
[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 204 (Monday, October 22, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 64414-64422]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-25806]



40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R02-OAR-2012-0457, FRL-9742-6]


Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; 
United States Virgin Islands; Regional Haze Federal Implementation Plan

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is promulgating a Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) to 
address regional haze in the Territory of the United States Virgin 
Islands. EPA determined that the FIP meets the requirements of the 
Clean Air Act and EPA's rules concerning reasonable progress towards 
the national goal of preventing any future and remedying any existing 
man-made impairment of visibility in mandatory Class I areas (also 
referred to as the ``regional haze program''). The FIP protects and 
improves visibility levels in the Virgin Islands Class I area, namely 
the Virgin Islands National Park on the island of St. John. The FIP for 
the Virgin Islands addresses reasonable progress toward improving 
visibility and evaluation of Best Available Retrofit Technology.

DATES: This rule is effective on November 21, 2012.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID 
No. EPA-R02-OAR-2012-0457. 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, e.g., CBI or other information 
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such 
as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be 
publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket 
materials are available either electronically through 
www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Environmental Protection 
Agency, Region II Office, Air Programs Branch, 290 Broadway, 25th 
Floor, New York, New York 10007-1866. This Docket Facility is open from 
8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal 
holidays. The Docket telephone number is 212-637-4249.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert F. Kelly, Air Planning Section, 
Air Programs Branch, EPA Region 2, 290 Broadway, New York, New York 
10007-1866. The telephone number is 212-637-4249. Mr. Kelly can also be 
reached via electronic mail at kelly.bob@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, wherever 
``Agency,'' ``we,'' ``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean the EPA. In 
most cases in this document, where we use the term ``state'' when 
discussing requirements or recommendations under the Clean Air Act or 
Agency guidance, this includes the Territory of the Virgin Islands.

Table of Contents

I. What action is EPA taking?
II. What comments did EPA receive on its proposal and what were 
EPA's responses?
III. What are EPA's conclusions?
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. What action is EPA taking?

    EPA is promulgating a Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) to address 
regional haze in the U.S. Virgin Islands under the Clean Air Act (CAA 
or the Act) sections 301(a) and 110(c)(1). The FIP ensures that the 
Virgin Islands will make reasonable progress toward the national goal 
of no man-made contribution to visibility impairment. The FIP also 
includes Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) determinations for 
sources in the Virgin Islands that may be subject to BART.
    For additional details on EPA's analysis and the basis for the 
Virgin Islands regional haze FIP, the reader is referred to the June 
25, 2012 proposal (77 FR 37842). EPA's regional haze FIP for the Virgin 
Islands, all accompanying documents, and the full text of the public 
comments are included in the Docket (EPA-R02-OAR-2012-0457) and 
available at www.regulations.gov.

EPA's Authority To Promulgate a FIP

    The Act requires each state to develop plans to meet various air 
quality requirements, including protection of visibility. (CAA sections 
110(a), 169A, and 169B). The plans developed by a state or territory 
are referred to as State Implementation Plans or SIPs. A state must 
submit its SIPs and SIP revisions to EPA for approval. Once approved, a 
SIP is federally enforceable, that is it is enforceable by EPA and 
citizens under the Act. If a state fails to make a required SIP 
submittal or if we find that a state's required submittal is incomplete 
or unapprovable, then EPA must promulgate a FIP to fill this regulatory 
gap. (CAA section 110(c)(1)).
    EPA made a finding of failure to submit on January 15, 2009 (74 FR 
2392), determining that the U.S. Virgin Islands failed to submit a SIP 
that addressed any of the regional haze SIP requirements of 40 CFR 
51.308. Under section 110(c) of the Act, whenever EPA finds that a 
state has failed to make a required submission, the Agency is required 
to promulgate a FIP. Specifically, section 110(c) provides:
     The Administrator shall promulgate a Federal 
implementation plan at any time within 2 years after the 
Administrator--
     [cir] Finds that a state has failed to make a required submission 
or finds that the plan or plan revision submitted by the state does not 
satisfy the minimum criteria established under [section 110(k)(1)(A)], 
or
     [cir] disapproves a state implementation plan submission in whole 
or in part, unless the state corrects the deficiency, and the 
Administrator approves the plan or plan revision, before the 
Administrator promulgates such Federal implementation plan.
    Section 302(y) defines the term ``Federal implementation plan'' in 
pertinent part, as:

    [A] plan (or portion thereof) promulgated by the Administrator 
to fill all or a portion of a gap or otherwise correct all or a 
portion of an inadequacy in a State implementation plan, and which 
includes enforceable emission limitations or other control measures, 
means or techniques (including economic incentives, such as 
marketable permits or auctions or emissions allowances) * * *

    Thus, because EPA determined that the Virgin Islands failed to 
submit a regional haze SIP, the Agency is promulgating a regional haze 
FIP at 40 CFR 52.2781(d). The Virgin Islands Department of Planning and 
Natural Resources has indicated that the Government of the Virgin 
Islands agrees

[[Page 64415]]

with EPA's moving forward to prepare this FIP.
    If the Virgin Islands at any time decide to submit a SIP revision 
to incorporate provisions that would be approvable as a SIP revision 
for a regional haze plan, EPA would welcome that submittal. If EPA were 
to approve such a SIP revision, after public notice and comment, the 
SIP provisions would replace EPA's FIP.

II. What comments did EPA receive on its proposal and what were EPA's 
responses?

    EPA received comments from the National Park Service (NPS), which 
serves as the Federal Land Manager (FLM) for the Virgin Islands 
National Park, and from HOVENSA, L.L.C. (HOVENSA). EPA also received 
one comment from a private citizen in support of EPA's proposal. A 
summary of the comments and EPA's responses are provided below.
    Comment: A private citizen supported EPA's actions to reduce 
regional haze in the area, including the restriction of sulfur in ferry 
and cruise-ship fuel, the federal motor vehicle control program, and 
emissions reductions from HOVENSA, including the use of Best Available 
Retrofit Technology (BART).
    The NPS also supported EPA's determination that expected emissions 
reductions from marine vessels under the North American Emissions 
Control Area and the HOVENSA Consent Decree are appropriate to include 
in the long term strategy for regional haze.
    Response: EPA acknowledges the support and is including these 
emissions reductions as part of the FIP.
    Comment: NPS supported EPA's determination that sources outside the 
island of St. John are major contributors to visibility impairment at 
the Virgin Islands National Park.
    Response: EPA acknowledges the support for the visibility analysis.
    Comment: NPS commented that it expected EPA's proposal to include a 
more rigorous technical analysis of local anthropogenic contributions 
to regional haze in the Virgin Islands.
    Response: EPA disagrees with the NPS's characterization of the 
analysis conducted for the FIP. We identified potential contributors to 
visibility impairment from the IMPROVE monitoring data, as well as 
other suggestions from the FLM, local citizens, and the Virgin Islands 
government. In addition to analyzing the IMPROVE data, we investigated 
possible sources of coarse particles that were hard to identify due to 
the overwhelming impact of coarse particles from Saharan dust. EPA 
commissioned a thorough inventory of all source categories on St. John. 
EPA also used inventories from new source review applications to 
identify the larger point sources on St. Thomas and St. Croix that may 
impact the Class I area on St. John. We investigated fuel usage, 
electric generation and open burning information for potential sources 
on Tortola, the nearest island of the British Virgin Islands. Finally, 
we used back trajectory analyses and dispersion modeling to determine 
whether emissions from a major source in Puerto Rico could have an 
impact on visibility in St. John.
    Comment: NPS commented that coarse mass could be due to transport 
or local sources, natural and anthropogenic, but EPA made little effort 
to distinguish source contributions.
    Response: EPA disagrees. The FIP includes EPA's numerous efforts to 
address local anthropogenic sources of coarse mass. Saharan dust is 
mostly in the coarse mass (2.5 microns to 10 microns) range of 
particles. Coarse mass particles can also be produced by human sources, 
such as quarrying operations, wind-blown dirt from unpaved roads, and 
dirt on paved and unpaved roads re-entrained by vehicles. Ordinarily, 
coarse particles do not travel the long distances that fine particles 
travel because of their larger size and larger mass and because they 
tend to be emitted near the ground. One exception to this rule is the 
coarse dust from the Sahara Desert, which is lofted thousands of feet 
into the atmosphere by strong trade winds. This dust is carried by the 
trade winds for long distances, across the Atlantic Ocean, remaining 
aloft and mixing down into the surface air over the Caribbean islands. 
(Prospero, 1999. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA. 96:3396-3404.)
    EPA conducted an effort to find sources of particle emissions on 
St. John (as well as other pollutants that contribute to reduced 
visibility), knowing that coarse particle emissions on St. John could 
be contributing to the obstruction of visibility in the Virgin Islands 
National Park, and because coarse particles from ground-level sources 
on other islands are not likely to be transported to St. John. EPA also 
developed an emission inventory for St. John which identified emissions 
from construction activities, re-entrained dirt from traffic, and a 
concrete mixing facility on St. John, all of which were included in the 
modeling to determine which human sources contribute the most to 
reducing visibility in the Virgin Islands National Park. EPA discussed 
the results of the modeling in the June 25, 2012 proposal (77 FR 
37842). Air modeling ranks construction and road dust as the two 
anthropogenic source categories with the highest impact on visibility 
at the IMPROVE monitor on St. John.
    Comment: NPS believes there are episodes of elevated sulfate that 
could be due to industry or marine traffic or due to atmospheric 
transport of emissions from other islands or the U.S. mainland. NPS 
also suggested that episodes of elevated organic carbon are due to 
vegetative burning.
    Response: In the June 25, 2012 proposal, EPA noted that local 
sulfur dioxide emissions are not the only source of sulfate on St. 
John. Sulfates likely come from other islands outside the U.S. Virgin 
Islands, and EPA included sources from the British Virgin Islands and 
Puerto Rico in the modeling analysis. Modeling predicts that sulfate 
averages from five to eleven percent of the anthropogenic contribution 
to visibility obstruction and can be as high as twenty-five percent. 
However, emissions from sources in the Caribbean upwind of the Virgin 
Islands cannot be reduced by actions taken by EPA or the U.S. Virgin 
Islands government.
    Based on trajectory analyses, emissions from sources in North 
America may be transported to the Virgin Islands on rare occasions. 
However, there are many Class I areas in the United States that are 
closer to these sources than the Virgin Islands. Mainland sources were 
not considered in the modeling for the Virgin Islands FIP because state 
regional haze SIPs (or FIPs) will inevitable mandate stronger controls 
based on the sources' larger impacts on mainland Class I areas.
    As for organic carbon, the IMPROVE data show a few periods of time 
when carbon is a major component responsible for reducing visibility. 
Most of these events occur after major windstorms or hurricanes when 
fallen trees and other vegetation are burned due to the lack of space 
on the island to landfill the debris.
    In summary, EPA did in fact include the various source categories 
suggested by the NPS comment in our analysis and in the modeling 
conducted in support of the FIP.
    Comment: NPS commented that the back trajectory analysis identified 
possible source areas for each pollutant species, but EPA's analysis 
was not comprehensive. NPS believes sources on nearby islands as well 
as long range transport are potential contributors to haze at St. John.
    Response: Back trajectory analysis for the top four days with the 
largest impact for each of the measured species

[[Page 64416]]

provides the best opportunity to find if consistent locations (and the 
sources located there) are upwind of St. John on the days when each 
species has the largest impact on visibility. As we expected, most days 
have trajectories from the east, the predominant direction of the wind 
in the tropics trade wind regime, as seen in the wind roses in the FIP. 
Days where a source has high contributions toward reducing visibility 
should show up as the source region in the trajectory analysis. For 
example, days when coarse particulates were highest had trajectories 
that began in or near the Sahara Desert. Days when coarse particulates 
were lower and another species was large, on the other hand, mostly had 
trajectories from other locations. Thus, EPA determined that looking at 
roughly 30 days when different species dominated would reveal the 
sources of the various species that impact visibility on St. John.
    However, there was no consistent source region or regions in the 
U.S. Virgin Islands for these high impact days for products of 
combustion, like sulfates and nitrates. While some days' trajectories 
passed over St. Thomas and St. Croix, showing that sources there can be 
responsible for emissions that interfere with visibility, most of the 
trajectories on days with high sulfate and nitrate concentrations did 
not pass over St. Thomas or St. Croix. Many trajectories passed over 
other islands where EPA does not have jurisdiction to require emission 
controls. EPA's modeling showed a similar pattern of combustion sources 
impacting St. John on a limited (but still significant) number of days. 
The impacts were frequent enough to warrant EPA to evaluate sources 
such as HOVENSA and other point sources in St. Thomas and St. Croix to 
determine if reasonable controls were available to improve visibility.
    In response to the concerns of the Virgin Islands Government that 
sources upwind might affect St. John, EPA considered combustion 
emissions from Puerto Rico and fuel oil combustion and agricultural 
burning on Tortola in its modeling.
    Also, a few trajectories show that some days with worse visibility 
may result from sulfates, nitrates, and carbon that originate in North 
America. It should be noted that significant reductions have occurred 
in sulfate, nitrate and carbon emissions from sources in the United 
States due to acid rain control programs, ozone and particulate matter 
state implementation plans and regional haze plans. Future emission 
reductions that will result from these programs are likely to further 
reduce visibility impacts from North America.
    Comment: NPS commented that it is unclear why EPA did not include 
emissions from St. Thomas and St. Croix and recommends EPA develop a 
complete inventory for the Virgin Islands. NPS commented that EPA's 
proposal indicated that additional point sources were considered, but 
the emissions were not presented.
    Response: EPA disagrees that emissions from St. Thomas and St. 
Croix were not included and disagrees that information on other point 
sources was not presented. This information was only summarized in the 
June 25, 2012 proposal. Complete information for point sources on St. 
Thomas, St. Croix, and St. John is in the modeling analysis performed 
for EPA. A detailed emission inventory for St. John is in the 
supporting documentation contained in the Docket for the proposal (See: 
DEVELOPMENT OF 2002 REGIONAL HAZE AREA, POINT, NONROAD MOBILE, AND 
ONROAD MOBILE SOURCE EMISSION INVENTORIES FOR ST. JOHN, VIRGIN ISLANDS 
in the Appendices.) The point source inventories were developed in 
order to determine compliance with EPA's ambient air quality standards 
for sulfur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide and particulate matter. Emissions 
of these pollutants are important in assessing human-made obstruction 
to visibility. The emissions from the significant sources in these 
inventories are more likely to be transported across the sea to St. 
John than emissions from other area or mobile emission source 
categories that are emitted near the ground. EPA also used modeling to 
evaluate the potential impact of sources in Puerto Rico on St. John. 
The results showed that a major source on Puerto Rico would not impact 
visibility on St. John, so emissions from Puerto Rico were not 
investigated further for inclusion in the FIP.
    As stated in the June 25, 2012 proposal, rather than use a full 
statewide inventory to judge reasonable progress, we focused on the 
inventory for the island of St. John, where the Class I area is 
located, and other major point sources located in the Virgin Islands. 
Our analysis indicates that most emissions outside of St. John, other 
than major point sources, do not significantly impair visibility at the 
Virgin Islands National Park due to the prevailing winds. Prevailing 
winds at St. John are from the east, as shown in the wind roses 
contained in the FIP. St. Thomas and St. Croix are located west and 
south, respectively, of St. John. Therefore, these trade winds tend to 
transport pollution from St. Thomas and St. Croix away from the Class I 
area. In addition, modeling performed to estimate the visibility impact 
of currently operating individual sources of pollution indicates that, 
with the exception of HOVENSA, even very large sources in the Virgin 
Islands have relatively small visibility impacts on Virgin Islands 
National Park.
    Comment: NPS commented that EPA should add marine traffic between 
neighboring islands to the inventory.
    Response: The impact of marine traffic at St. John was included in 
the inventory. EPA reasonably chose not to include emissions from 
marine traffic between other neighboring islands, because modeling did 
not predict a large impact of the ship emissions on St. John.
    Comment: NPS commented that EPA should have used 2009 MM5 
meteorological model outputs in its modeling. HOVENSA also commented 
that the use of a small set of overwater buoy data, combined with upper 
air sounding data from San Juan, Puerto Rico and the airport station at 
St. Thomas, was insufficient to satisfy EPA's own recommendations to 
use available prognostic data in combination with observational data.
    Response: EPA chose to use four years of local meteorological data 
because only a single year of data was available for MM5. While using a 
gridded, prognostic data model to simulate meteorological conditions is 
likely to produce a more accurate wind field in most circumstances, 
this would have been difficult with just a single year of MM5 data. 
Using four years of data from local weather sites, on the other hand, 
provided EPA with a robust calculation of impacts from anthropogenic 
emissions in the Virgin Islands. Moreover, the use of interpolated 
weather data from a few sites is more likely to be accurate in the 
Virgin Islands than it would in the continental United States because 
there is less terrain across the modeling domain to disrupt wind flow 
and wind direction and speed is more consistent in the tropics.
    Comment: NPS commented that EPA should not use the 98th percentile 
impact averaged over four years as a threshold.
    Response: EPA agrees and modified the FIP to highlight the highest 
of the 98th percentile impacts for each source or source category. As a 
result of this change, the impact EPA will use for evaluating potential 
control strategies and for comparing sources' impacts will be higher 
than when EPA used a four-year average in the proposal.

[[Page 64417]]

    In our proposal, we evaluated the impacts of the sources based on 
the average of the 98th percentile visibility impacts. Our guidance 
recommends using the highest 98th percentile value, not the average of 
the 98th percentile values. Both of these values are listed in the 
following table. Nonetheless, using the highest of the 98th percentile 
impacts did not change any of our analyses for potential controls on 
these sources or source categories.

 Table 1--Impact of Anthropogenic Sources That Contribute to Regional Haze in the Virgin Islands, Based on Four
                                       Years of Modeling From 2007 to 2010
                                               [In deciviews (dv)]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                    Highest of four years'       Average of four years' 98th
            Source or source category               98th percentile impact            percentile impact
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All Sources (w/o FIP)............................  10.07 dv*...............  8.15 dv*.
All Sources after FIP reductions.................  9.67....................  7.79
                                                   (0.40 reduction)........  (0.36 reduction).
St. John Construction (total of all activities)..  5.72 dv.................  4.36 dv.
HOVENSA--all units operating.....................  3.34....................  2.49
St. John Road Dust...............................  2.71....................  2.19
St. Croix Other (w/o WAPA, HOVENSA)..............  1.13....................  0.82
St. John Point Sources--generators...............  1.05....................  0.60
St. Thomas--all sources (inc. WAPA)..............  0.62....................  0.38
St. John Open Burning............................  0.58....................  0.42
St. Croix WAPA--all units........................  0.48....................  0.35
BVI Oil Combustion...............................  0.46**..................  **
St. John Non-road Combustion Emissions...........  0.26....................  0.22
St. John Marine..................................  0.25....................  0.12
Estimated BVI Open Burning Source................  0.16**..................  **
St. John On-road Vehicle Tailpipe Emissions......  0.12....................  0.11
St. John Residential Hot Water Heating...........  0.01....................  0.01
Sample Puerto Rico Power Plant...................  0.00**..................  **
Other Source Categories (These are included in
 the sources or source categories listed above):
    HOVENSA BART eligible stacks only............  2.60 dv.................  1.91 dv
    St. Thomas WAPA--all units...................  0.21....................  0.12
    St. Thomas WAPA BART eligible stacks only....  0.09....................  0.06
    St. Croix WAPA BART eligible stacks only.....  0.12....................  0.09
    St. John Marine with reductions..............  0.04....................  0.02
                                                   (0.21 reduction)........  (0.10 reduction).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Individual impacts from each source will not add up to the total for ``All Sources'', since the impacts from
  each source may be on different days and times than the impact for ``All Sources'' together.
** Modeling from 2009 only.
BVI refers to the island of Tortola in the British Virgin Islands.
WAPA refers to the Virgin Islands Water and Power Authority.

    EPA has revised Table 8 of the June 25, 2012 proposal to include 
the highest of the 98th percentile impacts for EPA's BART analysis:

     Revision to Table 8--Individual BART-Eligible Source Visibility Impacts on Virgin Islands Class I Area
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                     Maximum 4-year
                                             Class I area and        98th percentile
         Facility and location            locations of modeling     visibility impact       Subject to BART?
                                                 receptor              (deciviews)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
VI WAPA...............................  St. John.................                0.09  No.
St. Thomas............................  Hassel Island, St. Thomas                0.09
VI WAPA...............................  St. John.................                0.12  No.
St. Croix.............................  Hassel Island, St. Thomas                0.13
HOVENSA...............................  St. John.................                2.60  Yes.
St. Croix.............................  Hassel Island, St. Thomas                3.12
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The changes to the impacts for VI WAPA St. Thomas and VI WAPA St. 
Croix are not high enough to cause or contribute to a significant 
impact on visibility in the Virgin Islands National Park. Thus, neither 
source is eligible for further analysis for BART controls.
    Comment: NPS commented that EPA should use the first high results 
to determine impact of sources and do a comparison to the twenty 
percent best days.
    Response: EPA used four years of modeling data and using the first 
high over four years' worth of days would be overly conservative. A 
comparison to the twenty percent best visibility days is often not 
helpful because many sources did not have any impact on the twenty 
percent best visibility days. (For more information, see the tables 
from the modeling report. The number of days when the source had an 
impact is noted in parentheses.)
    Furthermore, EPA's BART Guidelines call for the use of the 98th 
percentile (essentially the 8th highest day) rather

[[Page 64418]]

than the maximum modeled daily impact. The BART Guidelines further 
state that while ``the use of the 98th percentile of modeled visibility 
values would appear to exclude roughly 7 days per year from 
consideration, in our judgment, this approach will effectively capture 
the sources that contribute to visibility impairment in a Class I area, 
while minimizing the likelihood that the highest modeled visibility 
impacts might be caused by unusual meteorology or conservative 
assumptions in the model.'' See 70 FR 39104, 39121 (July 6, 2005).
    Comment: NPS commented that EPA should have used the latest CALPOST 
processor.
    Response: The processor used by EPA is the one in the Federal Land 
Managers' Air Quality Related Values Work Group (FLAG) guidance that 
was in effect when EPA began the modeling in 2010.
    Comment: The NPS agrees with EPA that as long as HOVENSA retains 
its air quality permits, the Consent Decree should remain in place. NPS 
commented that if the refinery is to restart, an emissions control 
analysis should be conducted prior to restart.
    Response: EPA appreciates the FLM's agreement that the HOVENSA 
Consent Decree should remain in place and that an analysis of 
reasonable control measures should be conducted when HOVENSA notifies 
EPA that they will resume refinery operations. In response to comments 
submitted to EPA by HOVENSA, we are modifying the HOVENSA notification 
requirement to clarify that upon notification to EPA that HOVENSA will 
restart refinery operations, HOVENSA will provide emission unit 
information to EPA in order for EPA to assess whether additional 
control measures are warranted to meet the regional haze requirements.
    Comment: NPS commented that it is difficult to conclude that there 
will be a 0.16 deciview improvement in visibility due to the expected 
emissions reductions from marine sources and HOVENSA. EPA should 
determine the reason for the increasing trends in sulfate's 
contribution to visibility impairment.
    Response: The emission reductions leading to a 0.16 deciview 
improvement over the worst twenty percent visibility days are based on 
emission control strategies that have been adopted and will be 
implemented, so EPA is confident that these emission reductions will 
lead to improvements in visibility, especially on the days with the 
largest degradation due to anthropogenic sources. On the 98th 
percentile days, the improvement is as large as 0.53 deciviews.
    EPA disagrees that an analysis of the increasing trends in 
sulfate's contribution to visibility impairment is required to be part 
of the FIP. Concentrations vary from year to year and some of the 
variability may be due to imprecision in the sampling and analysis of 
the particles that obstruct visibility. EPA will evaluate changes in 
sulfate, and all other contributing factors to visibility impairment, 
as part of the five-year review.
    Comment: The FLMs want EPA to more substantively involve them in 
future discussions for regional haze in the Virgin Islands.
    Response: EPA understands that it is important to increase FLM 
involvement in technical issues related to regional haze in the Virgin 
Islands, especially via informal sharing of new information and 
improvements in the FIP.
    Comment: HOVENSA stated that EPA's regional haze rules indicate 
that the states should consider whether it is reasonable to aim for 
attainment of the national goal, and that the 2064 target date and the 
resulting glidepath are not in any way binding.
    Response: EPA acknowledges that the 2064 target date and the 
glidepath for meeting the goal are not directly enforceable. In our 
June 25, 2012 proposal, we indicated in Table 6 that while a 1.48 
deciview improvement is needed to reach the uniform rate of progress 
goal for 2018, EPA's proposed FIP is only projecting a 2018 improvement 
of 0.16 deciviews (the Reasonable Progress Goal).
    Comment: HOVENSA commented that EPA has no rational basis for 
applying the Regional Haze Rule (RHR) to the Virgin Islands because 
there are no U.S. possessions that can impact visibility in the Virgin 
Islands. EPA's RHR declares that regional haze is from sources over a 
wide geographic area.
    Response: EPA disagrees. The requirement to submit a regional haze 
SIP applies to all 50 states, the District of Columbia and the Virgin 
Islands. The RHR (64 FR 35714, July 1, 1999) specifically states that 
``Hawaii, Alaska, and the Virgin Islands would be subject to the 
regional haze provisions because of the potential for emissions from 
sources within their borders to contribute to regional haze impairment 
in Class I areas also located within their own jurisdiction'' (64 FR 
35720).
    Therefore, sources in the Virgin Islands that impact the Virgin 
Islands National Park are not exempted from the Clean Air Act's 
regional haze requirements to protect visibility in Class I areas.
    Comment: HOVENSA objected to EPA's proposal for the facility to 
provide a reasonable control measures study, consistent with the RHR, 
should HOVENSA resume operation of the refinery process units. HOVENSA 
asked EPA to remove this requirement from the final FIP.
    Response: EPA proposed the requirement for HOVENSA to submit an 
analysis of reasonable control measures in the event that HOVENSA 
resumes operation of any refinery process units as an alternative to 
requiring such an analysis at this time. While refinery operations are 
currently idled, HOVENSA has retained its air permits and has not 
surrendered them to EPA. Therefore, EPA cannot rely on the idling of 
HOVENSA's refinery operations as an enforceable emission reduction for 
meeting the regional haze requirements. As we stated in our June 25, 
2012 proposal (77 FR 37856), while there is uncertainty at this time 
regarding future operations at HOVENSA, the Consent Decree, which is 
enforceable by EPA, contains emission reductions and emission 
limitation requirements. These Consent Decree requirements allow us to 
project that, should HOVENSA resume operating as a refinery, its 
permitted emissions of sulfur dioxide will be lower than they were 
prior to entry of the Consent Decree.
    Because the facility is in an idled state and HOVENSA has not 
provided any possible future refinery operating scenarios, EPA 
determined that it was not practical to require HOVENSA to perform an 
analysis of reasonable control measures at this time. In addition, EPA 
believed that should refinery operation resume, HOVENSA may decide to 
operate certain emission units and pollution control equipment but not 
others, compared to emission units that operated before the refinery 
operations were idled. Nevertheless, in response to HOVENSA's comments, 
EPA agrees that resuming operations at HOVENSA does not need to wait 
for HOVENSA to first provide an analysis of reasonable control 
measures. So, we are modifying the notification requirement to clarify 
that upon notification to EPA that HOVENSA will restart refinery 
operations, HOVENSA will provide emission unit information to EPA in 
order for EPA to assess if additional control measures are warranted to 
meet the regional haze requirements.
    Comment: HOVENSA stated that EPA's FIP should reflect the 
determination that HOVENSA's compliance with the terms of the Consent 
Decree satisfies its regional haze obligations during the first

[[Page 64419]]

planning period of the program and that any changes to the refinery's 
compliance obligations would be evaluated as part of the five year 
review.
    Response: HOVENSA's comment specifically says that HOVENSA's 
compliance with the terms of the Consent Decree satisfies its regional 
haze obligations. In fact, the HOVENSA Consent Decree is not an 
analysis of reasonable control measures as required for regional haze. 
The Consent Decree was developed for entirely different reasons. A 
consent decree is a negotiated agreement, and was not evaluated for 
meeting the requirements for a reasonable control measure analysis 
required for regional haze. EPA decided it was not practical for 
HOVENSA to perform an analysis of reasonable control measures while its 
refining process is idled. EPA believes the information necessary to 
complete such an analysis will be more complete when HOVENSA's future 
operational plans are known. The Consent Decree is a starting point for 
an analysis of reasonable control measures until more information is 
available.
    As for evaluating any changes to the refinery's compliance 
obligations during the five year review, EPA believes that determining 
what controls are reasonable when those controls would be needed, that 
is, when emission units are operating, would better serve the purpose 
of meeting the regional haze plan for the Virgin Islands.
    Comment: HOVENSA states that it would be unreasonable to impose the 
costs of controls on its facility when there will be little or no 
improvement in visibility on St. John.
    Response: Modeling the controls required under the Consent Decree 
shows an improvement of 0.13 deciviews, compared to HOVENSA's total 
impact of 1.60 deciviews in visibility on St. John for the twenty 
percent worst visibility days. If the refining process restarts, 
reasonable controls may add to this improvement because HOVENSA has a 
total impact of 3.34 deciviews on the highest 98th percentile day.
    Comment: HOVENSA stated that EPA's requirement for HOVENSA to 
perform an analysis of reasonable controls on its emissions before 
restarting its refining facility would cause uncertainty and delays in 
any restart process because EPA is requiring installation of controls 
no later than five years after the effective date of the revised FIP.
    Response: As stated earlier, in response to HOVENSA's comments, we 
are modifying the HOVENSA notification requirement to clarify that upon 
notification to EPA that HOVENSA will restart refinery operations, 
HOVENSA will provide emission unit information to EPA in order for EPA 
to determine if additional control measures are warranted. However, 
HOVENSA's comments do not accurately reflect the timing for 
installation of controls as a result of the notification requirement. 
If and when HOVENSA notifies EPA that it plans to resume operation of 
the refinery process units, EPA will assess whether additional control 
measures are warranted to meet the regional haze requirements. Should 
EPA determine that additional emissions controls are necessary, HOVENSA 
will have considerable time to prepare for their installation while EPA 
undertakes notice-and-comment rulemaking to revise the FIP. Once the 
rulemaking is complete, HOVENSA will then have up to five years from 
the effective date of the revised FIP, if there is one, to install 
controls. In other words, EPA's requirement to install controls as 
expeditiously as practicable but no later than five years after the 
effective date of the revised FIP is referring to this ``second,'' or 
revised FIP, not the FIP being promulgated in this action. While EPA 
agrees that the rulemaking process presents uncertainty as to what 
controls will ultimately be determined to be reasonable, it is likely 
that some of these controls may already be installed upon startup of 
HOVENSA's refinery operations due to other Clean Air Act requirements. 
If not, HOVENSA will have up to five years from the effective date of 
the revised FIP to install them. EPA notes that HOVENSA's comment that 
EPA's proposed reasonable measures analysis requirement will present 
uncertainty and delay to any reactivation process contradicts HOVENSA's 
other comment, requesting EPA to rely on the five-year review process 
for determining whether to change HOVENSA's compliance obligations. 
Relying on the five-year review would present its own uncertainties and 
possible delays.
    Comment: HOVENSA commented that by using potential emissions, 
rather than actual emissions, for the modeling and BART analysis, EPA 
has greatly overstated HOVENSA's impacts on the Class I area in St. 
John.
    Response: HOVENSA cites EPA guidance as recommending using the 
highest typical emissions from a BART-eligible source for BART 
modeling. EPA chose to use potential to emit rather than historical 
emissions, resulting in a more conservative approach than using 
HOVENSA's historical emissions. HOVENSA has been operating at low 
capacity in recent years [Letter from HOVENSA to Mr. Steve Riva, EPA 
Region 2, April 21, 2011], so historical emissions are not 
representative of the impact that HOVENSA would have on visibility at 
the Class I area when operating near or at full capacity. Thus, EPA is 
using the emissions that the facility is allowed to emit in its 
evaluation of impacts on visibility obscuration in the Class I area.
    Comment: HOVENSA commented that EPA's back trajectory modeling for 
the worst days of visibility impairment on St. John shows that sources 
on St. Croix did not contribute to any of the worst days of visibility 
impairment.
    Response: EPA does not agree with HOVENSA's interpretation of the 
trajectory analysis. One of the four days when sulfates have their 
highest contributions to visibility impairment on St. John, 
trajectories passed very near St. Croix, where the HOVENSA refinery is 
located. In addition, modeling predicts that HOVENSA has a significant 
impact on visibility in the Virgin Islands National Park on St. John, 
so if reasonable controls on emissions are available from HOVENSA, they 
will reduce this significant impact on the view in the Park.
    Comment: HOVENSA commented that EPA's assertion that HOVENSA's 
emissions affect visibility on St. John stands in sharp contrast to 
EPA's own conclusion that coarse particles are the primary source of 
visibility impairment on St. John and that most of the coarse particles 
come from wind-blown sea salt and Saharan dust.
    Response: Even though coarse particles from Saharan dust may be the 
largest contributor to visibility impairment on St. John, that does not 
mean that HOVENSA, or other human sources of emissions do not affect 
visibility on St. John as well. In the trajectory analysis, one of the 
four highest days of sulfate impairment does occur when the trajectory 
passes near St. Croix. Also, the modeling analysis shows that HOVENSA 
is likely to have an impact on visibility on St. John. Because winds 
that bring Saharan dust come from the east and winds that bring 
emissions from St. Croix are from the south, it is likely that these 
two visibility-impairing sources impact St. John at different times. 
Thus, emissions from HOVENSA may be noticeable on St. John as sulfate 
haze.
    Comment: HOVENSA commented that because natural background 
visibility values do not include important natural sources, the natural 
background visibility is biased low and the relative CALPUFF modeled 
source impacts are thereby overestimated.

[[Page 64420]]

    Response: EPA disagrees that not including natural sources, like 
Saharan dust, in the natural background values means that CALPUFF's 
impacts are overestimated. CALPUFF's impacts are independent of, and 
not affected by, the estimates of natural background. When we compare 
the modeled sulfates and nitrates with the observed sulfates and 
nitrates from the IMPROVE site data, the modeled sulfates and nitrates 
are less than the observed. The comparison indicated that if CALPUFF is 
not estimating the impacts of anthropogenic sources correctly, it is 
likely to be underestimating the anthropogenic source impact. Thus, 
HOVENSA's impact may be higher than modeled by CALPUFF.
    Comment: HOVENSA commented that emission reductions from its 
facility are not going to have a discernible effect on visibility on 
St. John because EPA's proposal indicated that the effect of sulfate 
controls on industrial sources is overwhelmed by the impact of natural 
sulfate and Saharan dust.
    Response: While the effect of natural emissions is very large in 
the Virgin Islands, the Clean Air Act requires EPA to reduce the effect 
of anthropogenic sources using measures that EPA determines are 
reasonable. Thus, even though human-caused emissions may be low 
compared to the impact of Saharan dust, they are still significant (up 
to 7.38 deciviews on the twenty percent worst days, with as much as 
1.60 deciviews from HOVENSA's impact). Reducing anthropogenic emissions 
will still improve visibility in the Virgin Islands National Park, as 
sulfates and nitrates, which are mostly from combustion sources, cause 
significant reductions in visibility according to the IMPROVE data.
    Comment: HOVENSA notes that EPA's guidance emphasizes using a 
blended prognostic meteorological model, like MM5, instead of 
observational data using CALMET. EPA should not base its recommended 
controls on such a simplistic meteorological data set.
    Response: See EPA's response to the NPS's comment on this issue 
above. In addition, if using MM5 to drive the meteorology in the 
CALPUFF model gave better performance, remodeling would be more likely 
to increase impacts from anthropogenic sources, like HOVENSA.

III. What are EPA's conclusions?

    EPA is promulgating a Federal Implementation Plan for Regional Haze 
for the Territory of the United States Virgin Islands. This FIP 
addresses progress toward reducing regional haze for the first 
implementation period ending in 2018. The FIP includes emission 
reductions to begin the reasonable progress needed to achieve the 
overall objective of no man-made interference with visibility by 2064. 
The FIP relies on emission reductions from existing emissions controls 
and programs currently in effect and requires HOVENSA to notify EPA in 
the event it resumes operation of the refinery process units and to 
provide emission unit information to EPA. EPA is taking this action 
pursuant to CAA sections 110(c)(1), 301(a), 169A and 169B. EPA 
solicited public comments on the issues discussed in this document and 
considered these comments before taking final action. EPA is 
promulgating 40 CFR 52.2781(d) ``Regional Haze Plan for the Virgin 
Islands National Park.''

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive 
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review

    This action will promulgate requirements for one facility and is 
therefore not a rule of general applicability. This type of action is 
exempt from review under Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 
4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011).

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    This action does not impose an information collection burden under 
the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. 
Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b). Because this FIP only applies to 
one facility, the Paperwork Reduction Act does not apply.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency 
to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to 
notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative 
Procedure Act or any other statute 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 organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions.
    For purposes of assessing the impacts of today's rule on small 
entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business as defined 
by the Small Business Administration's (SBA's) regulations at 13 CFR 
121.201; (2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government of 
a city, county, town, school district or special district with a 
population of less than 50,000; and (3) a small organization that is 
any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated 
and is not dominant in its field.
    After considering the economic impacts of this action on small 
entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The net 
result of this FIP action is that EPA is promulgating emission controls 
on selected units at only one facility. The facility in question is a 
large petroleum refinery that is not owned by a small entity, and 
therefore is not a small entity.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

    This rule does not contain a Federal mandate that may result in 
expenditures of $100 million or more for State, local, and tribal 
governments, in the aggregate, or the private sector in any one year. 
It is a rule of particular applicability that affects only one facility 
in the United States Virgin Islands. Thus, this rule is not subject to 
the requirements of sections 202 or 205 of UMRA.
    This rule is also not subject to the requirements of section 203 of 
UMRA because it contains no regulatory requirements that might 
significantly or uniquely affect small governments. This rule only 
applies to one facility in the United States Virgin Islands.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    This action does not have federalism implications. It 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. This action addresses the United 
States Virgin Islands not meeting its obligation to adopt a SIP that 
meets the regional haze requirements under the CAA. Thus, Executive 
Order 13132 does not apply to this action. Although section 6 of 
Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this action, EPA did consult 
with the Virgin Islands government in developing this action.

F. Executive Order 13175

    This action does not have tribal implications, as specified in 
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the 
action EPA is taking neither imposes substantial direct compliance 
costs on tribal governments,

[[Page 64421]]

nor preempts tribal law. It will not have substantial direct effects on 
tribal government. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this 
action.

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

    EPA interprets EO 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) as applying 
only to those regulatory actions that concern health or safety risks, 
such that the analysis required under section 5-501 of the EO has the 
potential to influence the regulation. This action is not subject to EO 
13045 because it implements specific standards established by Congress 
in statutes. However, to the extent this rule will limit emissions, the 
rule will have a beneficial effect on children's health by reducing air 
pollution.

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

    This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, 
May 22, 2001), because it is not a significant regulatory action under 
Executive Order 12866.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement 
Act of 1995 (``NTTAA''), Public Law 104-113, 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) 
directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory 
activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or 
otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical 
standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling 
procedures, and business practices) that are developed or adopted by 
voluntary consensus standards bodies. NTTAA directs EPA to provide 
Congress, through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides not to use 
available and applicable voluntary consensus standards.
    This action does not involve technical standards. Today's action 
does not require the public to perform activities conducive to the use 
of voluntary consensus standards. Therefore, EPA did not consider the 
use of any voluntary consensus standards.

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental 
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations

    Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994), establishes 
federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision 
directs federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and 
permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission 
by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high 
and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs, 
policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income 
populations in the United States.
    We have determined that this rule will not have disproportionately 
high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority or 
low-income populations because it increases the level of environmental 
protection for all affected populations without having any 
disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental 
effects on any population, including any minority or low-income 
population. This rule has the potential to limit emissions of 
NOX, SO2 and PM2.5 from one facility 
should that facility resume operations.

K. 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. Section 804 exempts from section 801 the following types 
of rules: (1) Rules of particular applicability; (2) rules relating to 
agency management or personnel; and (3) rules of agency organization, 
procedure, or practice that do not substantially affect the rights or 
obligations of non-agency parties. 5 U.S.C. 804(3). EPA is not required 
to submit a rule report regarding today's action under section 801 
because this is a rule of particular applicability.

L. 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 December 21, 2012. Pursuant to CAA section 
307(d)(1)(B), this action is subject to the requirements of CAA section 
307(d) as it promulgates a FIP under CAA section 110(c). 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 CAA section 307(b)(2).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

    Dated: October 15, 2012.
Lisa P. Jackson,
Administrator.

    Part 52, chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is 
amended as follows:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart CCC--Virgin Islands

0
2. Section 52.2781 is amended by adding paragraph (d) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  52.2781  Visibility protection.

* * * * *
    (d) Regional Haze Plan for Virgin Islands National Park. The 
regional haze plan for the Virgin Islands consists of a Federal 
Implementation Plan entitled: ``FEDERAL IMPLEMENTATION PLAN FOR 
REGIONAL HAZE FOR THE UNITED STATES VIRGIN ISLANDS.'' The applicable 
requirements consist of:
    (1) Applicability. This section addresses Clean Air Act 
requirements and EPA's rules to prevent and remedy future and existing 
man-made impairment of visibility in the mandatory Class I area of the 
Virgin Islands National Park through a Regional Haze Program. This 
section applies to the owner and operator of HOVENSA L.L.C. (HOVENSA), 
a petroleum refinery located on St. Croix, U.S. Virgin Islands.
    (2) Definitions. Terms not defined below shall have the meaning 
given them in the Clean Air Act or EPA's regulations implementing the 
Clean Air Act. For purposes of this section: NO X means nitrogen 
oxides.
    Owner/operator means any person who owns, leases, operates, 
controls, or supervises a facility or source identified in paragraph 
(d)(1) of this section.
    PM means particulate matter.
    Process unit means any collection of structures and/or equipment 
that processes, assembles, applies, blends, or otherwise uses material 
inputs to produce or store an intermediate or a

[[Page 64422]]

completed product. A single stationary source may contain more than one 
process unit, and a process unit may contain more than one emissions 
unit. For a petroleum refinery, there are several categories of process 
units that could include: Those that separate and/or distill petroleum 
feedstocks; those that change molecular structures; petroleum treating 
processes; auxiliary facilities, such as steam generators and hydrogen 
production units; and those that load, unload, blend or store 
intermediate or completed products.
    SO 2 means sulfur dioxide.
    Startup means the setting in operation of an affected facility for 
any purpose.
    (3) Reasonable Progress Measures. On June 7, 2011, EPA and HOVENSA 
entered into a Consent Decree (CD) in the U.S. District Court for the 
Virgin Islands to resolve alleged Clean Air Act violations at its St. 
Croix, Virgin Islands facility. The CD requires HOVENSA, among other 
things, to achieve emission limits and install new pollution controls 
pursuant to a schedule for compliance. The measures required by the CD 
reduce emissions of NOX by 5,031 tons per year (tpy) and 
SO2 by 3,460 tpy. The emission limitations, pollution 
controls, schedules for compliance, reporting, and recordkeeping 
provisions of the HOVENSA CD constitute an element of the long term 
strategy and address the reasonable progress provisions of 40 CFR 
51.308(d)(1). Should the existing federally enforceable HOVENSA CD be 
revised, EPA will reevaluate, and if necessary, revise the FIP after 
public notice and comment.
    (4) HOVENSA requirement for notification. HOVENSA must notify EPA 
60 days in advance of startup and resumption of operation of refinery 
process units at the HOVENSA, St. Croix, Virgin Islands facility. 
HOVENSA shall submit such notice to the Director of the Clean Air and 
Sustainability Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 2, 
290 Broadway, 25th Floor, New York, New York, 10007-1866. HOVENSA's 
notification to EPA that it intends to startup refinery process units 
must include information regarding those emission units that will be 
operating, including unit design parameters such as heat input and 
hourly emissions, information on potential to emit limitations, 
pollution controls and control efficiencies, and schedules for 
compliance. EPA will revise the FIP as necessary, after public notice 
and comment, in accordance with regional haze requirements including 
the ``reasonable progress'' provisions in 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1). HOVENSA 
will be required to install any controls that are required by the 
revised FIP as expeditiously as practicable, but no later than 5 years 
after the effective date of the revised FIP.

[FR Doc. 2012-25806 Filed 10-19-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


