26444 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 87 / Friday, May 4, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

• 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 July 3, 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. Parties with objections to this 

direct final rule are encouraged to file a 

comment in response to the parallel 

notice of proposed rulemaking for this 

action published in the proposed rules 

section of today’s Federal Register, 

rather than file an immediate petition 

for judicial review of this direct final 

rule, so that EPA can withdraw this 

direct final rule and address the 

comment in the proposed rulemaking. 

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, Ozone, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, Volatile 

organic compounds. 

Dated: April 18, 2012. 

A. Stanley Meiburg, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4. 

40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows: 

PART 52—[AMENDED] 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 52 

continues to read as follows: 

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

Subpart II—North Carolina 

■ 2. Section 52.1770(e), is amended by 

adding a new entry for ‘‘North Carolina 

portion of bi-state Charlotte; 1997 

8–Hour Ozone 2002 Base Year 

Emissions Inventory’’ to read as follows: 

§ 52.1770 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(e) * * * 

EPA-APPROVED NORTH CAROLINA NON-REGULATORY PROVISIONS

Provision State effective 

date 

EPA approval 

date Federal Register citation 

*******

North Carolina portion of bi-state Charlotte; 1997 8-Hour Ozone 2002 Base Year 

Emissions Inventory.

11/12/2009 5/4/2012 [Insert citation of publication]. 

[FR Doc. 2012–10730 Filed 5–3–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–HQ–OAR–2011–0081; FRL–9660–5] 

RIN 2060–AR42 

Revisions to Final Response To 

Petition From New Jersey Regarding 

SO2 Emissions From the Portland 

Generating Station 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: This action amends the 

preamble and regulatory text to the 

‘‘Final Response to Petition From New 

Jersey Regarding SO2 Emissions From 

the Portland Generating Station’’ 

published November 7, 2011, to revise 

minor misstatements. These revisions 

clarify the EPA’s finding that the 

Portland Generating Station (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 remove the references 

to specific New Jersey counties 

identified in the EPA’s November 7, 

2011, final rule. These revisions have no 

impact on any other provisions of the 

rule. 

DATES: This final rule is effective on 

June 4, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket ID 

No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2011–0081. All 

documents in the docket are listed on 

the http://www.regulations.gov Web 

site. Although listed in the index, some 

information is not publicly available, 

e.g., confidential business information 

(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 form. 

Publicly available docket materials are 

available either electronically through 

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

copy at the Air and Radiation Docket 

and Information Center, EPA/DC, EPA 

West Building, 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 Air Docket 

is (202) 566–1742. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. 

Todd Hawes (919) 541–5591, 

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


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 87 / Friday, May 4, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 26445 

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. Why is the EPA issuing this final rule? 

II. Specific Revisions 

III. Public Comment and Agency Response 

IV. 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 

K. Congressional Review Act 

L. Judicial Review 

I. Why is the EPA issuing this final 

rule? 

This action finalizes minor 

amendments to the ‘‘Final Response to 

Petition From New Jersey Regarding SO2

Emissions From the Portland Generating 

Station’’ published on November 7, 

2011. See 76 FR 69052. We initially 

proposed this rule revision in parallel 

with a direct final rule because we 

viewed this as a noncontroversial action 

and anticipated no adverse public 

comments. However, the EPA did 

receive one adverse comment, and 

therefore we have withdrawn the direct 

final rule. In this document, we have 

addressed the public comment received 

on the proposal and are finalizing the 

‘‘Revisions to Final Response to Petition 

From New Jersey Regarding SO2

Emissions From the Portland Generating 

Station’’ published on December 22, 

2011. See 76 FR 79574. 

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’’ (76 FR 

69052) contain minor misstatements 

that the EPA is revising 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.’’ (See id. at 

69057.) 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 (76 FR 19662 at 19680) 

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 revising 

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. 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 interfere with 

maintenance of the 1-hour SO2 national 

ambient air quality standard (NAAQS) 

in Morris, Sussex, Warren, and 

Hunterdon Counties in New Jersey.’’ 

With this action, the rule text now 

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 

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 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 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 revisions will not affect the 

emission limits, increments of progress, 

compliance schedules, or reporting 

provisions specified in the November 7, 

2011, final rule and do not change the 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
26446 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 87 / Friday, May 4, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

conclusions that the EPA made in the 

final rule. No adjustments to the 

existing modeling or other technical 

analyses and no new analyses were 

necessary to make the revisions. 

III. Public Comment and Agency 

Response 

On February 21, 2012, the 

Pennsylvania Department of 

Environmental Protection (PADEP) 

provided comments to the EPA on the 

direct final rule and the concurrent 

proposal for this rule. The direct final 

rule was subsequently withdrawn. (See 

77 FR 15608.) 

PADEP commented that our revision 

to the November 7, 2011, final rule is a 

‘‘revision’’ to a final rule which, in light 

of other similar actions, constitutes a 

pattern for EPA. PADEP specifically 

refers to recent revisions to the final 

Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) 

as an example of this alleged pattern. 

The commenter argues that this alleged 

pattern is the result of a ‘‘rush to 

judgment’’ causing mistakes to be made. 

The commenter claims that the EPA 

admits that the inadvertent reference to 

the four counties in New Jersey was a 

‘‘major misstatement’’ and that the EPA 

committed a significant error with 

respect to the air modeling. 

The EPA does not agree that the 

revisions to the final rule resulted from 

any significant errors with the modeling 

nor did we characterize the issue as a 

major misstatement. As explained in the 

December 22, 2011, notice of the 

proposed revision (76 FR 79541), we 

inadvertently made reference to the four 

counties in New Jersey in the November 

7, 2011, final rule. (See 76 FR at 69077; 

40 CFR 52.2039.) This was inconsistent 

with the correct characterization of the 

finding described in the April 7, 2011, 

proposal (76 FR at 19680) in which the 

finding was proposed for the State of 

New Jersey generally and not in specific 

counties within the state. The changes 

do not affect the emission limits, 

increments of progress, compliance 

schedules, or the reporting provisions of 

the final rule. 

Moreover, the commenter’s claim that 

these misstatements demonstrate a 

significant error in the air modeling is 

unsupported. First, as explained above, 

the modeling was targeted at 

corroborating the existence of NAAQS 

violations in New Jersey caused by 

Portland and determining the remedy 

needed to eliminate all NAAQS 

violations caused by Portland. The EPA 

modeling thus focused on identifying 

the area where the maximum 

concentration was expected to occur, 

which was identified as Warren County, 

New Jersey, and assessing the emission 

reduction needed to eliminate the 

maximum modeled violation in New 

Jersey. The commenter has failed to 

identify any error in this modeling 

approach. Therefore, no new technical 

analyses or any changes to the modeling 

are necessary to make these revisions. 

Second, comments on the modeling are 

beyond the scope of comment solicited 

by the proposal since no modifications 

to the modeling approach were 

proposed in this rule. If the commenter 

wished to raise any concerns with 

respect to the scope of EPA’s modeling 

approach, they should have been raised 

when the modeling approach was 

initially proposed. Finally, comments 

regarding CSAPR are clearly beyond the 

scope of this rulemaking as CSAPR is a 

separate and unrelated rulemaking. 

The comment provides no basis for us 

to change the characterization of our 

finding, namely that emissions from 

Portland significantly contribute to 

nonattainment or interfere with 

maintenance of the 1-hour SO2 NAAQS 

in New Jersey. Therefore, we are not 

making any changes to the December 22, 

2011, proposal in this final rule. 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review and Executive 

Order 13563: Improving Regulation and 

Regulatory Review 

This action revises minor wording 

errors in the November 7, 2011, final 

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 

under section 126 of the CAA, it will 

not create any new information 

collection burdens but revises minor 

wording errors in the November 7, 2011, 

rule. 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 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 in this action do not 

impose any new requirements on small 

entities. This action 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 removes the specific 

references to the New Jersey counties 

identified in the November 7, 2011, 

rule. 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

This action does not contain a federal 

mandate under the provisions of Title II 

of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (UMRA), 2 U.S.C. 1531–1538 for 

State, local or tribal governments or the 

private sector. This action is not 

expected to 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 makes minor wording revisions 

to the November 7, 2011, final 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 removes the specific 

references to the New Jersey counties 

identified in the November 7, 2011, 

rule. 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. 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 87 / Friday, May 4, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 26447 

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 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 removes the specific 

references to the New Jersey counties 

identified in the November 7, 2011, 

rule. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does 

not apply to this action. 

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. This 

action revises minor wording errors in 

the November 7, 2011, rule. 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

and Safety Risks 

The EPA interprets Executive Order 

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 Executive 

Order has the potential to influence the 

regulation. This action is not subject to 

Executive Order 13045 because it does 

not establish an environmental standard 

intended to mitigate health or safety 

risks. 

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 

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 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 

final rule will not have 

disproportionately high and adverse 

human health or environmental effects 

on minority or low-income populations 

because it does not affect the level of 

protection provided to human health or 

the environment. This action 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 removes the specific 

references to the New Jersey counties 

identified in the November 7, 2011, 

rule. 

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). The EPA is not 

required to submit a rule report 

regarding this action under section 801 

because this is a rule of particular 

applicability. Nonetheless, this action 

will be effective June 4, 2012. 

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 Third Circuit 

Court within 60 days from the date the 

final action is published in the Federal 

Register, Filing a petition for review by 

the Administrator of this final action 

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 must be 

filed, and shall not postpone the 

effectiveness of such action. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Approval and promulgation of 

implementation plans, Environmental 

protection, Administrative practice and 

procedures, Air pollution control, 

Incorporation by reference, 

Intergovernmental relations, and 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Sulfur dioxide. 

Dated: April 25, 2012. 

Lisa P. Jackson, 

Administrator. 

For the reasons set forth in the 

preamble part 52 of chapter I of title 40 

of the Code of Federal regulations are 

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 NN—Pennsylvania [Amended] 

■ 2. Section 52.2039 is amended by 

revising the introductory text to read as 

follows: 

§ 52.2039 Interstate transport. 

The EPA has made a finding pursuant 

to section 126 of the Clean Air Act (the 

Act) that emissions of sulfur dioxide 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
26448 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 87 / Friday, May 4, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

(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. The owners and 

operators of Portland shall comply with 

the requirements in paragraphs (a) 

through (d) of this section. 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2012–10718 Filed 5–3–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2011–0643; FRL–9652–4] 

Revisions to the California State 

Implementation Plan, Antelope Valley 

Air Quality Management District and 

Eastern Kern and Santa Barbara 

County; Air Pollution Control Districts 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Direct final rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is taking direct final 

action to approve revisions to the 

Antelope Valley Air Quality 

Management District (AVAQMD), 

Eastern Kern Air Pollution Control 

District (EKAPCD), and Santa Barbara 

County Air Pollution Control District 

(SBCAPCD) portions of the California 

State Implementation Plan (SIP). Under 

authority of the Clean Air Act as 

amended in 1990 (CAA or the Act), we 

are approving local rules that define 

terms used in other air pollution 

regulation in these areas and approving 

a rule rescission that addresses 

Petroleum Coke Calcining Operations— 

Oxides of Sulfur. 

DATES: This rule is effective on July 3, 

2012 without further notice, unless EPA 

receives adverse comments by June 4, 

2012. If we receive such comments, we 

will publish a timely withdrawal in the 

Federal Register to notify the public 

that this direct final rule will not take 

effect. 

ADDRESSES: Submit comments, 

identified by docket number EPA–R09– 

OAR–2011–0643, by one of the 

following methods: 

1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line 

instructions. 

2. Email: steckel.andrew@epa.gov. 

3. Mail or deliver: Andrew Steckel 

(Air-4), U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, 

San Francisco, CA 94105–3901. 

Instructions: All comments 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 

Confidential Business Information (CBI) 

or other information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Information that 

you consider CBI or otherwise protected 

should be clearly identified as such and 

should not be submitted through 

www.regulations.gov or email. 

www.regulations.gov is an ‘‘anonymous 

access’’ system, and EPA will not know 

your identity or contact information 

unless you provide it in the body of 

your comment. If you send email 

directly to EPA, your email address will 

be automatically captured and included 

as part of the public comment. If EPA 

cannot read your comment due to 

technical difficulties and cannot contact 

you for clarification, EPA may not be 

able to consider your comment. 

Docket: 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 

docket are listed at 

www.regulations.gov, some information 

may be publicly available only at the 

hard copy location (e.g., copyrighted 

material, large maps), and some may not 

be publicly available in either location 

(e.g., CBI). To inspect the hard copy 

materials, please schedule an 

appointment during normal business 

hours with the contact listed in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Cynthia Allen, EPA Region IX, (415) 

947–4120, allen.cynthia@epa.gov 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document, ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us’’ 

and ‘‘our’’ refer to EPA. 

Table of Contents 

I. The State’s Submittal 

A. What rules did the State submit? 

B. Are there other versions of these rules? 

C. What is the purpose of the submitted 

rules? 

II. EPA’s Evaluation and Action 

A. How is EPA evaluating the rules? 

B. Do the rules meet the evaluation 

criteria? 

C. Public Comment and Final Action 

III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. The State’s Submittal 

A. What rules did the State submit? 

Table 1 lists the rule we are 

rescinding and the rules we are 

approving with the dates that they were 

adopted by the local air agencies and 

submitted by the California Air 

Resources Board (CARB). 

TABLE 1—SUBMITTED RULES

Local agency Rule No. Rule title Adopted Submitted 

AVAQMD .............. 1119 Petroleum Coke Calcining Operations—Oxides of Sulfur (rescinded) .................. 01/18/11 06/21/11 

EKAPCD ............... 102 Definitions ............................................................................................................... 01/13/11 06/21/11 

SBCAPCD ............ 102 Definitions ............................................................................................................... 01/20/11 06/21/11 

On July 15, 2011, EPA determined 

that the submittal for AVAQMD Rule 

1119, EKAPCD Rule 102, and SBCAPCD 

Rule 102 met the completeness criteria 

in 40 CFR Part 51 Appendix V, which 

must be met before formal EPA review. 

B. Are there other versions of these 

rules? 

We approved earlier versions of these 

rules into the SIP on the dates listed: 

AVAQMD Rule 1119 on September 28, 

1981 (46 FR 47451), EKAPCD Rule 102 

on March 7, 2011 (76 FR 12280), and 

SBCAPCD Rule 102 on May 6, 2009 (74 

FR 20872). The SBCAPCD amended 

revisions to the SIP-approved version on 

September 20, 2010 and CARB 

submitted them to us on April 5, 2011. 

While we can act on only the most 

recently submitted version, we have 

reviewed materials provided with 

previous submittals. 

C. What is the purpose of the submitted 

rule revisions? 

Section 110(a) of the CAA requires 

states to submit regulations that control 

volatile organic compounds, oxides of 

nitrogen, particulate matter, and other 

air pollutants which harm human health 

and the environment. These rules were 

developed as part of the local agency’s 

program to control these pollutants. 

Antelope Valley AQMD Rule 1119 

applies to the operation of petroleum 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES