvements that 

could be gained at a limited number of 

BART subject sources. While BARTsubject sources may not be operating at 

85% capacity today, we believe the 

WRAP’s use of the capacity assumption 

in consideration of projected future 

energy demands in 2018 was reasonable 

for purposes of the submitted 

demonstration. While BART requires 

BART subject sources to operate SO2

controls efficiently, this does not mean 

that an alternative to BART thereby 

allows, encourages, or causes sources to 

operate their controls less efficiently. 

On the contrary, we find that the SIP, 

consistent with the well-considered 309 

program requirements, functions to the 

contrary. Sources will be operating their 

controls in consideration of the 

milestone and they also remain subject 

to any other existing or future 

requirements for operation of SO2

controls. 

We also disagree with the 

commenter’s contention that existing 

programs are equivalent in effect to the 

emissions cap. EPA’s new source review 

program is designed to permit, not cap, 

source growth, so long as the national 

ambient air quality standards and other 

requirements can be achieved. 

Moreover, we have not argued that 

BART does not apply at all times or that 

emission reductions under the cap are 

meant to function as emission 

limitations that are made to meet the 

definition of BART (40 CFR 51.301). 

The better-than-BART demonstration is 

not, as the comment would have it, 

based on issues of compliance averaging 

or how a BART limit operates in 

practice at an individual facility. 

Instead, it is based on whether the 

submitted SIP follows the regulatory 

requirements for the demonstration and 

evidences comparatively superior 

visibility improvements for the Class I 

areas it is designed to address. 

Comment: The submitted 309 SIP will 

not achieve greater reasonable progress 

than would the requirement for BART 

on individual sources. The BART 

program ‘‘if adequately implemented’’ 

will promote greater reasonable 

progress, and EPA should require BART 

on all eligible air pollution sources in 

the state. EPA’s proposed approval of 

the 309 trading program is ‘‘particularly 

problematic’’ where the BART sources 

cause or contribute to impairment at 

Class I areas which are not on the 

Uniform Rate of Progress (URP) glidepath towards achieving natural 

conditions. EPA should require 

revisions to provide for greater SO2

reductions in the 309 program, or it 

should require BART reductions on all 

sources subject to BART for SO2.

Response: We disagree with the issues 

discussed in this comment. As 

discussed in other responses to 

comments, we have found that the 

State’s SIP submitted under the 309 

program will achieve greater reasonable 

progress than source-by-source BART. 

As the regulations housed within 

section 309 make clear, states have an 

opportunity to submit regional haze 

SIPs that provide an alternative to 

source-by-source BART requirements. 

Therefore, the commenter’s assertion 

that we should require BART on all 

eligible air pollution sources in the state 

is fundamentally misplaced. The 

commenter’s use of the URP as a test 

that should apparently be applied to the 

adequacy of the 309 trading program as 

a BART alternative is also misplaced, as 

there is no requirement in the regional 

haze rule to do so. 

Comment: The 309 trading program 

must be disapproved because it does not 

provide for ‘‘steady and continuing 

emissions reductions through 2018’’ as 

required by 40 CFR 51.309(d)(4)(ii). The 

program establishes its reductions 

through milestones that are set at threeyear intervals. It would be arbitrary and 

capricious to conclude these reductions 

are ‘‘steady’’ or ‘‘continuous.’’ 

Response: We disagree and find that 

the reductions required at each 

milestone demonstrate steady and 

continuing emissions reductions. The 

milestones do this by requiring regular 

decreases. These decreases occur in 

intervals ranging from one to three years 

and include administrative evaluation 

periods with the possibility of 

downward adjustments of the 

milestone, if warranted. The interval 

under which ‘‘steady and continuing 

emissions reductions through 2018’’ 

must occur is not defined in the regional 

haze rule. We find the milestone 

schedule and the remainder of the 

trading program submitted by Wyoming 

does in fact reasonably provide for 

‘‘steady and continuing emissions 

reductions through 2018.’’ 

Comment: The WRAP attempts to 

justify the SO2 trading program because 

SO2 emissions have decreased in the 

three transport region states relying on 

the alternative program by 33% between 

1990–2000. The justification fails 

because the reductions were made prior 

to the regional haze rule. The reliance 

on reductions that predate the regional 

haze rule violates the requirement of 40 

CFR 51.308(e)(2)(iv) that BART 

alternatives provide emission 

reductions that are ‘‘surplus’’ to those 

resulting from programs implemented to 

meet other CAA requirements. 

Response: We did not focus on the 

WRAP’s discussion of early emission 

reductions in our proposal. However, 

we do not understand commenter’s 

claim or agree with this comment. The 

WRAP’s statements regarding past air 

quality improvements are not contrary 

to the requirement that reductions 

under a trading program be surplus. 

Instead, the WRAP was noting that 

forward-planning sources had already 

pursued emission reductions that could 

be partially credited to the design of the 

309 SIP. We note that the most recent 

emission report for the year 2010 shows 

a 35% reduction in emissions from 

2003. Sources that make early 

reductions prior to the program trigger 

year may acquire extra allocations 

should the program be triggered. This is 

an additional characteristic feature of 

the backstop trading program that 

suggests benefits that would be realized 

even without triggering of the program 

itself. The surplus emission reduction 

requirement for the trading program is 

not an issue, because the existence of 

surplus reductions is studied against 

other reductions that are realized ‘‘as of 

baseline date of the SIP.’’ The 1990– 

2000 period plainly falls earlier than the 

baseline date of the SIP, so we disagree 

that the WRAP’s discussion of that 

period was problematic or violates 40 

CFR 51.308(e)(2)(iv), regarding surplus 

reductions. 

Comment: EPA must correct 

discrepancies between the data 

presented in the 309 SIPs.3 There are 

discrepancies in what has been 

presented as the results of WRAP 

photochemical modeling. The New 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with 
73932 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 239 / Wednesday, December 12, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

Mexico regional haze SIP proposal 

shows, for example, that the 20% worst 

days at Grand Canyon National Park 

have visibility impairment of 11.1 

deciviews, while the other proposals 

show 11.3 deciviews. The discrepancy 

appears to be due to the submittals 

being based on different modeling 

scenarios developed by the WRAP. EPA 

must explain and correct the 

discrepancies and ‘‘re-notice’’ a new 

proposed rule containing the correct 

information. 

Response: We agree that there are 

discrepancies in the numbers in Table 1 

of the proposed notices. The third 

column of the table below shows the 

modeling results presented in Table 1 of 

the Albuquerque, Wyoming, and Utah 

proposals. The modeling results in the 

New Mexico proposal Table 1 are 

shown in the fourth column in the table 

below. The discrepancies come from 

New Mexico using different preliminary 

reasonable progress cases developed by 

the WRAP. The Wyoming, Utah, and 

Albuquerque proposed notices 

incorrectly identify the Preliminary 

Reasonable Progress (PRP) case as the 

PRP18b emission inventory instead of 

correctly identifying the presented data 

as modeled visibility based on the 

‘‘PRP18a’’ emission inventory. The 

PRP18a emission inventory is a 

predicted 2018 emission inventory with 

all known and expected controls as of 

March 2007. The preliminary reasonable 

progress case (‘‘PRP18b’’) used by New 

Mexico is the more updated version 

produced by the WRAP with all known 

and expected controls as of March 2009. 

Thus, we are correcting Table 1, column 

5 in our proposed notices for Wyoming, 

Utah, and Albuquerque to include 

model results from the PRP18b emission 

inventory, consistent with the New 

Mexico proposed notice and the fourth 

column in the table below. We are also 

correcting the description of the 

Preliminary Reasonable Progress Case 

(referred to as the PRP18b emission 

inventory and modeled projections) to 

reflect that this emission inventory 

includes all controls ‘‘on the books’’ as 

of March 2009. 

Class I area State 

2018 

Preliminary 

reasonable 

progress 

PRP18a case 

(deciview) 

2018 

Preliminary 

reasonable 

progress 

PRP18b case 

(deciview) 

Grand Canyon National Park ..................................................................................................... AZ 11.3 11.1 

Mount Baldy Wilderness ............................................................................................................. AZ 11.4 11.5 

Petrified Forest National Park .................................................................................................... AZ 12.9 12.8 

Sycamore Canyon Wilderness ................................................................................................... AZ 15.1 15.0 

Black Canyon of the Gunnison National Park Wilderness ......................................................... CO 9.9 9.8 

Flat Tops Wilderness .................................................................................................................. CO 9.0 9.0 

Maroon Bells Wilderness ............................................................................................................ CO 9.0 9.0 

Mesa Verde National Park ......................................................................................................... CO 12.6 12.5 

Weminuche Wilderness .............................................................................................................. CO 9.9 9.8 

West Elk Wilderness ................................................................................................................... CO 9.0 9.0 

San Pedro Parks Wilderness ..................................................................................................... NM 9.8 9.8 

Arches National Park .................................................................................................................. UT 10.9 10.7 

Bryce Canyon National Park ...................................................................................................... UT 11.2 11.1 

Canyonlands National Park ........................................................................................................ UT 10.9 10.7 

Capitol Reef National Park ......................................................................................................... UT 10.5 10.4 

Zion National Park ...................................................................................................................... UT 13.0 12.8 

We are not re-noticing our proposed 

rulemaking as the discrepancies do not 

change our proposed conclusion that 

the SIP submitted by Wyoming contains 

reasonable projections of the visibility 

improvements expected at the 16 Class 

I areas at issue. The PRP18a modeling 

results show projected visibility 

improvement for the 20 percent worst 

days from the baseline period to 2018. 

The PRP18b modeling results show 

either the same or additional visibility 

improvement on the 20 percent worst 

days beyond the PRP18a modeling 

results. We also note there are two 

discrepancies in New Mexico’s Table 1, 

column four compared to the other 

participating states’ notices. The 2018 

base case visibility projection in the 

New Mexico proposed notice for Black 

Canyon of the Gunnison National Park 

Wilderness and Weminuche Wilderness 

should be corrected to read 10.1 

deciview rather than 10.0. 

Notwithstanding the discrepancies 

described above, we believe that 

Wyoming’s SIP adequately projects the 

improvement in visibility for purposes 

of Section 309. 

B. General Comments 

Comment: We received comments 

from PacifiCorp and New Mexico 

Environment Department supporting 

our proposed approval of Wyoming’s 

309 SIP. 

Response: We acknowledge the 

commenters’ support of our proposed 

rulemaking. 

V. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the Clean Air Act, the 

Administrator is required to approve a 

SIP submission that complies with the 

provisions of the Act and applicable 

Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 

40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP 

submissions, EPA’s role is to approve 

state choices, provided that they meet 

the criteria of the Clean Air Act. 

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 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with 
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 239 / Wednesday, December 12, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 73933 

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 Clean Air Act; 

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. 

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). 

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean 

Air Act, petitions for judicial review of 

this action must be filed in the United 

States Court of Appeals for the 

appropriate circuit by February 11, 

2013. 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 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, Sulfur oxides, 

Incorporation by reference. 

Dated: November 13, 2012. 

James B. Martin, 

Regional Administrator, Region 8. 

40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows: 

PART 52—APPROVAL AND 

PROMULGATION OF 

IMPLEMENTATION PLANS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 52 

continues to read as follows: 

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

Subpart ZZ—Wyoming 

■ 2. Section 52.2620 is amended by: 

■ a. Amending the table in paragraph 

(c)(1) under Chapter 10 by adding an 

entry for Section 4. 

■ b. Amending the table in paragraph 

(c)(1) by adding Chapter 14 consisting of 

entries for Section 2 and Section 3. 

■ c. Amending the table in paragraph (e) 

by adding entry ‘‘XX’’ at the end of the 

table. 

The additions read as follows: 

§ 52.2620 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(1) * * * 

State citation Title/subject State adopted and effective 

date 

EPA approval date and 

citation 1 Explanation 

*******

Chapter 10 

*******

Section 4 ................................. Smoke Management .............. 2/17/2005, 4/5/2005 ............... 12/12/2012 [Insert FR page 

number where document 

begins]. 

* * * * * * * 

Chapter 14 

*******

Section 2 ................................. Western Backstop Sulfur Dioxide Trading Program.2/27/2008, 5/7/2008 ............... 12/12/2012 [Insert FR page 

number where document 

begins]. 

Section 3 ................................. Sulfur Dioxide Milestone Inventory.2/27/2008, 5/7/2008 ............... 12/12/2012 [Insert FR page 

number where document 

begins]. 

1 In order to determine the EPA effective date for a specific provision listed in this table, consult the Federal Register notice cited in this column for the particular provision. 

* * * * * (e) * * * 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with 
73934 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 239 / Wednesday, December 12, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

Name of nonregulatory SIP 

provision 

Applicable geographic or 

nonattainment area 

State submittal date/adopted 

date 

EPA approval date and citation 3 Explanations 

*******

XX. Wyoming State Implementation Plan for Regional 

Haze for 309.

Statewide ................................ Submitted: 1/12/2011 ............. 12/12/2012 [Insert Federal 

Register page number 

where the document begins]. 

3 In order to determine the EPA effective date for a specific provision listed in this table, consult the Federal Register notice cited in this column for the particular provision. 

[FR Doc. 2012–29985 Filed 12–11–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 180 

[EPA–HQ–OPP–2011–0669; FRL–9369–3] 

Bacillus subtilis Strain QST 713 Variant 

Soil; Amendment to an Exemption 

From the Requirement of a Tolerance 

for Bacillus subtilis Strain QST 713 To 

Include Residues of Bacillus subtilis 

Strain QST 713 Variant Soil 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: This regulation amends the 

existing exemption from the 

requirement of a tolerance for residues 

of the Bacillus subtilis strain QST 713 in 

or on all food commodities by including 

residues of Bacillus subtilis strain QST 

713 variant soil. Agraquest, Inc. 

submitted a petition to the EPA under 

the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic 

Act (FFDCA), requesting an amendment 

to an existing exemption from the 

requirement of a tolerance for Bacillus 

subtilis strain QST 713 to include 

residues of products containing Bacillus 

subtilis strain QST 713 variant soil in or 

on all agricultural commodities. This 

regulation eliminates the need to 

establish a maximum permissible level 

for residues of Bacillus subtilis strain 

QST 713 variant soil under the FFDCA. 

DATES: This regulation is effective 

December 12, 2012. Objections and 

requests for hearings must be received 

on or before February 11, 2013, 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–2011–0669, is 

available at http://www.regulations.gov 

or at the Office of Pesticide Programs 

Regulatory Public Docket (OPP Docket) 

in the Environmental Protection Agency 

Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West 

Bldg., 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: 

Michael Glikes, Biopesticides and 

Pollution Prevention Division (7511P), 

Office of Pesticide Programs, 

Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 

Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, 

DC 20460–0001; telephone number: 

(703) 305–6231; email address: 

glikes.michael@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. The following 

list of North American Industrial 

Classification System (NAICS) codes is 

not intended to be exhaustive, but rather 

provides a guide to help readers 

determine whether this document 

applies to them. Potentially affected 

entities may include: 

• Crop production (NAICS code 111). 

• Animal production (NAICS code 

112). 

• Food manufacturing (NAICS code 

311). 

• Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS 

code 32532). 

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 OCSPP 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, 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 the EPA, you must 

identify docket ID number EPA–HQ– 

OPP–2011–0669 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 February 11, 2013. 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 (excluding 

any CBI) for inclusion in the public 

docket. Information not marked 

confidential pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 

may be disclosed publicly by the EPA 

without prior notice. Submit the nonCBI copy of your objection or hearing 

request, identified by docket ID number 

EPA–HQ–OPP–2011–0669, 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), (28221T), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. 

NW., Washington, DC 20460–0001. 

• Hand Delivery: To make special 

arrangements for hand delivery or 

delivery of boxed information, please 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with