79574 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 246 / Thursday, December 22, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

Protection of Children 

We have analyzed this proposed rule 

under Executive Order 13045, 

Protection of Children from 

Environmental Health Risks and Safety 

Risks. This proposed rule is not an 

economically significant rule and would 

not create an environmental risk to 

health or risk to safety that might 

disproportionately affect children. 

Indian Tribal Governments 

This proposed rule does not have 

Tribal implications under Executive 

Order 13175, Consultation and 

Coordination with Indian Tribal 

Governments, because it would not have 

a substantial direct effect on one or 

more Indian Tribes, on the relationship 

between the Federal Government and 

Indian Tribes, or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities between the 

Federal Government and Indian Tribes. 

Energy Effects 

We have analyzed this proposed rule 

under Executive Order 13211, Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use. We have 

determined that it is not a ‘‘significant 

energy action’’ under that order because 

it is not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ 

under Executive Order 12866 and is not 

likely to have a significant adverse effect 

on the supply, distribution, or use of 

energy. The Administrator of the Office 

of Information and Regulatory Affairs 

has not designated it as a significant 

energy action. Therefore, it does not 

require a Statement of Energy Effects 

under Executive Order 13211. 

Technical Standards 

The National Technology Transfer 

and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 

U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use 

voluntary consensus standards in their 

regulatory activities unless the agency 

provides Congress, through the Office of 

Management and Budget, with an 

explanation of why using these 

standards would be inconsistent with 

applicable law or otherwise impractical. 

Voluntary consensus standards are 

technical standards (e.g., specifications 

of materials, performance, design, or 

operation; test methods; sampling 

procedures; and related management 

systems practices) that are developed or 

adopted by voluntary consensus 

standards bodies. 

This proposed rule does not use 

technical standards. Therefore, we did 

not consider the use of voluntary 

consensus standards. 

Environment 

We have analyzed this proposed rule 

under Department of Homeland 

Security Management Directive 023–01 

and Commandant Instruction 

M16475.lD, which guide the Coast 

Guard in complying with the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

(NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321–4370f), and 

have made a preliminary determination 

that this action is one of a category of 

actions that do not individually or 

cumulatively have a significant effect on 

the human environment. This proposed 

rule involves establishing special local 

regulations issued in conjunction with a 

marine parade, as described in figure 2– 

1, paragraph (34)(h), of the Instruction. 

Under figure 2–1, paragraph (34)(h), of 

the Instruction, an environmental 

analysis checklist and a categorical 

exclusion determination are not 

required for this proposed rule. We seek 

any comments or information that may 

lead to the discovery of a significant 

environmental impact from this 

proposed rule. 

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 100 

Marine safety, Navigation (water), 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Waterways. 

For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to 

amend 33 CFR part 100 as follows: 

PART 100—SAFETY OF LIFE ON 

NAVIGABLE WATERS 

1. The authority citation for part 100 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1233. 

2. Add a temporary § 100.T07–1095 to 

read as follows: 

§ 100.T07–1095 Special Local Regulations; 

Patriot Challenge Kayak Race, Ashley River, 

Charleston, SC. 

(a) Regulated Areas. The following 

buffer zones are regulated areas during 

the Patriot Challenge Kayak Race: (1) All 

waters within 75 yards of the lead safety 

vessel; (2) all waters within 75 yards of 

the last safety vessel; and (3) all waters 

within 100 yards of all other 

participating vessels, including kayaks, 

canoes, and paddleboards. The 

identities of the lead safety vessel and 

the last safety vessel will be provided 

prior to the Patriot Challenge Kayak 

Race by Local Notice to Mariners and 

Broadcast Notice to Mariners. The race 

will begin at Brittlebank Park, transit 

southeast the Ashley River, head north 

between Shutes Folly Island and the 

Charleston peninsula, and then turn 

around in Tidewater Reach. The race 

will return to Brittlebank Park by the 

same route. 

(b) Definition. The term ‘‘designated 

representative’’ means Coast Guard 

Patrol Commanders, including Coast 

Guard coxswains, petty officers, and 

other officers operating Coast Guard 

vessels, and Federal, state, and local 

officers designated by or assisting the 

Captain of the Port Charleston in the 

enforcement of the regulated areas. 

(c) Regulations. 

(1) All persons and vessels are 

prohibited from entering, transiting 

through, anchoring in, or remaining 

within the regulated areas unless 

authorized by the Captain of the Port 

Charleston or a designated 

representative. 

(2) Persons and vessels desiring to 

enter, transit through, anchor in, or 

remain within the regulated areas may 

contact the Captain of the Port 

Charleston by telephone at (843) 740– 

7050, or a designated representative via 

VHF radio on channel 16, to request 

authorization. If authorization to enter, 

transit through, anchor in, or remain 

within the regulated areas is granted by 

the Captain of the Port Charleston or a 

designated representative, all persons 

and vessels receiving such authorization 

must comply with the instructions of 

the Captain of the Port Charleston or a 

designated representative. 

(3) The Coast Guard will provide 

notice of the regulated areas by Local 

Notice to Mariners, Broadcast Notice to 

Mariners, and on-scene designated 

representatives. 

(d) Enforcement Date. This rule will 

be enforced from 12:30 p.m. until 3:30 

p.m. on April 28, 2012. 

Dated: December 5, 2011. 

M.F. White, 

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

Port Charleston. 

[FR Doc. 2011–32850 Filed 12–21–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110–04–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–HQ–OAR–2011–0081; FRL–9609–5] 

RIN 2060–AQ69 

Revisions to Final Response to 

Petition From New Jersey Regarding 

SO2 Emissions From the Portland 

Generating Station 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 246 / Thursday, December 22, 2011 / Proposed Rules 79575 

SUMMARY: This action proposes to 

amend the preamble and regulatory text 

to the Final Response to Petition From 

New Jersey Regarding SO2 Emissions 

From the Portland Generating Station 

(Portland) published November 7, 2011, 

to revise minor misstatements. These 

revisions clarify the EPA’s finding that 

Portland significantly contributes to 

nonattainment or interferes with 

maintenance of the 1-hour sulfur 

dioxide (SO2) national ambient air 

quality standard (NAAQS) in the State 

of New Jersey, and not in specific 

counties within the state. These 

revisions have no impact on any other 

provisions of the rule. 

DATES: Comments. Written comment 

must be received on or before February 

21, 2012. 

Public Hearing: If a public hearing on 

this proposal is requested by December 

29, 2011, it will be held on January 11, 

2012, at 9 a.m. at the U.S. EPA Region 

3 Regional Office, 1650 Arch Street, 

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103– 

2029. Please refer to SUPPLEMENTARY

INFORMATION for additional information 

on the comment period and the public 

hearing. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2011–0081, by one of the 

following methods: 

• www.regulations.gov: Follow the 

on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

• Email: a-and-r-docket@epa.gov. 

Attention Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2011–0081. 

• Fax: (202) 566–9744. Attention 

Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2011– 

0081. 

• Mail: EPA Docket Center, EPA West 

(Air Docket), Attention Docket ID No. 

EPA–HQ–OAR–2011–0081, 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Mailcode: 2822T, 1200 Pennsylvania 

Ave., NW. Washington, DC 20460. 

• Hand Delivery: EPA Docket Center 

(Air Docket), Attention Docket ID No. 

EPA–HQ–OAR–2011–0081, 

Environmental Protection Agency, 1301 

Constitution Avenue NW., Room 3334, 

Washington, DC. Such deliveries are 

only accepted during the Docket’s 

normal hours of operation, and special 

arrangements should be made for 

deliveries of boxed information. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2011– 

0081. The EPA’s policy is that all 

comments received will be included in 

the public docket without change and 

may be made available online at 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided, unless 

the comment includes information 

claimed to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Do not submit information that you 

consider to be CBI or otherwise 

protected through www.regulations.gov 

or email. The www.regulations.gov Web 

site is an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, 

which means the EPA will not know 

your identity or contact information 

unless you provide it in the body of 

your comment. If you send an email 

comment directly to the EPA without 

going through www.regulations.gov, 

your email address will be 

automatically captured and included as 

part of the comment that is placed in the 

public docket and made available on the 

Internet. If you submit an electronic 

comment, the EPA recommends that 

you include your name and other 

contact information in the body of your 

comment and with any disk or CD–ROM 

you submit. If the EPA cannot read your 

comment due to technical difficulties 

and cannot contact you for clarification, 

the EPA may not be able to consider 

your comment. Electronic files should 

avoid the use of special characters and 

any form of encryption, and be free of 

any defects or viruses. For additional 

information about the EPA’s public 

docket, visit the EPA Docket Center 

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

epahome/dockets.htm. 

Docket: All documents in the docket 

are listed in the www.regulations.gov 

index. 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, will be publicly 

available only in hard copy. Publicly 

available docket materials are available 

either electronically in 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the EPA Docket Center EPA/DC, EPA 

West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution 

Ave. NW., Washington, DC. 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 EPA Docket Center is 

(202) 566–1742. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. 

Todd Hawes (919) 541–5591, 

hawes.todd@epa.gov, or Ms. Gobeail 

McKinley (919) 541–5246, 

mckinley.gobeail@epa.gov, Office of Air 

Quality Planning and Standards, Air 

Quality Policy Division, Mail Code 

C539–04, Research Triangle Park, NC 

27711. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. General Information 

A. Why is the EPA issuing this proposed 

rule? 

This document proposes minor 

amendments to the Final Response to 

Petition From New Jersey Regarding SO2

Emissions From the Portland Generating 

Station (See 76 FR 69052). We have 

published a direct final rule, making 

minor modifications to that rule in the 

‘‘Rules and Regulations’’ section of this 

Federal Register because we view this 

as a noncontroversial action and 

anticipate no adverse comment. We 

have explained our reasons for this 

action in the preamble to the direct final 

rule. 

If we receive no adverse comment, we 

will not take further action on this 

proposed rule. If we receive adverse 

comment, we will withdraw the direct 

final rule and it will not take effect. We 

would address all public comments in 

any subsequent final rule based on this 

proposed rule. We do not intend to 

institute a second comment period on 

this action. Any parties interested in 

commenting must do so at this time. For 

further information, please see the 

information provided in the ADDRESSES

section of this document. 

B. Where can I get a copy of this 

document and other related 

information? 

In addition to being available in the 

docket, an electronic copy of this 

proposal will also be available on the 

World Wide Web. Following signature 

by the EPA Administrator, a copy of this 

action will be posted on the EPA’s Web 

site www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/new.html. 

C. What should I consider as I prepare 

my comments for EPA? 

1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this 

information to EPA through 

www.regulations.gov or email. Clearly 

mark the part or all of the information 

that you claim to be CBI. For CBI 

information in a disk or CD–ROM that 

you mail to the EPA, mark the outside 

of the disk or CD–ROM as CBI and then 

identify electronically within the disk or 

CD–ROM the specific information that 

is claimed as CBI. In addition to one 

complete version of the comment that 

includes information claimed as CBI, a 

copy of the comment that does not 

contain the information claimed as CBI 

must be submitted for inclusion in the 

public docket. Information so marked 

will not be disclosed except in 

accordance with procedures set forth in 

40 CFR part 2. Send or deliver 

information identified as CBI only to the 

following address: Roberto Morales, 

OAQPS Document Control Officer 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
79576 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 246 / Thursday, December 22, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

(C404–02), U.S. EPA, Research Triangle 

Park, NC 27711, Attention Docket ID 

No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2011–0081. 

2. Tips for preparing your comments. 

When submitting comments, remember 

to: 

• Identify the rulemaking by docket 

number and other identifying 

information (subject heading, Federal 

Register date and page number). 

• Follow directions—The agency may 

ask you to respond to specific questions 

or organize comments by referencing a 

Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 

or section number. 

• Explain why you agree or disagree; 

suggest alternatives and substitute 

language for your requested changes. 

• Describe any assumptions and 

provide any technical information and/ 

or data that you used. 

• If you estimate potential costs or 

burdens, explain how you arrived at 

your estimate in sufficient detail to 

allow for it to be reproduced. 

• Provide specific examples to 

illustrate your concerns, and suggest 

alternatives. 

• Explain your views as clearly as 

possible, avoiding the use of profanity 

or personal threats. 

• Make sure to submit your 

comments by the comment period 

deadline identified. 

D. How can I find information about a 

public hearing? 

The public hearing, if requested by 

December 29, 2011, will be held on 

January 11, 2012, at the EPA Region 3 

Regional Office, 1650 Arch Street, 

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103–2029 

from 9 a.m. until the last registered 

speaker has spoken. The EPA will make 

every effort to accommodate all speakers 

that arrive and register before 12 noon. 

Oral testimony will be limited to 5 

minutes per commenter. The EPA 

encourages commenters to provide 

written versions of their oral testimonies 

either electronically or in paper copy. 

Verbatim transcripts and written 

statements will be included in the 

rulemaking docket. If you would like to 

present oral testimony at the hearing, 

please notify Ms. Pam S. Long, Air 

Quality Policy Division (C504–03), U.S. 

EPA, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, 

telephone number (919) 541–0641, 

long.pam@epa.gov. Persons interested 

in presenting oral testimony should 

notify Ms. Long at least 1 day in 

advance of the public hearing. The last 

day to register will be January 10, 2012. 

If using email to register, please provide 

the following information: Name, 

affiliation, address, email address, and 

telephone and fax numbers. 

Commenters should also notify Ms. 

Long if they will need specific 

equipment, or if there are other special 

needs related to providing comments at 

the public hearing. The EPA will 

provide equipment for commenters to 

show overhead slides or make 

computerized slide presentations if we 

receive special requests in advance. The 

EPA encourages commenters to provide 

a copy of their oral testimony 

electronically (via email or CD) or in 

hard copy form. For updates and 

additional information on the public 

hearing, please check EPA’s Web site for 

this rulemaking, www.epa.gov/ttn/ 

oarpg/new.html. The public hearing will 

provide interested parties the 

opportunity to present data, views, or 

arguments concerning the proposed 

rule. The EPA may ask clarifying 

questions during the oral presentations, 

but will not respond to the 

presentations or comments at that time. 

Written statements and supporting 

information submitted during the 

comment period will be considered 

with the same weight as any oral 

comments and supporting information 

presented at a public hearing. 

E. How is the preamble organized? 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. General Information 

A. Why is the EPA issuing this proposed 

rule? 

B. Where can I get a copy of this document 

and other related information? 

C. What should I consider as I prepare my 

comments for EPA? 

D. How can I find information about a 

public hearing? 

E. How is the preamble organized? 

II. Specific Revisions 

III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review and Executive 

Order 13563: Improving Regulation and 

Regulatory Review 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

and Safety Risks 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions 

To Address Environmental Justice in 

Minority Populations and Low-Income 

Populations 

II. Specific Revisions 

The preamble and rule text to the 

Final Response to Petition From New 

Jersey Regarding SO2 Emissions From 

the Portland Generating Station (See FR 

76 69052) contain minor misstatements 

that the EPA is proposing to revise in 

this action. In the preamble section 

IV.A, Summary of the Modeling for the 

Proposed Rule, the EPA inadvertently 

referred to four specific counties in New 

Jersey when discussing violations of the 

1-hour SO2 NAAQS. The statement 

reads, ‘‘The EPA also modeled the 

emissions from Portland using the 

AERMOD dispersion model and 

determined that the modeled 

concentrations from Portland, when 

combined with the relatively low 

background concentrations, cause 

violations of the 1-hour SO2 NAAQS in 

Morris, Sussex, Warren and Hunterdon 

Counties in New Jersey.’’ This 

conclusion is not correctly stated as the 

EPA’s modeling did not separately 

examine air quality in each of the four 

counties identified. A more accurate 

description of the EPA’s conclusion was 

presented in the April 7, 2011, proposal 

which did not refer to those counties in 

our explanations of the modeling 

results. Furthermore, between proposal 

and promulgation, the EPA did not 

separately examine each of the four 

counties identified, so in the final rule 

there was no reason to change this 

proposed description to specifically list 

counties. Therefore, we are now 

proposing to revise the statement in the 

November 7, 2011, final rule preamble 

to be consistent with the description in 

the April 7, 2011, proposal by removing 

the references to Morris, Sussex, 

Warren, and Hunterdon Counties. We 

propose that the statement will now 

read, ‘‘The EPA also modeled the 

emissions from Portland using the 

AERMOD dispersion model and 

determined that the modeled 

concentrations from Portland, when 

combined with the relatively low 

background concentrations, cause 

violations of the 1-hour SO2 NAAQS in 

New Jersey.’’ 

Similarly, in the rule text, Part 52— 

[Amended], Subpart NN—Pennsylvania, 

section 52.2039 in 40 CFR part 52, of the 

final rule, the EPA inadvertently 

referred to those same four counties in 

describing the finding of significant 

contribution to nonattainment and 

interference with maintenance of the 

1-hour SO2 NAAQS. The provision 

reads, ‘‘The EPA has made a finding 

pursuant to section 126 of the Clean Air 

Act (the Act) that emissions of sulfur 

dioxide (SO2) from the Portland 

Generating Station in Northampton 

County, Upper Mount Bethel Township, 

Pennsylvania (Portland) significantly 

contribute to nonattainment and 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 246 / Thursday, December 22, 2011 / Proposed Rules 79577 

interfere with maintenance of the 1-hour 

SO2 national ambient air quality 

standard (NAAQS) in Morris, Sussex, 

Warren, and Hunterdon Counties in 

New Jersey.’’ We propose that the rule 

text now read, ‘‘The EPA has made a 

finding pursuant to section 126 of the 

Clean Air Act (the Act) that emissions 

of sulfur dioxide (SO2) from the 

Portland Generating Station in 

Northampton County, Upper Mount 

Bethel Township, Pennsylvania 

(Portland) significantly contribute to 

nonattainment and interfere with 

maintenance of the 1-hour SO2 national 

ambient air quality standard (NAAQS) 

in New Jersey.’’ 

Although the New Jersey Department 

of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) 

modeling analysis submitted with the 

September 2010 petition identified 

NAAQS violations at receptors in 

certain counties, the purpose of the EPA 

modeling was not to identify or 

corroborate the entire geographic 

footprint of the violations in New Jersey. 

The EPA modeling analysis was 

conducted for the purpose of 

corroborating the existence of NAAQS 

violations in New Jersey caused by 

Portland and for determining the 

remedy needed to eliminate all NAAQS 

violations caused by Portland. The EPA 

modeling thus focused upon identifying 

only the area where the maximum 

concentration was expected to occur. 

We used the same receptor grid for the 

final rule as for the proposed rule, 

which was focused on the area of 

maximum impacts occurring in Warren 

County, New Jersey. The remedy was 

determined by assessing the emission 

reduction needed to eliminate the 

maximum modeled violation in New 

Jersey, which occurs in close proximity 

to Portland in Warren County. There 

was no need to make an assessment of 

impacts at all locations within New 

Jersey since eliminating the NAAQS 

violations at the highest impacted 

receptor provided the basis for the 

remedy which, by its nature, would 

eliminate all modeled violations caused 

by Portland in the entire state. 

Therefore, the EPA finding pursuant to 

section 126 of the Clean Air Act (the 

Act) applies to New Jersey generally. 

The proposed revision is consistent 

with NJDEP’s request for a finding that 

emissions from Portland significantly 

contribute to nonattainment or interfere 

with maintenance of the 1-hour SO2

NAAQS in New Jersey. The proposed 

revision is also consistent with the 

language in sections 110 and 126 of the 

Act which is phrased such that the 

petitioner can request a finding that a 

source in one state is significantly 

contributing to nonattainment or 

interfering with maintenance of the 

NAAQS in another state. The addition 

of the counties was neither necessary 

nor intentional and did not arise from 

a request from the petitioner or any 

other commenter. 

The proposed revision will not affect 

the emission limits, increments of 

progress, compliance schedules, or 

reporting provisions specified in the 

November 7, 2011 final rule. No 

adjustments to the existing modeling or 

other technical analyses and no new 

analyses are necessary to make the 

revisions. Accordingly, we are taking 

comment only on the proposed change 

to the phrasing used to describe our 

finding based on the analyses conducted 

for the remedy. The proposed revisions 

do not change the conclusions that the 

EPA made in the final rule. The EPA is 

requesting comment only on the specific 

revisions proposed herein. The EPA is 

not reopening or requesting comment on 

any other aspect of the rule published 

on November 7, 2011, including the 

agency’s air quality modeling, interim 

emission limits, final emission limits, 

increments of progress, rationale for the 

emission limits, or other requirements 

finalized in the November 7, 2011 rule. 

III. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review and Executive 

Order 13563: Improving Regulation and 

Regulatory Review 

This action simply revises minor 

wording errors in the November 7, 2011 

rule. This action corrects a response to 

a petition that is narrow in scope and 

affects a single facility. 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., because this 

proposed rule, if finalized, under 

section 126 of the CAA will not in-andof itself create any new information 

collection burdens but simply revises 

minor wording errors in the November 

7, 2011, rule. These revisions clarify the 

EPA’s finding that Portland significantly 

contributes to nonattainment or 

interferes with maintenance of the 

1-hour SO2 NAAQS in the State of New 

Jersey, not in specific counties within 

the state. 

Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b). 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 

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 this rule on small entities, small 

entity is defined as: (1) A small business 

as defined by the Small Business 

Administration’s (SBA) 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 proposed rule on small 

entities, I certify that this action will not 

have a significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities. 

The revisions being proposed in this 

notice do not impose any new 

requirements on small entities. This 

action simply revises minor wording 

errors in the November 7, 2011, rule. 

These revisions clarify the EPA’s 

finding that Portland significantly 

contributes to nonattainment or 

interferes with maintenance of the 1- 

hour SO2 NAAQS in the State of New 

Jersey, and not in specific counties 

within the state. 

We continue to be interested in the 

potential impacts of the proposed rule 

on small entities and welcome 

comments on issus related to such 

impacts. 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

This action 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 1 year. This 

action proposes minor wording 

revisions to the November 7, 2011, final 

rule in this notice that are not expected 

to exceed $100 million or more for state, 

local, and tribal governments, in 

aggregate, or the private sector in any 1 

year. This action simply revises minor 

wording errors in the November 7, 2011, 

rule. These revisions clarify the EPA’s 

finding that Portland significantly 

contributes to nonattainment or 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
79578 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 246 / Thursday, December 22, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

interferes with maintenance of the 1- 

hour SO2 NAAQS in the State of New 

Jersey, and not in specific counties 

within the state. 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. 

Again, this action simply revises minor 

wording errors in the November 7, 2011, 

rule. These revisions clarify the EPA’s 

finding that Portland significantly 

contributes to nonattainment or 

interferes with maintenance of the 1- 

hour SO2 NAAQS in the State of New 

Jersey, not in specific counties within 

the state. 

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. The November 

2011 final rule primarily affects private 

industry, and does not impose 

significant economic costs on state or 

local governments. This action simply 

revises minor wording errors in the 

November 7, 2011, rule. These revisions 

clarify the EPA’s finding that Portland 

significantly contributes to 

nonattainment or interferes with 

maintenance of the 1-hour SO2 NAAQS 

in the State of New Jersey, and not in 

specific counties within the state. Thus, 

Executive Order 13132 does not apply 

to this action. 

In the spirit of Executive Order 13132, 

and consistent with the EPA policy to 

promote communications between the 

EPA and state and local governments, 

the EPA specifically solicits comment 

on this proposed action from state and 

local officials. 

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

This action does not have tribal 

implications, as specified in Executive 

Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 

2000). It will not have a substantial 

direct effect on tribal governments, on 

the relationship between the federal 

government and Indian tribes, or the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities between the federal 

government and Indian tribes. Thus, 

Executive Order 13175 does not apply 

to this action. This action simply revises 

minor wording errors in the November 

7, 2011, rule. These revisions clarify the 

EPA’s finding that Portland significantly 

contributes to nonattainment or 

interferes with maintenance of the 1- 

hour SO2 NAAQS in the State of New 

Jersey, and not in specific counties 

within the state. 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

and Safety Risks 

This action is not subject to EO 13045 

(62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) because 

it is not economically significant as 

defined in EO 12866, and because the 

Agency does not believe the 

environmental health or safety risks 

addressed by this action present a 

disproportionate risk to children. This 

action simply revises minor wording 

errors in the November 7, 2011, rule. 

These revisions clarify the EPA’s 

finding that Portland significantly 

contributes to nonattainment or 

interferes with maintenance of the 1- 

hour SO2 NAAQS in the State of New 

Jersey, and not in specific counties 

within the state. 

The public is invited to submit 

comments or identify peer-reviewed 

studies and data, which the EPA may 

not be aware. 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions 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 No. 

104–113, 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) 

directs the 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 the 

EPA to provide Congress, through OMB, 

explanations when the Agency decides 

not to use available and applicable 

voluntary consensus standards. 

This proposed rulemaking does not 

involve technical standards. Therefore, 

the EPA is not considering 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. 

The EPA has determined that this 

proposed 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 proposes minor revisions to a 

previously promulgated rule. These 

revisions clarify the EPA’s finding that 

Portland significantly contributes to 

nonattainment or interferes with 

maintenance of the 1-hour SO2 NAAQS 

in the State of New Jersey, and not in 

specific counties within the state. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, 

Administrative practice and procedures, 

Air pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Sulfur dioxide. 

Dated: December 14, 2011. 

Lisa P. Jackson, 

Administrator. 

[FR Doc. 2011–32653 Filed 12–21–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS