Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 127 / Monday, July 2, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 39177 

TABLE TO § 165.506 

[All coordinates listed in the Table to § 165.506 reference Datum NAD 1983] 

Number Date Location Regulated area 

*******

23. ................ July 1st .............................. Broad Bay, Virginia Beach, VA Safety 

Zone.

All Waters of the Broad Bay within a 400 yard radius 

of the fireworks display in approximate position latitude 36°52′08′′ N, longitude 076°00′46′′ W, located 

on the shoreline near Cavalier Golf and Yacht Club, 

Virginia Beach, Virginia. 

Dated: June 11, 2012. 

Mark S. Ogle, 

Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the 

Port Hampton Roads. 

[FR Doc. 2012–16232 Filed 6–28–12; 11:15 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110–04–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R05–OAR–2011–0329; FRL–9683–4] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; Ohio; 

Regional Haze 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is finalizing a limited 

approval of revisions to the Ohio State 

Implementation Plan (SIP), submitted 

on March 11, 2011, addressing regional 

haze for the first implementation period 

that ends 2018. This action is being 

taken in accordance with the 

requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA) 

and EPA’s rules for states to prevent and 

remedy future and existing 

anthropogenic impairment of visibility 

in mandatory Class I areas through a 

regional haze program. 

DATES: This final rule is effective on 

August 1, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket ID 

No. EPA–R05–OAR–2011–0329. All 

documents in the docket are listed on 

the www.regulations.gov Web site. 

Although listed in the index, some 

information is not publicly available, 

i.e., Confidential Business Information 

(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 5, Air and Radiation Division, 

77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, 

Illinois 60604. This facility is open from 

8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through 

Friday, excluding Federal holidays. We 

recommend that you telephone Charles 

Hatten, Environmental Engineer, at 

(312) 886–6031 before visiting the 

Region 5 office. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Charles Hatten, Environmental 

Engineer, Control Strategies Section, Air 

Programs Branch (AR–18J), 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, 

Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 886–6031, 

hatten.charles@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This 

supplementary information section is 

arranged as follows: 

I. Synopsis of Proposed Rule 

II. Public Comments and EPA’s Responses 

III. What action is EPA taking? 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. Synopsis of Proposed Rule 

Ohio submitted a plan to address 

regional haze on March 11, 2011. This 

plan was intended to address the 

requirements in CAA section 169A, and 

interpreted in EPA’s Regional Haze Rule 

as codified at 40 CFR 51.308. This rule 

was promulgated on July 1, 1999 (64 FR 

35713). Further significant provisions 

were promulgated on July 6, 2005, 

providing further guidance on 

provisions related to best available 

retrofit technology (BART). 

EPA proposed a limited approval of 

Ohio’s submittal on January 25, 2012 

(77 FR 3712). The proposal notice 

described the nature of the regional haze 

problem and the statutory and 

regulatory background for EPA’s review 

of Ohio’s regional haze plan. The 

proposal provided a lengthy delineation 

of the requirements that Ohio intended 

to meet and that EPA proposed to 

approve, including requirements for 

mandating BART, consultation with 

other states in establishing goals 

representing reasonable further progress 

in mitigating anthropogenic visibility 

impairment, and adoption of limitations 

as necessary to implement a long term 

strategy (LTS) for reducing visibility 

impairment. 

Of particular interest were EPA’s 

proposed findings regarding BART. 

Using modeling performed by the Lake 

Michigan Air Directors Consortium 

(LADCO), Ohio identified one nonelectric generating unit (non-EGU) 

source, P.H. Glatfelter facility in Ross 

County, as having sufficient visibility 

impact to warrant being subject to a 

requirement representing BART. 

Ohio determined that BART was the 

use of flue gas desulfurization on the 

two BART-subject boilers. P.H. 

Glatfelter then requested limits that 

would allow an alternative strategy. In 

response to P.H. Glatfelter’s request, 

Ohio adopted sulfur dioxide (SO2) 

limits governing the combined 

emissions from P.H. Glatfelter’s boilers 

#7 and #8, with limits requiring flue gas 

desulfurization more stringent than 

BART on individual boilers. In the 

notice of proposed rulemaking, EPA 

proposed to approve Ohio’s alternativeto-BART limits for SO2, and continued 

operation of particulate matter (PM) and 

nitrogen oxide (NOX) controls for P.H. 

Glatfelter. These limits are enforceable 

at P.H. Glatfelter in a permit issued by 

Ohio. EPA proposed that Ohio’s new, 

tighter emission limits for the Glatfelter 

facility in Ross County satisfies the 

BART requirements for non-EGUs. 

II. Public Comments and EPA’s 

Responses 

The publication of EPA’s proposed 

rule on January 25, 2012 (77 FR 3712) 

initiated a 30-day public comment 

period that ended on February 24, 2012. 

During that public comment period we 

received comments from the United 

States Forest Service (FS), the United 

States National Park Service (NPS), the 

Ohio Utility Group, and Earth Justice 

(on behalf of conservation organizations 

representing the National Parks 

Conservation Association, Natural 

Resources Defense Council, and the 

Sierra Club) on the proposed 

rulemaking on the Ohio regional haze 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES
39178 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 127 / Monday, July 2, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

1MANE–VU’s document entitled ‘‘Assessment of 

Reasonable Progress for Regional Haze in MANE– 

VU Class I Areas—Methodology for Source 

Selection, Evaluation of Control Options, and Four 

Factor Analysis, July 2007’’ requests states outside 

of the MANE–VU area to examine controls for 

specific types of sources (i.e., ‘‘MANE–VU Ask’’). 

plan. For convenience, comments from 

Earthjustice will be labeled hereafter as 

comments by the ‘‘conservation 

organizations.’’ These comments and 

EPA’s responses are addressed in detail 

below. 

Comment #1: FS and NPS 

recommended additional review of the 

BART determination for P.H. Glatfelter. 

The commenters assert that the 

alternative BART determination for P.H. 

Glatfelter, boilers #7 and #8, may not 

result in equivalent reduction in SO2

emissions compared to application of 

BART. NPS commented that the SO2

emission limit of 24,930 pounds per day 

(4,550 tons per year), represents only a 

77 percent reduction from 2002 

emission rates. NPS agrees with Ohio’s 

determination that P.H. Glatfelter’s 

alternative BART approach to include a 

process capable of 90 percent SO2

removal was appropriate. However, NPS 

believes that because P.H. Glatfelter 

could also choose to operate its boilers 

at reduced capacity or shut down one 

boiler, and still meet the emission limit 

with no additional control of SO2, this 

does not meet the intent of the BART 

regulation. Thus, NPS recommends that 

in addition to the daily maximum SO2

emission rate, Ohio also set a 30-day 

rolling average SO2 limit that would be 

equivalent to a continuous 90 percent 

emissions reduction to reflect the 

performance capability of the control 

equipment. The conservation 

organizations raise similar concerns. 

Response #1: EPA believes that Ohio 

has used an adequate representation of 

emissions for the baseline period. EPA 

believes further that Ohio’s alternative 

BART limit for SO2 is slightly more 

stringent than what BART would 

achieve. Therefore, EPA believes that 

Ohio’s limit is sufficiently stringent to 

satisfy requirements for BART for this 

source. EPA believes that the alternative 

BART limit, expressed as a daily 

emission limit, mandates control that is 

slightly more stringent than BART. 

Consequently, EPA does not believe that 

the daily limit needs to be 

supplemented with a 30-day limit. 

Comment #2: The Ohio Utility Group 

recommends that EPA should fully 

approve the State of Ohio’s Regional 

Haze SIP revision submitted on March 

11, 2011, for the following reasons: (1) 

The SIP revision is consistent with the 

regional haze rule, (2) the Clean Air 

Interstate Rule (CAIR) is in place, and 

(3) Ohio will continue to reduce 

emissions under CAIR. Additionally, 

EPA should approve Ohio’s Regional 

Haze SIP as a result of the U.S. District 

Court’s decision on December 30, 2011, 

to ‘stay’ the Cross-State Air Pollution 

Rule (CSAPR). Since the court’s 

decision states that EPA should 

continue administering CAIR pending 

resolution of the appeal, EPA should 

approve Ohio’s regional haze SIP as 

submitted and rescind its partial 

disapproval, or let Ohio revise its SIP 

later when EPA finalizes action on other 

(rules) such as CSAPR. 

Conversely, the conservation 

organizations comment that EPA must 

disapprove Ohio’s Haze SIP because the 

state plan improperly relies on CAIR 

instead of requiring BART limits for 

coal-fired power plants. Specifically, the 

conservation organizations comment, 

‘‘Because of the deficiencies identified 

in CAIR by the court and the impact of 

the Transport Rule on CAIR, it is 

inappropriate to fully approve states 

with LTS’s that rely upon the emissions 

reductions predicted to result from 

CAIR to meet BART requirement for 

EGU’s or to meet the reasonable 

progress goals (RPGs) in the states’ 

regional haze SIPs.’’ The conservation 

organizations comment that this 

shortcoming cannot be corrected 

through reliance on CSAPR. 

Response #2: On December 30, 2011, 

EPA proposed to find that the trading 

programs of CSAPR can substitute for 

source-specific BART for EGUs in the 

states covered by CSAPR requirements 

(including Ohio) (76 FR 82219). The 

preamble to that action details EPA’s 

position on the relationship between 

state SIPs that have relied on CAIR, 

CSAPR, and the CSAPR stay. EPA is 

responding to similar comments in the 

context of that rulemaking. 

Comment #3: The conservation 

organizations assert that Ohio’s regional 

haze plan does not ensure that Ohio will 

do its part to reduce visibility impacts 

to Class I areas in other states. The 

conservation organizations find that 

Ohio’s plan does not provide reasonable 

progress and note that Ohio’s plan fails 

to satisfy the ‘‘Mid-Atlantic/Northeast 

Visibility Union (MANE–VU) Ask.1’’ 

The conservation organizations list a 

number of controls sought by MANE– 

VU (‘‘the MANE–VU ask’’), including 90 

percent control of SO2 from each of 167 

stacks in 19 states, 28 percent control of 

non-EGU SO2 emissions, and 

consideration of other measures. The 

conservation organizations acknowledge 

Ohio’s response to these requests but 

find Ohio’s response inadequate, for 

example finding that the power plant 

controls cited by Ohio do not 

necessarily reduce emissions by 90 

percent, and finding that the plant 

shutdowns cited by Ohio are not legally 

binding. 

Response #3: As noted in the 

proposed rulemaking for this action, 

specifically in section IV. C— 

Reasonable Progress Goals, Class I states 

must set RPGs that achieve reasonable 

progress toward achieving natural 

visibility conditions. However, Ohio 

does not have any Class I areas, so it 

does not need to set RPGs. In 

accordance with 40 CFR 51.308(d)(i), 

Ohio did consult with affected Class I 

states through the Midwest Regional 

Planning Organization (MRPO) to 

ensure that it achieves its fair share of 

the overall emission reductions 

necessary to achieve the RPGs of Class 

I areas that it affects. Minutes from these 

calls can be found on MRPO’s Web site 

at http://www.ladco.org/report/rpo/ 

consultation/index.php. [See section 11 

of Ohio’s plan.] EPA believes that Ohio 

has conducted a suitable analysis of the 

measures that might be considered 

reasonable and has included an 

appropriate set of measures in its long 

term strategy for addressing reasonable 

progress requirements. 

Regarding MANE–VU’s ‘‘ask,’’ the 

letters sent in 2007 from MANE–VU 

invited Ohio to participate in future 

consultation meetings where emissions 

from the state are reasonably anticipated 

to contribute to visibility impairment in 

Class I areas outside the state. The 

states’ letters cite to the report entitled, 

Contributions to Regional Haze in the 

Northeast and Mid-Atlantic United 

States, NESCAUM, August 2006, 

http://www.nescaum.org/documents/ 

contributions-to-regional-haze-in-thenortheast-and-mid-atlantic—unitedstates/. 

A consultation summary was 

provided by MANE–VU on August 6, 

2007. In October 2007, Ohio responded 

noting that a number of the stacks from 

the 14 sources located in Ohio and 

listed by the MANE–VU in the ‘‘ask’’ 

had already installed or were planning 

to install scrubbers, which Ohio EPA 

deemed to be sufficient progress 

towards MANE–VU‘s request. Section 

10.2 of Ohio’s plan discusses MANE– 

VU’s request in greater detail and 

describes control measures 

implemented that provide for further 

reduction in emission from Ohio 

sources identified compared to the 2002 

emissions used by MANE–VU. Based on 

more recent modeling for MANE–VU 

(http://www.nescaum.org/topics/ 

regional-haze/regional-hazedocuments), for projecting visibility in 

2018 (‘‘2018 Visibility Projections,’’ May 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 127 / Monday, July 2, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 39179 

13, 2018), MANE–VU found the 

‘‘uniform rate is achieved and exceeded 

at all MANE–VU Class I sites.’’ 

EPA’s primary criterion for judging 

the adequacy of Ohio’s long-term 

strategy for addressing reasonable 

progress requirements is based more on 

the collective set of measures rather 

than on individual mandates at 

individual facilities. Ohio’s plan 

includes substantial reductions at a 

broader set of facilities than the 14 

facilities noted by the commenters. The 

shutdown of facilities may be 

considered to be a compliance strategy 

for meeting the CSAPR requirement for 

emission reductions, and EPA finds 

these reductions may plausibly be 

considered an outcome of CAIR 

requirements notwithstanding the 

absence of a legal mandate for the plants 

not to operate. Irrespective of whether 

any individual plant achieves 90 

percent reduction, and irrespective of 

whether plants listed by MANE–VU 

remain uncontrolled and other plants 

are controlled instead, EPA believes that 

the set of reductions in Ohio’s plan 

suffice to provide its share of reductions 

toward satisfying reasonable progress 

goals. 

Comment #4: The conservation 

organizations objected to Ohio’s 

exclusion of EGUs from being subject to 

source-specific BART requirements. 

Response #4: The commenters are 

referring to action taken in a separate 

rulemaking, proposed on December 30, 

2011, at 76 FR 82219. [See description 

of action in Response #2] EPA directs 

the commenters to that action for EPA’s 

determination regarding state SIPs that 

have relied on CAIR. 

Comment #5: The conservation 

organizations found minimal detail in 

the permit for the P.H. Glatfelter facility. 

In their opinion, ‘‘EPA should reserve 

final approval of the permit * * * until 

the Agency has had the opportunity to 

review and provide feedback on the 

compliance plan submitted by the 

company.’’ 

Response #5: EPA is under a consent 

decree obligation to act on the permit 

for the P.H. Glatfelter facility by May 30, 

2012. EPA believes that it has sufficient 

information to warrant approving the 

permit now. EPA believes that Ohio has 

made an appropriate determination of 

the control measures that represent 

BART at this facility. Ohio has 

established a limit on SO2 emissions 

from P.H. Glatfelter facility that allows 

the company flexibility in how it 

complies with the limit but still 

mandates slightly greater emission 

reduction than would be achieved with 

direct application of BART. EPA 

believes further that this permit satisfies 

the BART requirement without need for 

EPA review of the details of the 

approach by which P.H. Glatfelter meets 

this limit. 

Comment #6: The conservation 

organizations believe that Glatfelter 

‘‘significantly overestimated the per ton 

cost of SO2 controls by amortizing the 

capital cost of the controls over only 10 

years at a rate of 15 percent.’’ 

Response #6: EPA agrees that 

amortizing the capital cost of controls 

over 10 years and using a 15 percent 

interest rate yields a substantially 

overstated estimate of the annualized 

capital costs. However, the conservation 

organizations do not assert that 

correction of the cost estimate would 

change the appropriate BART 

determination for this facility. In fact, 

Ohio selected the most stringent control 

option as BART. The overstatement of 

costs did not result in elimination of 

any control options or selection of a less 

stringent control option. Therefore, EPA 

believes that Ohio has mandated an 

appropriate BART requirement for this 

facility notwithstanding the company’s 

overestimate of the cost of control. 

Comment #7: The conservation 

organizations question the methodology 

upon which Ohio relied to exempt 

sources from BART and request that 

EPA review this methodology. 

Response #7: EPA reexamined Ohio’s 

methodology, as requested, and 

reaffirms its conclusion that Ohio’s 

analysis reflects an acceptable 

methodology that does not wrongly 

exclude any sources that should have 

been subject to BART. 

Comment #8: The conservation 

organizations assert that the proposed 

actions are illegal and invalid, as the 

CAA does not provide EPA with 

authority to issue ‘‘limited approvals’’ 

or ‘‘limited disapprovals.’’ The 

conservation organizations contend that 

section 110(k) of CAA only allows EPA 

to fully approve, partially approve and 

partially disapprove, conditionally 

approve, or fully disapprove a SIP. 

Response #8: EPA disagrees with the 

conservation organizations assertions. 

Although section 110(k) of the CAA may 

not expressly provide authority for 

limited approvals, the plain language of 

section 301(a) does provide ‘‘gapfilling’’ authority authorizing the 

Agency to ‘‘prescribe such regulations 

as are necessary to carry out’’ EPA’s 

CAA functions. EPA may rely on section 

301(a) in conjunction with the Agency’s 

SIP approval authority in section 

110(k)(3) to issue limited approvals 

where it has determined that a submittal 

strengthens a given state SIP and that 

the provisions meeting the applicable 

requirements of CAA are not separable 

from the provisions that do not meet 

CAA’s requirements. EPA’s limited 

approval of Ohio’s SIP revision 

addressing regional haze is appropriate 

because it addresses regional haze rule 

requirements and approvable provisions 

are not separable from the provisions 

that do not meet CAA’s requirements. 

As explained in the September 7, 

1992, EPA Memorandum from John 

Calcagni, ‘‘through a limited approval, 

EPA [will] concurrently, or within a 

reasonable period of time thereafter, 

disapprove the rule * * * for not 

meeting all of the applicable 

requirements of the Act. * * * [T]he 

limited disapproval is a rulemaking 

action, and it is subject to notice and 

comment.’’ In a separate action, 

published December 30, 2011 (76 FR 

82219), EPA did in fact propose a 

limited disapproval of the Ohio regional 

haze SIP for the SIPs reliance on CAIR. 

III. What action is EPA taking? 

EPA is finalizing a limited approval of 

Ohio’s regional haze plan. EPA is 

approving Ohio’s plan for BART for 

non-EGUs, mostly notably approving 

limits satisfying BART requirements for 

P.H. Glatfelter. EPA also concludes that 

Ohio’s submission provides an 

approvable analysis of the emission 

reductions needed to satisfy reasonable 

progress and other regional haze 

planning requirements, and Ohio’s 

submission meets other regional haze 

planning requirements such as 

identification of affected Class I areas 

and provision of a monitoring plan. 

Therefore, EPA is finalizing limited 

approval of Ohio’s regional haze plan as 

strengthening the SIP and helping 

address regional haze for the first 

implementation period by helping 

remedy any existing anthropogenic and 

prevent future impairment of visibility 

at Class I areas. 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the CAA, the Administrator is 

required to approve a SIP submission 

that complies with the provisions of the 

CAA and applicable Federal regulations. 

42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). 

Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, 

EPA’s role is to approve state choices, 

provided that they meet the criteria of 

the CAA. Accordingly, this action 

merely approves state law as meeting 

Federal requirements and does not 

impose additional requirements beyond 

those imposed by state law. For that 

reason, this action: 

• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ subject to review by the Office 

of Management and Budget under 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES
39180 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 127 / Monday, July 2, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993); 

• Does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.); 

• Is certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

U.S.C. 601 et seq.); 

• Does not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); 

• Does not have Federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• Is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); 

• Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); 

• Is not subject to requirements of 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because 

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the CAA; and 

• Does not provide EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address, as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable and legally permissible 

methods, under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

In addition, this rule does not have 

tribal implications as specified by 

Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, 

November 9, 2000), because the SIP is 

not approved to apply in Indian country 

located in the state, and EPA notes that 

it will not impose substantial direct 

costs on tribal governments or preempt 

tribal law. 

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 CAA, 

petitions for judicial review of this 

action must be filed in the United States 

Court of Appeals for the appropriate 

circuit by August 31, 2012. Filing a 

petition for reconsideration by the 

Administrator of this final rule does not 

affect the finality of this action for the 

purposes of judicial review nor does it 

extend the time within which a petition 

for judicial review may be filed, and 

shall not postpone the effectiveness of 

such rule or action. This action may not 

be challenged later in proceedings to 

enforce its requirements. (See section 

307(b)(2).) 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Nitrogen dioxide, Particulate matter, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Sulfur oxides. 

Dated: May 29, 2012. 

Susan Hedman, 

Regional Administrator, Region 5. 

40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows: 

PART 52—[AMENDED] 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 52 

continues to read as follows: 

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

Subpart KK—Ohio 

■ 2. Section 52.1870 is amended by 

adding paragraph (c)(155) to read as 

follows: 

§ 52.1870 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(155) On March 11, 2011, the Ohio 

Environmental Protection Agency 

submitted Ohio’s regional haze plan 

addressing the first implementation 

period of the regional haze rule 

requirements. This plan includes a longterm strategy with emission limits for 

mandating emission reductions 

equivalent to the reductions from 

implement best available retrofit 

technology and with emission 

reductions to provide Ohio’s 

contribution toward achievement of 

reasonable progress goals at Class I areas 

affected by Ohio. The plan specifically 

satisfies BART requirements for nonEGUs, most notably by providing new, 

tighter emission limits for the P.H. 

Glatfelter facility in Ross County, Ohio. 

The plan establishes a combined daily 

sulfur dioxide emission limit of 24,930 

pounds per day for boiler #7 and #8. 

The plan also includes permit number 

P0103673 that will impose these 

emission limitations on P.H. Glatfelter 

Company. 

(i) Incorporation by reference. 

(A) Permit-to-Install Number 

P0103673, issued to P.H. Glatfelter 

Company—Chillicothe Facility by the 

Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, 

signed by Scott J. Nally and effective on 

March 7, 2011. 

[FR Doc. 2012–16033 Filed 6–29–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2012–0236; FRL–9690–9] 

Withdrawal of Direct Final Rule 

Revising the California State 

Implementation Plan, South Coast Air 

Quality Management District 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Withdrawal of direct final rule. 

SUMMARY: On June 1, 2012 (77 FR 

32398), EPA published a direct final 

approval of a revision to the California 

State Implementation Plan (SIP). This 

revision concerned South Coast Air 

Quality Management District 

(SCAQMD) Rule 1156, Further 

Reductions of Particulate Emissions 

from Cement Manufacturing Facilities. 

The direct final action was published 

without prior proposal because EPA 

anticipated no adverse comment. The 

direct final rule stated that if adverse 

comments were received by July 2, 

2012, EPA would publish a timely 

withdrawal in the Federal Register. EPA 

received a timely adverse comment. 

Consequently, with this revision we are 

withdrawing the direct final approval of 

SCAQMD Rule 1156. EPA will either 

address the comment in a subsequent 

final action based on the parallel 

proposal also published on June 1, 2012 

(77 FR 32398), or repropose an 

alternative action. As stated in the 

parallel proposal, EPA will not institute 

a second comment period on a 

subsequent final action. 

DATES: The addition of 40 CFR 52.220 

(c)(362)(i)(B)(2) published at 77 FR 

32398 on June 1, 2012 is withdrawn as 

of July 2, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established docket 

number EPA–R09–OAR–2012–0236 for 

this action. Generally, documents in the 

docket for this action are available 

electronically at www.regulations.gov 

and in hard copy at EPA Region IX, 75 

Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, 

California. While all documents in the 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES