Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 142 / Wednesday, July 23, 2008 / Proposed Rules 42727 

for practices, methods, and procedures 

the Administrator finds necessary for 

safety in air commerce. This regulation 

is within the scope of that authority 

because it addresses an unsafe condition 

that is likely to exist or develop on 

products identified in this rulemaking 

action. 

Regulatory Findings 

We have determined that this 

proposed AD would not have federalism 

implications under Executive Order 

13132. This proposed AD would not 

have a substantial direct effect 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. 

For the reasons discussed above, I 

certify that the proposed AD: 

1. Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ under Executive Order 12866; 

2. Is not a ‘‘significant rule’’ under the 

DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures 

(44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and 

3. Would not have a significant 

economic impact, positive or negative, 

on a substantial number of small entities 

under the criteria of the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act. 

We prepared a regulatory evaluation 

of the estimated costs to comply with 

this proposed AD. You may get a copy 

of this summary at the address listed 

under ADDRESSES. 

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 

Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation 

safety, Safety. 

The Proposed Amendment 

Under the authority delegated to me 

by the Administrator, the Federal 

Aviation Administration proposes to 

amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows: 

PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS 

DIRECTIVES 

1. The authority citation for part 39 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. 

§ 39.13 [Amended] 

2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding 

the following new airworthiness 

directive: 

General Electric Company: Docket No. FAA–

2007–0419; Directorate Identifier 2007–

NE–52–AD. 

Comments Due Date 

(a) The Federal Aviation Administration 

(FAA) must receive comments on this 

airworthiness directive (AD) action by 

September 22, 2008. 

Affected ADs 

(b) None. 

Applicability 

(c) This AD applies to General Electric 

Company (GE) CF34–1A, –3A, –3A1, –3A2, 

–3B, and –3B1 turbofan engines, with highpressure (HP) rotor 4-step air balance piston 

stationary seals (4-step seals), part numbers 

(P/Ns) 4923T54G01, 6019T90G03, 

6037T99G01, 6037T99G02, and 6037T99G03, 

installed. These engines are installed on, but 

not limited to, Bombardier, Inc. airplane 

models CL–600–2A12, –2B16, and –2B19. 

Unsafe Condition 

(d) This AD results from the investigation 

of an airplane accident. Both engines 

experienced high-altitude flameouts. 

Rotation of the HP rotors was not maintained 

during descent and the engines could not be 

restarted. We are issuing this AD to prevent 

the inability to restart both engines after 

flameout due to excessive friction of the 4- 

step seal, which could result in subsequent 

forced landing of the airplane. 

Compliance 

(e) You are responsible for having the 

actions required by this AD performed at the 

next piece-part exposure after the effective 

date of this AD, unless the actions have 

already been done. 

(f) Remove the 4-step seals, P/Ns 

4923T54G01, 6019T90G03, 6037T99G01, 

6037T99G02, and 6037T99G03. 

(g) Incorporate an 8-step seal, either by 

modifying the existing 4-step seal to an 8- 

step seal, or by replacing it with an 8-step 

seal. 

(h) Information on modifying the seal and 

part number configuration charts, can be 

found in GE Service Bulletin (SB) No. CF34–

AL S/B 72–0238, dated July 27, 2007 (CL–

600–2B19), and SB No. CF34–BJ S/B 72–

0217, dated July 27, 2007 (CL–600–2A12 and 

CL–600–2B16). 

Definition 

(i) For the purposes of this AD, piece-part 

exposure means when the 4-step seal is 

removed from the combustion module in 

accordance with the disassembly instructions 

in the engine manufacturer’s, or other FAAapproved engine manual. 

Alternative Methods of Compliance 

(j) The Manager, Engine Certification 

Office, has the authority to approve 

alternative methods of compliance for this 

AD if requested using the procedures found 

in 14 CFR 39.19. 

Related Information 

(k) Contact Kenneth Steeves, Aerospace 

Engineer, Engine Certification Office, Engine 

and Propeller Directorate, FAA, 12 New 

England Executive Park, Burlington, MA 

01803; e-mail: keneth.steeves@faa.gov; 

telephone: (781) 238–7765, fax: (781) 238–

7199; for more information about this AD. 

Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts, on 

July 16, 2008. 

Marc Bouthillier, 

Acting Manager, Engine and Propeller 

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. E8–16884 Filed 7–22–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R02–OAR–2008–0479; FRL–8696–2] 

Determination of Attainment of the 

One-Hour Ozone Standard for the 

Southern New Jersey Portion of the 

Philadelphia Metropolitan 

Nonattainment Area 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to 

determine that the one-hour ozone 

nonattainment area in Southern New 

Jersey, that is, the New Jersey portion of 

the Philadelphia-Wilmington-Trenton, 

PA-NJ-DE-MD area, attained the onehour ozone standard, is not subject to 

the imposition of penalty fees under 

section 185 of the Clean Air Act and 

does not need to implement 

contingency measures. Areas that EPA 

classified as severe ozone 

nonattainment areas for the one-hour 

National Ambient Air Quality Standard 

and did not attain the Standard by the 

applicable attainment date of November 

15, 2005 may be subject to these penalty 

fees. However, since the air quality in 

the Philadelphia-Wilmington-Trenton 

area attained the ozone standard as of 

November 15, 2005, EPA is proposing 

not to implement these fees. This 

proposed determination of attainment is 

not a redesignation of attainment for 

this area, only a fulfillment of a Clean 

Air Act obligation to determine if an 

area attains the ozone standard by its 

applicable attainment date. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before August 22, 2008. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R02–

OAR–2008–0479, by one of the 

following methods: 

• www.regulations.gov: Follow the 

online instructions for submitting 

comments. 

• E-mail: Werner.Raymond@epa.gov. 

• Fax: 212–637–3901. 

• Mail: Raymond Werner, Chief, Air 

Programs Branch, Environmental 

Protection Agency, Region 2 Office, 290 

Broadway, 25th Floor, New York, New 

York 10007–1866. 

• Hand Delivery: Raymond Werner, 

Chief, Air Programs Branch, 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 2 Office, 290 Broadway, 25th 

Floor, New York, New York 10007–

1866. Such deliveries are only accepted 

during the Regional Office’s normal 

hours of operation. The Regional 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS
42728 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 142 / Wednesday, July 23, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

1EPA remains obligated under section 181(b)(2) 

to determine whether an area attained the one-hour 

ozone NAAQS by its attainment date. However, 

after the revocation of the one-hour ozone NAAQS, 

EPA is no longer obligated to reclassify an area to 

a higher classification for the one-hour NAAQS 

based upon a determination that the area failed to 

attain the one-hour NAAQS by the area’s attainment 

date for the one-hour NAAQS. (40 CFR 

51.905(e)(2)(i)(B).) Thus even if we make a finding 

that an area has failed to attain the one-hour ozone 

NAAQS by its attainment date, the area would not 

be reclassified to a higher classification. 

Office’s official hours of business are 

Monday through Friday, 8:30 to 4:30 

excluding Federal holidays. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–R02–OAR–2008–

0479. EPA’s policy is that all comments 

received will be included in the public 

docket without change and may be 

made available online at 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided, unless 

the comment includes information 

claimed to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Do not submit information that you 

consider to be CBI or otherwise 

protected through www.regulations.gov 

or e-mail. The www.regulations.gov Web 

site is an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, 

which means EPA will not know your 

identity or contact information unless 

you provide it in the body of your 

comment. If you send an e-mail 

comment directly to EPA without going 

through www.regulations.gov your email address will be automatically 

captured and included as part of the 

comment that is placed in the public 

docket and made available on the 

Internet. If you submit an electronic 

comment, EPA recommends that you 

include your name and other contact 

information in the body of your 

comment and with any disk or CD–ROM 

you submit. If EPA cannot read your 

comment due to technical difficulties 

and cannot contact you for clarification, 

EPA may not be able to consider your 

comment. Electronic files should avoid 

the use of special characters, any form 

of encryption, and be free of any defects 

or viruses. For additional information 

about EPA’s public docket visit the EPA 

Docket Center homepage at http:// 

www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm. 

