Revisions to Final Response To Petition From New Jersey Regarding SO2, 26444-26448 [2012-10718]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
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
State effective
date
Provision
*
*
*
*
North Carolina portion of bi-state Charlotte; 1997 8-Hour Ozone 2002 Base Year
Emissions Inventory.
[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
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
AGENCY:
This action amends the
preamble and regulatory text to the
‘‘Final Response to Petition From New
Jersey Regarding SO2 Emissions From
SUMMARY:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:04 May 03, 2012
Jkt 226001
EPA approval
date
Federal Register citation
*
11/12/2009
*
5/4/2012
*
[Insert citation of publication].
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 https://www.regulations.gov Web
site. Although listed in the index, some
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
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
https://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
E:\FR\FM\04MYR1.SGM
04MYR1
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 87 / Friday, May 4, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
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
erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
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
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:04 May 03, 2012
Jkt 226001
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 1hour 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
PO 00000
Frm 00029
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
26445
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
E:\FR\FM\04MYR1.SGM
04MYR1
26446
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 87 / Friday, May 4, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
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
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:04 May 03, 2012
Jkt 226001
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
PO 00000
Frm 00030
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
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.
E:\FR\FM\04MYR1.SGM
04MYR1
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 87 / Friday, May 4, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
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 1hour 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.
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.
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
erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
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.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:04 May 03, 2012
Jkt 226001
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
PO 00000
Frm 00031
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
26447
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
E:\FR\FM\04MYR1.SGM
04MYR1
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
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Direct final rule.
AGENCY:
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
SUMMARY:
Petroleum Coke Calcining Operations—
Oxides of Sulfur.
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.
DATES:
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
ADDRESSES:
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
erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
AVAQMD ..............
EKAPCD ...............
SBCAPCD ............
Rule No.
1119
102
102
Rule title
Petroleum Coke Calcining Operations—Oxides of Sulfur (rescinded) ..................
Definitions ...............................................................................................................
Definitions ...............................................................................................................
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,
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:04 May 03, 2012
Adopted
Jkt 226001
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.
PO 00000
Frm 00032
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
01/18/11
01/13/11
01/20/11
Submitted
06/21/11
06/21/11
06/21/11
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
E:\FR\FM\04MYR1.SGM
04MYR1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 87 (Friday, May 4, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 26444-26448]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-10718]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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 https://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 https://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
[[Page 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
[[Page 26446]]
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.
[[Page 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]
0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Subpart NN--Pennsylvania [Amended]
0
2. Section 52.2039 is amended by revising the introductory text to read
as follows:
Sec. 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
[[Page 26448]]
(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