Docket: All documents in the 

electronic docket are listed in the 

www.regulations.gov index. Although 

listed in the index, some information is 

not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other 

information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Certain other 

material, such as copyrighted material, 

is not placed on the Internet and will be 

publicly available only in hard copy 

form. Publicly available docket 

materials are available either 

electronically in www.regulations.gov or 

in hard copy during normal business 

hours at the Environmental Protection 

Agency, Region 2 Office, Air Programs 

Branch, 290 Broadway, 25th Floor, New 

York, New York 10007–1866. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Robert F. Kelly, Air Programs Branch, 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 2, 290 Broadway, 25th Floor, 

New York, New York 10007–1866, 212–

637–4249. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents 

I. What Are Today’s Actions? 

II. What Is the Background for These 

Actions? 

II.a. When Were These Areas Designated 

and Where Are They Located? 

II.b. What Effect Did the 1997 Eight-Hour 

Ozone Standard Have on Requirements 

for the One-Hour Ozone Nonattainment 

Areas, Including Section 185? 

II.c. How Does EPA Compute Whether an 

Area Complies with the One-Hour Ozone 

Standard? 

II.d. Does the Clean Air Act Require EPA 

to Determine Attainment of the OneHour Ozone Standard? 

II.e. Did the Philadelphia Metropolitan 

Nonattainment Area Attain the OneHour Ozone Standard by 2005? 

II.f. Do Areas That Attain the One-Hour 

Ozone Standard Need To Implement the 

Section 185 Fee Program? 

IV. What Is EPA Proposing? 

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. What Are Today’s Actions? 

EPA is proposing two actions for the 

Philadelphia-Wilmington-Trenton, PANJ-DE-MD one-hour ozone 

nonattainment area (the ‘‘Philadelphia 

metropolitan’’ nonattainment area). 

First, EPA is proposing to determine 

that this area attained the one-hour 

ozone National Ambient Air Quality 

Standard (NAAQS) by its attainment 

date, November 15, 2005. Because EPA 

is proposing to find that this area has 

attained the one-hour ozone NAAQS by 

its applicable attainment date, EPA also 

proposes to find that this area is not 

subject to the imposition of the section 

185 penalty fees and does not need to 

implement contingency measures. In a 

separate proposed rule at 73 FR 22896, 

EPA’s Region 3 office proposed to find 

that the Philadelphia metropolitan 

nonattainment area attained the onehour ozone NAAQS by its applicable 

attainment date and is not subject to the 

imposition of section 185 penalty fees. 

Since EPA region 2 retains authority for 

addressing comments and making 

findings for the New Jersey portion of 

the area, we are issuing this separate 

notice. 

Under Section 181(b)(2) of the CAA, 

EPA must determine whether ozone 

nonattainment areas attained the ozone 

NAAQS by their attainment date. EPA 

uses an area’s design value, calculated 

from three years of complete, quality 

assured air monitoring data as of the 

attainment date. For the Philadelphia 

area, attainment date is 2005; therefore 

EPA is using the 2005 design value, 

which includes air quality monitoring 

data for the 2003 through 2005 ozone 

seasons. The design value used for the 

one-hour ozone NAAQS is the fourth 

highest daily one-hour ozone 

concentration over the three-year 

period. Since this value is not greater 

than 0.12 parts per million (ppm) at any 

monitor in the nonattainment area, this 

area is attaining the one-hour ozone 

NAAQS1. 

II. What Is the Background for These 

Actions? 

II.a. When Were These Areas Designated 

and Where Are They Located? 

When the CAA Amendments were 

enacted in 1990, each area of the 

country that was designated 

nonattainment for the one-hour ozone 

NAAQS, including the Philadelphia 

metropolitan area, was classified by 

operation of law as marginal, moderate, 

serious, severe, or extreme depending 

on the severity of the area’s air quality 

problem. (See CAA sections 107(d)(1)(c) 

and 181(a).) The Philadelphia one-hour 

ozone nonattainment area was classified 

as ‘‘severe-15’’ with a statutory 

attainment date of November 15, 2005. 

See 56 FR 56694, November 6, 1991. 

Section 185(a) of the CAA states that for 

a severe or extreme ozone 

nonattainment area a State must collect 

fees on certain stationary sources of air 

pollution if the area ‘‘has failed to attain 

the national primary ambient air quality 

standard for ozone by the applicable 

attainment date.’’ The Philadelphia area 

consists of the following counties: Cecil 

County, Maryland; Kent and New Castle 

Counties in Delaware; Burlington, 

Camden, Cumberland, Gloucester, 

Mercer, and Salem Counties in New 

Jersey; and, Bucks, Chester, Delaware, 

Montgomery, and Philadelphia Counties 

in Pennsylvania. 

II.b. What Effect Did the 1997 EightHour Ozone Standard Have on 

Requirements for the One-Hour Ozone 

Nonattainment Areas, Including Section 

185? 

In an April 30, 2004 final rule (69 FR 

23858), EPA designated and classified 

most areas of the country under the 

eight-hour ozone NAAQS promulgated 

in 40 CFR 50.10. On April 30, 2004, 

EPA also issued a final rule (69 FR 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 142 / Wednesday, July 23, 2008 / Proposed Rules 42729 

23951) entitled ‘‘Final Rule To 

Implement the 8-Hour Ozone National 

Ambient Air Quality Standard—Phase 

1’’ (Phase 1 Rule). Among other matters, 

this rule revoked the one-hour ozone 

NAAQS in the Philadelphia area (as 

well as most other areas of the country), 

effective June 15, 2005. (See, 40 CFR 

50.9(b); 69 FR at 23996; and 70 FR 

44470, August 3, 2005.) This Phase 1 

Rule also set forth how anti-backsliding 

principles will ensure continued 

progress toward attainment of the eighthour ozone NAAQS by identifying 

which one-hour requirements remain 

applicable in an area after revocation of 

the one-hour ozone NAAQS. 

Among the requirements not retained 

were the section 185 requirements for 

one-hour severe or extreme 

nonattainment areas that fail to attain 

the one-hour ozone NAAQS by the 

applicable one-hour attainment date and 

the requirement to implement 

contingency measures for failure to 

attain the one-hour ozone NAAQS by 

the applicable attainment date. (See, 69 

FR 23951, April 30, 2004, and 70 FR 

30592, May 26, 2005.) 

On December 22, 2006, the U.S. Court 

of Appeals for the District of Columbia 

Circuit (the Court) vacated EPA’s Phase 

1 Implementation Rule for the eighthour Ozone Standard (69 FR 23951, 

April 30, 2004). South Coast Air Quality 

Management Dist. v. EPA, 472 F.3d 882 

(DC Cir. 2006). Subsequently, in South 

Coast Air Quality Management Dist. v. 

EPA, 489 F.3d 1295 (DC Cir. 2007), in 

response to several petitions for 

rehearing, the Court clarified that the 

Phase 1 Rule was vacated only with 

regard to those parts of the rule that had 

been successfully challenged. With 

respect to the challenges to the antibacksliding provisions of the rule, the 

Court vacated three provisions that 

would have allowed States to remove 

from the SIP or to not adopt three onehour obligations once the one-hour 

ozone NAAQS was revoked: (1) 

Nonattainment area new source review 

(NSR) requirements based on an area’s 

one-hour nonattainment classification; 

(2) section 185 requirement for one-hour 

severe or extreme nonattainment areas 

that fail to attain the one-hour ozone 

NAAQS by the one-hour attainment 

date; and (3) measures to be 

implemented pursuant to section 

172(c)(9) or 182(c)(9) of the CAA, on the 

contingency of an area not making 

reasonable further progress toward 

attainment of the one-hour NAAQS or 

for failure to attain that NAAQS. The 

Court clarified that one-hour conformity 

determinations are not required for antibacksliding purposes. 

The provisions in 40 CFR 51.905(a)–

(c) remain in effect and areas must 

continue to meet those anti-backsliding 

requirements. However, the three 

provisions noted previously, which are 

specified in 51.905(e), were vacated by 

the Court. As a result, States must 

continue to meet the obligations for onehour NSR; one-hour contingency 

measures; and, for severe and extreme 

areas, the obligations related to the 

section 185 requirement. Currently, EPA 

is developing two proposed rules to 

address the Court’s vacatur and remand 

with respect to these three 

requirements. EPA will address in this 

proposed rule how the one-hour 

obligations that currently continue to 

apply under EPA’s anti-backsliding rule 

(as interpreted by the Court) apply 

where EPA has made a determination 

that the area attained the one-hour 

ozone NAAQS by its attainment date. 

II.c. How Does EPA Compute Whether 

an Area Complies With the One-Hour 

Ozone Standard? 

Although the one-hour ozone NAAQS 

as promulgated in 40 CFR 50.9 includes 

no discussion of specific data handling 

conventions, EPA’s publicly articulated 

position and the approach long since 

universally adopted by the air quality 

management community is that the 

interpretation of the one-hour ozone 

standard requires rounding ambient air 

quality data consistent with the stated 

level of the standard, which is 0.12 

ppm. 40 CFR 50.9(a) states that: ‘‘The 

level of the national one-hour primary 

and secondary ambient air quality 

standards for ozone * * * is 0.12 parts 

per million. * * * The standard is 

attained when the expected number of 

days per calendar year with maximum 

hourly average concentrations of 0.12 

parts per million * * * is equal to or 

less than 1, as determined by appendix 

H to this part.’’

EPA has clearly communicated the 

data handling conventions for the onehour ozone NAAQS in guidance 

documents. As early as 1979, EPA 

issued guidance that the level of our 

NAAQS dictates the number of 

significant figures to be used in 

determining whether the standard was 

exceeded. The stated level of the 

standard is taken as defining the 

number of significant figures to be used 

in comparisons with the standard. For 

example, a standard level of 0.12 ppm 

means that measurements are to be 

rounded to two decimal places (0.005 

rounds up), and, therefore, 0.125 ppm is 

the smallest concentration value in 

excess of the level of the standard. (See, 

‘‘Guideline for the Interpretation of 

Ozone Air Quality Standards,’’ EPA–

450/4–79–003, OAQPS No. 1.2–108, 

January 1979.) EPA has consistently 

applied the rounding convention in this 

1979 guideline. For example, see, 68 FR 

19106 at 19111, April 17, 2003; 68 FR 

62041 at 62043, October 31, 2003; and, 

69 FR 21717 at 21719, April 22, 2004. 

II.d. Does the Clean Air Act Require EPA 

To Determine Attainment of the OneHour Ozone Standard? 

Section 181(b)(2)(A) requires the 

Administrator to determine after the 

attainment date whether ozone 

nonattainment areas have attained the 

NAAQS. This provision states: ‘‘Within 

6 months following the applicable 

attainment date (including any 

extension thereof) for an ozone 

nonattainment area, the Administrator 

shall determine, based on the area’s 

design value (as of the attainment date), 

whether the area attained the standard 

by the date.’’ Although section 

181(b)(2)(A) states that the 

determination of attainment status be 

based on the area’s ‘‘design value,’’ EPA 

interprets this provision generally to 

refer to EPA’s methodology for 

determining attainment status. That is, 

EPA determines attainment status under 

the one-hour ozone NAAQS on the basis 

of the annual average number of 

expected exceedances of the NAAQS 

over the three-year period up to, and 

including, the attainment date. (See, 60 

FR 3349, January 17, 1995 and see, also, 

‘‘General Preamble for the 

Implementation of Title I of the Clean 

Air Act Amendments of 1990,’’ 57 FR 

13498 at 13506, April 16, 1992 (the 

‘‘General Preamble’’). 

EPA will determine whether an area’s 

air quality is meeting the NAAQS for 

purposes of sections 181(b)(2) based 

upon data that has been collected and 

quality-assured in accordance with 40 

CFR part 58, and recorded in EPA’s Air 

Quality System (AQS) database, 

(formerly known as the Aerometric 

Information Retrieval System (AIRS)). 

The one-hour ozone NAAQS is 0.12 

ppm, not to be exceeded on average 

more than 1 day per year averaged over 

any 3-year period. (See 40 CFR 50.9 and 

appendix H to 40 CFR part 50.) To 

account for missing data, the procedures 

found in appendix H to 40 CFR part 50 

are used to adjust the actual number of 

monitored exceedances of the standard 

to yield the annual number of expected 

exceedances (‘‘expected exceedance 

days’’) at an air quality monitoring site. 

Under EPA’s policies, we determine if 

an area has attained the one-hour ozone 

NAAQS by calculating, at each monitor, 

the average expected number of days 

over the standard per year (i.e., ‘‘average 

number of expected exceedance days’’) 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS
42730 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 142 / Wednesday, July 23, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

2This was the monitor located at West Chester 

University in West Chester, Chester County, 

Pennsylvania (AQS ID# 420290050). The monitor 

had averaged 0.3 exceedances per year over this 3- 

year period from 2001 to 2003. Therefore, EPA 

concludes that this monitor was attaining the onehour ozone NAAQS at the time monitoring ceased 

at this site. 

during the applicable 3-year period. See, 

generally the General Preamble, 57 FR at 

13506, April 16, 1992 and 

Memorandum from D. Kent Berry, 

Acting Director, Air Quality 

Management Division, EPA, to Regional 

Air Office Directors; ‘‘Procedures for 

Processing Bump Ups and Extensions 

for Marginal Ozone Nonattainment 

Areas,’’ February 3, 1994. While the 

latter is explicitly applicable only to 

marginal areas, the general procedures 

for evaluating attainment in terms of the 

average number of expected exceedance 

days during the applicable 3-year period 

in this memorandum apply regardless of 

the initial classification of an area 

because all findings of attainment are 

made pursuant to the same CAA 

requirements in section 181(b)(2). 

As noted previously, the applicable 

attainment date under the one-hour 

ozone NAAQS for the Philadelphia 

metropolitan area was November 15, 

2005. Under these requirements for 

severe ozone nonattainment areas with 

a statutory attainment date of November 

15, 2005, EPA bases its proposed 

determination of attainment of the onehour ozone NAAQS by the applicable 

attainment date on the average number 

of expected exceedance days per year 

for the period 2003 though 2005 to 

determine whether the area met its 

applicable attainment date under 

section 181 of the CAA. EPA has 

reviewed this data to determine the 

area’s air quality status in accordance 

with 40 CFR 50.9, and EPA policy 

guidance as discussed in the preceding 

paragraphs and in the previous 

discussion on rounding conventions 

elsewhere in this document. 

II.e. Did the Philadelphia Metropolitan 

Nonattainment Area Attain the OneHour Ozone Standard by 2005? 

As noted previously, the applicable 

attainment date for the Philadelphia 

metropolitan nonattainment area was 

November 15, 2005. EPA is evaluating 

attainment based on the data from 2003 

through 2005. During the entire 2003 to 

2005 period, state and local air 

pollution control agencies operated 

eighteen ozone monitoring stations in 

the Philadelphia area. One other 

monitor discontinued operations in 

2003.2

Table 1 summarizes the ozone data 

collected at the eighteen ozone 

monitoring stations during the 2003 to 

2005 period and included in AQS for 

the Philadelphia area. These data have 

been quality assured and are recorded in 

AQS. The Philadelphia area States use 

the AQS as the permanent database to 

maintain its data and quality assure the 

data transfers and content for accuracy. 

EPA has used the established rounding 

conventions set forth in our guidance 

documents and regulations. 

TABLE 1.—AVERAGE NUMBER OF OZONE EXPECTED EXCEEDANCE DAYS PER YEAR BY MONITORS IN THE PHILADELPHIA

AREA 2003 TO 2005 

Monitor information Number of expected 

exceedance days 

Average 

number of 

expected 

exceedance 

days per year 

2003–05 

State Monitor AQS ID 2003 2004 2005 

DE .......... Killens Pond Rd, Kent Co ................................................................... 100010002 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 

DE .......... Lums Pond State Park, New Castle Co ............................................. 100031007 1.0 0.0 2.0 1.0 

DE .......... Brandywine Creek State Park, New Castle Co .................................. 100031010 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

DE .......... Bellevue State Park, New Castle Co .................................................. 100031013 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

MD .......... Fairhill, Cecil Co .................................................................................. 240150003 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.7 

NJ ........... Copewood E. Davis Sts, Camden ...................................................... 340070003 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

NJ ........... Ancora State Hospital, Camden Co ................................................... 340071001 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.7 

NJ ........... Lincoln Ave. & Highway 55, Vineland, Cumberland Co ..................... 340110007 1.0 0.0 1.0 0.7 

NJ ........... Shady Lane Rest Home, Clarksboro, Gloucester Co ........................ 340150002 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.7 

NJ ........... Rider College, Mercer Co ................................................................... 340210005 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

PA ........... Rockview Lane, Bristol, Bucks Co ...................................................... 420170012 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.3 

PA ........... New Garden Airport—Toughkenamon, Chester Co ........................... 420290100 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.3 

PA ........... Front St & Norris St, Chester, Delaware Co ...................................... 420450002 0.0 0.0 1.1 0.4 

PA ........... State Armory, Norristown, Montgomery Co ........................................ 420910013 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

PA ........... 1501 E Lycoming Ave AMS Lab, Philadelphia ................................... 421010004 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

PA ........... Roxy Water Pump Sta, Philadelphia .................................................. 421010014 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

PA ........... Grant-Ashton Roads, NE Airport, Philadelphia .................................. 421010024 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.7 

PA ........... Amtrak, 5917 Elmwood Avenue, Philadelphia ................................... 421010136 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

Source: EPA Air Quality System (AQS) Database. 

As shown in Table 1, the average 

number of expected exceedance days 

per year is less than or equal to 1.0 at 

all of the sites. Therefore, EPA proposes 

to find that the Philadelphia area 

attained the one-hour ozone NAAQS by 

November 15, 2005, which was the 

applicable attainment date under the 

one-hour ozone NAAQS for this 

nonattainment area. 

II.f. Do Areas That Attain the One-Hour 

Ozone Standard Need To Implement the 

Section 185 Fee Program? 

If a severe or extreme one-hour ozone 

nonattainment area attains by its onehour ozone attainment date, it is not 

required to implement the section 185 

penalty fees program. Section 185(a) of 

the CAA states that a severe or extreme 

ozone nonattainment area must 

implement a program to impose fees on 

certain stationary sources of air 

pollution if the area ‘‘has failed to attain 

the national primary ambient air quality 

standard for ozone by the applicable 

attainment date.’’ Consequently, if such 

an area has attained the standard as of 

its applicable attainment date, even if it 

subsequently lapses into nonattainment, 

the area would not be required to 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 142 / Wednesday, July 23, 2008 / Proposed Rules 42731 

implement the section 185 penalty fees 

program. 

In addition, because the area has 

attained the one-hour ozone NAAQS by 

the applicable attainment date, the area 

is not subject to the requirement to 

implement contingency measures for 

failure to attain the one-hour ozone 

NAAQS by its attainment date. Since 

the area has met its attainment deadline, 

even if the area subsequently lapses into 

nonattainment, it would not be required 

to implement the contingency measures 

for failure to attain the one-hour ozone 

NAAQS by its attainment date. 

IV. What Is EPA Proposing? 

Based upon EPA’s review of the air 

quality data for the 3-year period 2003 

to 2005, EPA is proposing to determine 

that the New Jersey portion of the 

Philadelphia severe one-hour ozone 

nonattainment area attained the onehour ozone NAAQS by the applicable 

attainment date of November 15, 2005. 

EPA also proposes to find that this area 

is not subject to the imposition of the 

section 185 penalty fees and will not 

need to implement contingency 

measures, which were required to be 

implemented only if the area did not 

attain the one-hour standard by the 

attainment date. 

V. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 

51735, October 4, 1993), this proposed 

action is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ and therefore is not subject to 

review by the Office of Management and 

Budget. For this reason, this action is 

also not subject to Executive Order 

13211, ‘‘Actions Concerning Regulations 

That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use’’ (66 FR 28355, May 

22, 2001). This action proposes to make 

a determination based on air quality 

data, and would, if finalized, result in 

the suspension of certain Federal 

requirements. Accordingly, the 

Administrator certifies that this rule 

will not have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities under the Regulatory Flexibility 

Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Because this 

rule proposes to make a determination 

based on air quality data, and would, if 

finalized, result in the suspension of 

certain Federal requirements, it does not 

contain any unfunded mandate or 

significantly or uniquely affect small 

governments, as described in the 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 

(Pub. L. 104–4). 

This proposed rule also does not have 

tribal implications because it will not 

have a substantial direct effect on one or 

more Indian tribes, on the relationship 

between the Federal Government and 

Indian tribes, or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities between the 

Federal Government and Indian tribes, 

as specified by Executive Order 13175 

(65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This 

proposed action also does not have 

Federalism implications because it does 

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 (64 FR 43255, 

August 10, 1999), because it merely 

proposes to make a determination based 

on air quality data and would, if 

finalized, result in the suspension of 

certain Federal requirements, and does 

not alter the relationship or the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities established in the Clean 

Air Act. This proposed rule also is not 

subject to Executive Order 13045 

‘‘Protection of Children from 

Environmental Health Risks and Safety 

Risks’’ (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), 

because it proposes to determine that air 

quality in the affected area is meeting 

Federal standards. 

The requirements of section 12(d) of 

the National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 

272 note) do not apply because it would 

be inconsistent with applicable law for 

EPA, when determining the attainment 

status of an area, to use voluntary 

consensus standards in place of 

promulgated air quality standards and 

monitoring procedures that otherwise 

satisfy the provisions of the Clean Air 

Act. 

This proposed rule does not impose 

an information collection burden under 

the provisions of the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 

et seq.) Under Executive Order 12898, 

EPA finds that this rule involves a 

proposed determination of attainment 

based on air quality data and will not 

have disproportionately high and 

adverse human health or environmental 

effects on any communities in the area, 

including minority and low-income 

communities. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Nitrogen oxides, 

Ozone, Volatile organic compounds, 

Intergovernmental relations, Reporting 

and recordkeeping requirements. 

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

Dated: July 8, 2008. 

Alan J. Steinberg, 

Regional Administrator, Region 2. 

[FR Doc. E8–16836 Filed 7–22–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Parts 52 and 81 

[EPA–R03–OAR–2007–0624; FRL–8694–9] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; 

Pennsylvania; Redesignation of the 

Clearfield/Indiana 8-Hour Ozone 

Nonattainment Area to Attainment and 

Approval of the Maintenance Plan and 

2002 Base-Year Inventory 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve 

a redesignation request and State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions 

submitted by the Commonwealth of 

Pennsylvania. The Pennsylvania 

Department of Environmental Protection 

(PADEP) is requesting that the Clearfield 

and Indiana Counties ozone 

nonattainment area (Clearfield/Indiana 

Area) be redesignated as attainment for 

the 8-hour ozone national ambient air 

quality standard (NAAQS). EPA is 

proposing to approve the ozone 

redesignation request for the Clearfield/ 

Indiana Area. In conjunction with its 

redesignation request, PADEP submitted 

a SIP revision consisting of a 

maintenance plan for the Clearfield/ 

Indiana Area that provides for 

continued attainment of the 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS for at least 10 years after 

redesignation. EPA is proposing to make 

a determination that the Clearfield/ 

Indiana Area has attained the 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS, based upon three years 

of complete quality-assured ambient air 

quality ozone monitoring data for 2004–

2006. EPA’s proposed approval of the 

8-hour ozone redesignation request is 

based on its determination that the 

Clearfield/Indiana Area has met the 

criteria for redesignation to attainment 

specified in the Clean Air Act (CAA). In 

addition, PADEP submitted a 2002 baseyear inventory for the Clearfield/Indiana 

Area which EPA is proposing to 

approve as a SIP revision. EPA is also 

providing information on the status of 

its adequacy determination for the 

motor vehicle emission budgets 

(MVEBs) that are identified in the 

Clearfield/Indiana Area maintenance 

plan for purposes of transportation 

conformity, which EPA is also 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS