60910 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 194 / Friday, October 5, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

* * * * * 

■ 3. Section 52.2372 is amended by 

removing and reserving paragraph (b). 

[FR Doc. 2012–24341 Filed 10–4–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R03–OAR–2009–0882; FRL–9738–1] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; 

Pennsylvania; Streamlining 

Amendments to the Plan Approval 

Regulations 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is granting limited 

approval to a State Implementation Plan 

(SIP) revision submitted by the 

Pennsylvania Department of 

Environmental Protection (PADEP) on 

April 14, 2009. The revision pertains to 

PADEP’s plan approval requirements for 

the construction, modification, and 

operation of sources, and is primarily 

intended to streamline the process for 

minor permitting actions. This action is 

being taken under the Clean Air Act 

(CAA). 

DATES: This final rule is effective on 

November 5, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket ID 

Number EPA–R03–OAR–2009–0882. All 

documents in the docket are listed in 

the www.regulations.gov Web site. 

Although listed in the electronic docket, 

some information is not publicly 

available, i.e., confidential business 

information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Certain other material, such as 

copyrighted material, is not placed on 

the Internet and will be publicly 

available only in hard copy form. 

Publicly available docket materials are 

available either electronically through 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy for 

public inspection during normal 

business hours at the Air Protection 

Division, U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, 

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. 

Copies of the State submittal are 

available at the Pennsylvania 

Department of Environmental 

Protection, Bureau of Air Quality 

Control, P.O. Box 8468, 400 Market 

Street, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17105. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

David Talley, (215) 814–2117, or by 

email at talley.david@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

Throughout this document, whenever 

‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or ‘‘our’’ is used, we mean 

EPA. On April 12, 2012 (77 FR 21908), 

EPA published a notice of proposed 

rulemaking (NPR) for the 

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. The 

NPR proposed approval of amendments 

to the plan approval requirements for 

the construction, modification, 

reactivation, and operation of sources 

under 25 Pa. Code chapter 127. The 

formal SIP revision was submitted by 

PADEP on April 14, 2009. 

II. Summary of SIP Revision 

The primary purpose of the 

amendments is to streamline the 

permitting process by eliminating some 

of the administrative burden and costs 

associated with processing minor 

permitting actions, while preserving the 

right of the public to review and 

comment on those proposed actions. 

The proposed amendments generally 

affect five regulations: Section 127.12b, 

pertaining to ‘‘shakedown’’ periods for 

new or modified sources; section 

127.12d, pertaining to completeness 

determinations; sections 127.44 and 

127.45, pertaining to public notice 

requirements; and section 127.48, 

pertaining to conferences and hearings. 

The specific requirements of the SIP 

revision and the rationale for EPA’s 

proposed action are explained in the 

NPR and will not be restated here. 

III. EPA’s Response to Comments 

Received on the Proposed Action 

EPA received a single set of comments 

on its April 12, 2012 proposed action to 

approve revisions to the Pennsylvania 

SIP. These comments, provided by the 

Clean Air Council, (hereinafter referred 

to as ‘‘the Commenter’’), raised concerns 

with regard to EPA’s April 12, 2012 

proposed action. A full set of these 

comments is provided in the docket for 

today’s final action. A summary of the 

comments and EPA’s responses are 

provided below. 

Generally, the Commenter raises three 

areas of concern. First, the Commenter 

asserts that the proposal to increase the 

duration of ‘‘shakedown period’’ 

extensions from 120 days to 180 days is 

inappropriate. Second, the Commenter 

asserts that the addition of the 

completeness determination 

requirements adds to PADEP’s 

permitting burden, and together with 

the other contested revisions, ‘‘* * * 

increases the burden on the public 

contrary to the stated purpose of the 

Clean Air Act * * *’’ (See, Comments at 

3). Third, the Commenter raises several 

specific concerns regarding the 

proposed revisions to the public 

participation requirements under 25 Pa. 

Code section 127. EPA’s response to 

these comments is below. 

Comment 1: The Commenter notes 

that PADEP’s previously approved 

regulations allow a 180-day shakedown 

period, with provisions for obtaining a 

120-day extension. The Commenter 

further asserts that PADEP has not 

provided any justification as to why the 

existing 120-day extension period 

should be expanded to 180 days, and 

that, in the absence of such justification, 

the proposed longer extension period is 

‘‘* * * both unnecessary and 

improper,’’ (See, Comments at 2). 

Response 1: 25 Pa. Code section 

127.12b outlines the terms and 

conditions which must be included in 

each plan approval. Under section 

127.12b(c), each plan approval ‘‘* * * 

must authorize temporary operation to 

facilitate shakedown of sources and air 

cleaning devices, to permit operations 

pending issuance of a permit under 

Subchapter F (relating to operating 

permit requirements) or Subchapter G 

(relating to Title V operating permits) or 

to permit the evaluation of the air 

contamination aspects of the source.’’ 

The currently approved regulations 

already allow for a 120-day extension of 

this temporary operating authorization. 

EPA disagrees with the Commenter’s 

assertion that allowing a longer, 180-day 

extension is improper, and we leave to 

PADEP’s discretion the issue of whether 

it is necessary. CAA section 110(k)(3) 

requires the Administrator to approve a 

SIP submittal ‘‘* * * if it meets all of 

the applicable requirements of this 

chapter.’’ We cannot identify, nor did 

the Commenter point to any CAA 

requirement or provision of its 

implementing regulations which is 

contrary to PADEP’s proposed 

expansion of the temporary operating 

authorization period. Furthermore, we 

note that 25 Pa. Code section 127.12b 

requires each plan approval to contain 

all applicable CAA requirements, 

including monitoring, recordkeeping 

and reporting, and prohibits PADEP 

from approving or extending the 

temporary authorization period in any 

instance which would circumvent the 

requirements of 25 Pa. Code section 127. 

Therefore, we are approving the 

revisions to 25 Pa. Code 127.12b as 

submitted. 

Comment 2: Although acknowledging 

that the proposed addition of the 

completeness determination 

requirements of 25 Pa. Code section 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 194 / Friday, October 5, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 60911 

127.12d complies with the CAA, the 

Commenter asserts that, ‘‘It defies 

common understanding of fairness to 

push burdens away from the booming 

private industry while at the same time 

increasing the burden on government, 

especially when PADEP is facing budget 

cuts’’ (See, Comments at 3). 

Response 2: EPA disagrees that the 

addition of completeness 

determinations imposes an undue 

burden on permitting authorities. On 

the contrary, clearly defining what is 

required of both the applicant and the 

permitting authority (PADEP in this 

case), as well as establishing deadlines 

on both parties eliminates potentially 

open ended, back-and-forth 

correspondence between the applicant 

and PADEP that draws the permitting 

process out unnecessarily. Such a 

situation is much more burdensome on 

a permitting authority than a 

requirement for completeness 

determinations. In any event, the point 

is moot. The completeness 

determination provision proposed by 

PADEP is not only compliant with the 

CAA, it is required by 40 CFR 

51.166(q)(1). We are therefore approving 

the revisions as submitted. 

Comment 3: The third area of concern 

raised by the Commenter relates to the 

proposed revisions to the public 

participation requirements for plan 

approvals. The specific provisions with 

which the Commenter takes issue are 

discussed in detail as follows: 

First, the Commenter asserts that the 

proposed revision to 25 Pa. Code 

127.44, specifically the elimination of 

the receipt of application notice for 

minor permitting actions, ‘‘* * * would 

significantly decrease the public’s 

awareness of the permitting activity in 

their own communities and 

consequently diminish the public’s 

ability to provide meaningful input into 

the permitting process,’’ (See, 

Comments at 3). Second, the 

Commenter asserts that the elimination 

of the newspaper publication 

requirement for minor permitting 

actions in favor of publication in the 

Pennsylvania Bulletin under the 

proposed revision to section 127.44 is 

contrary to 40 CFR sections 51.166(q), 

51.161(b)(3), and 70.7(h), arguing that 

because the Pennsylvania Bulletin is a ’’ 

highly esoteric publication with very 

limited and specialized readership’’ 

(See, Comments at 4), it fails to meet the 

CAA’s ‘‘prominent advertisement’’ 

requirements. Third, the Commenter 

asserts that eliminating the requirement 

for notice to be sent to affected states is 

contrary to 40 CFR 70.7(h)(3), 70.8, and 

51.166(q)(2)(iv). Fourth, the Commenter 

asserts that the proposed revisions to 

section 127.45, related to the required 

contents of the public notices, are 

contrary to 40 CFR 51.161(a) because 

the revised provisions do not include 

the requirement to disclose the 

proposed emissions limitations, 

PADEP’s analysis of the applicant’s 

proposal, and the project’s impact on 

ambient air quality (See, Comments at 

7). Finally, the Commenter asserts that 

section 127.48 is contrary to 40 CFR 

51.166(q)(iii) and (v) because it gives 

PADEP too much discretion in 

determining when to hold conferences 

and public hearings. 

Response 3: Generally, the proposed 

revisions to the public notice 

requirements pertain to Pennsylvania’s 

minor NSR program. In contrast to the 

considerable requirements prescribed 

for major NSR, the CAA, at section 

110(a)(2)(C), addresses minor source 

programs only by requiring that each 

SIP include a program that provides for 

‘‘* * * regulation of the modification 

and construction of any stationary 

source within the areas covered by the 

plan as necessary to assure that 

[NAAQS] are achieved * * *’’ The 

implementing regulations for minor 

NSR are at 40 CFR 51.160–51.164. In 

sum, states have considerable discretion 

with regard to developing their minor 

NSR programs. 

With regard to the elimination of the 

receipt of application notice, the 

Commenter is incorrect in the assertion 

that the previously approved version of 

the Pennsylvania SIP requires both a 

notice of receipt and a notice of intent 

to issue. Only one notice, a notice of 

intent to take action (issue/deny) was 

required by the previously approved 

version of 25 Pa. Code 127.44(a). PADEP 

was, as a matter of policy, issuing two 

notices. It was never a requirement, and 

it is within PADEP’s discretion to stop 

that practice. The revisions to section 

127.44(a) are consistent with the 

requirements of 40 CFR 51.161(a). 

The Commenter’s assertion that the 

elimination of the newspaper 

publication requirement for minor 

permitting actions in favor of 

publication in the Pennsylvania Bulletin 

under the proposed revision to section 

127.44 is contrary to 40 CFR 51.166(q), 

51.161(b)(3), and 70.7(h) is also 

incorrect. First, the types of actions that 

are subject to the revised requirements 

of 25 Pa. Code 127.44(a) are not subject 

to the major NSR requirements of 40 

CFR 51.166(q). With regard to section 

70.7(h), in certain circumstances, 

Pennsylvania operates a ‘‘merged’’ 

permit program in which a plan 

approval is both an NSR and a title V 

action, and the requirements of the plan 

approval are brought into the facility’s 

title V permit as an administrative 

amendment with no additional public 

notice. In such instances, all of the 

public notice requirements of part 70, 

including the newspaper requirement of 

section 70.7(h) are applicable. It is 

unclear how frequently this situation 

occurs in the types of minor facilities 

that are subject to the proposed 

revisions to 25 Pa. Code 127.44. 

Nevertheless, this is a title V 

implementation issue, and does not 

affect the approvability of the proposed 

revisions to Pennsylvania’s NSR SIP. 

Furthermore, we disagree that 

publication in the Pa. Bulletin fails to 

meet the ‘‘prominent advertisement’’ 

requirements of 40 CFR 51.161(b)(3). 

EPA has repeatedly recognized that the 

prominent advertisement requirements 

of section 51.161(b)(3) are media 

neutral, and that state programs may 

meet the requirement with alternative 

methods, provided that it is reasonable 

to conclude that the public would have 

‘‘ready and routine access to any 

alternative publishing venues,’’ (See, 

April 17, 2012, Janet McCabe Memo to 

Regional Administrators entitled, 

‘‘Minor New Source Review Public 

Notice Requirements under 40 CFR 

51.161(b)(3)’’, available at http:// 

www.epa.gov/region07/air/nsr/ 

nsrmemos/pubnot.pdf). We believe 

publication in the Pa. Bulletin meets 

this standard. 

With regard to the Commenter’s 

assertion that eliminating the 

requirement for notice to be sent to 

affected states is contrary to 40 CFR 

70.7(h)(3), 70.8, and 51.166(q)(2)(iv), as 

we stated above, the types of actions 

that are subject to the proposed revised 

requirements of 25 Pa. Code 127.44(a) 

are not subject to the major NSR 

requirements of 40 CFR 51.166. The 

applicable regulations of 40 CFR 

51.160–51.164 contain no such notice 

requirement. As discussed above, the 

applicability of the title V requirements 

of part 70 is dependent on whether the 

specific plan approval is being 

processed as a ‘‘merged’’ permit, and is 

an implementation issue that does not 

impact the approvability of the 

proposed SIP revision. 

EPA agrees with the Commenter’s 

assertion that the proposed revisions to 

25 Pa. Code 127.45 fall short of what is 

required by 40 CFR 51.161. However, as 

we discussed in our proposal, we 

believe that to some extent, the intent of 

section 51.161(a) was met in 25 Pa. 

Code sections 127.45(a)(3) and (4), 

which contain the requirements for 

what must be included in the public 

notice. These sections require a 

description of the proposed 

construction or modification, the 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES
60912 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 194 / Friday, October 5, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

control technology being installed, the 

conditions in the proposed permit (with 

reference to applicable federal 

requirements), and the type and 

quantity of air contaminants being 

emitted. Nevertheless, the agency 

analysis required by 40 CFR 51.161(a) is 

not explicitly required in the proposed 

SIP revision, nor do the regulations of 

sections 127.44 and 127.45 require that 

the agency’s analysis be made available 

for public inspection in at least one 

location, in accordance with 40 CFR 

51.161(b)(1). Section 127.44(f)(1) 

requires only that the application be 

made available. This is the basis for 

granting limited approval. In order to 

receive full approval, PADEP must 

adopt regulations that explicitly require 

that the agency’s analysis be included in 

the materials made available to the 

public, and that the materials be made 

available for public inspection in at 

least one location. 

Additionally, the Commenter asserts 

that the proposed revisions have lead to 

inadequate information being provided 

in the notices of receipt and intent to 

issue, thus limiting the public’s ability 

to participate meaningfully in the 

permitting process (See, Comments at 

7). The Commenter further asserts that 

not only should the application 

materials and the agency’s analysis be 

provided to the public, but that the 

proposed permit itself should also be 

provided. There is no requirement in 

section 51.161 that the proposed permit 

be made public. Nevertheless, EPA 

agrees that the generic, boilerplate 

language cited by the Commenter falls 

short of the intent of section 51.161 

(See, Comments at 7–8). However, this 

is an implementation issue which is 

outside of the scope of the SIP revision 

process. Once PADEP submits 

regulations which correct the 

deficiencies leading to our limited 

approval, the regulations at 25 Pa. Code 

section 127.45 will be fully approvable 

on their face. 

Finally, EPA disagrees with the 

Commenter’s assertion that 25 Pa. Code 

127.48 is contrary to 40 CFR 

51.166(q)(iii) and (v) because it gives 

PADEP too much discretion in 

determining when to hold conferences 

and public hearings. The requirements 

of section 127.48 apply not to routine 

public hearings held in the course of the 

public notice process, but to hearings 

held as a result of an official protest 

having been filed in accordance with 

section 127.46. There are no public 

hearing requirements in 40 CFR 51.161 

for minor NSR actions. Additionally, we 

note that Pennsylvania has met the plan 

requirements of 40 CFR 51.166 by 

incorporating by reference in their 

entirety the federal regulations at 40 

CFR 52.21. Therefore, the applicable 

requirements are not under section 

51.166(q), but rather are under section 

52.21(q). Section 52.21(q) requires that 

the applicable procedures of 40 CFR 

section 124 be followed in the 

processing of applications. According to 

section 124.12(a), ‘‘The Director shall 

hold a public hearing whenever he or 

she finds, on the basis of requests, a 

significant degree of public interest in a 

draft permit(s).’’ It is clear that there is 

some discretion afforded to the 

permitting authority in determining 

when a public hearing should be held. 

For the reasons discussed above, EPA 

believes that with the exception of the 

noted deficiencies, PADEP’s proposed 

SIP revision meets all applicable CAA 

requirements, and that a limited 

approval is warranted. 

IV. Final Action 

EPA is granting limited approval of 

the submitted amendments to 25 Pa. 

Code chapter 127 as a revision to the 

Pennsylvania SIP. 

V. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

A. General Requirements 

Under the CAA, the Administrator is 

required to approve a SIP submission 

that complies with the provisions of the 

CAA and applicable Federal regulations. 

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

Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, 

EPA’s role is to approve state choices, 

provided that they meet the criteria of 

the CAA. Accordingly, this action 

merely approves state law as meeting 

Federal requirements and does not 

impose additional requirements beyond 

those imposed by state law. For that 

reason, this action: 

• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ subject to review by the Office 

of Management and Budget under 

Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993); 

• Does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

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

• Is certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

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

• Does not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); 

• Does not have Federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• Is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

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

• Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); 

• Is not subject to requirements of 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

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

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the CAA; and 

• Does not provide EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address, as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable and legally permissible 

methods, under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

In addition, this rule does not have 

tribal implications as specified by 

Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, 

November 9, 2000), because the SIP is 

not approved to apply in Indian country 

located in the state, and EPA notes that 

it will not impose substantial direct 

costs on tribal governments or preempt 

tribal law. 

B. Submission to Congress and the 

Comptroller General 

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). 

C. Petitions for 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 appropriate 

circuit by December 4, 2012. Filing a 

petition for reconsideration by the 

Administrator of this final rule does not 

affect the finality of this action for the 

purposes of judicial review nor does it 

extend the time within which a petition 

for judicial review may be filed, and 

shall not postpone the effectiveness of 

such rule or action. 

This action regarding streamlining 

amendments to Pennsylvania’s plan 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 194 / Friday, October 5, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 60913 

approval process 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, Carbon monoxide, 

Incorporation by reference, 

Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen 

dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile 

organic compounds. 

Dated: September 21, 2012. 

W.C. Early, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region III. 

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 NN—Pennsylvania 

■ 2. In § 52.2020, the table in paragraph 

(c)(1) is amended by: 

■ a. Revising the entry for Title 25, 

Section 127.12b. 

■ b. Adding an entry for Title 25, 

Section 127.12d after the existing entry 

for Section 127.12c. 

■ c. Revising the entries for Sections 

127.44, 127.45, and 127.48. 

The amendments read as follows: 

§ 52.2020 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(1) * * * 

State citation Title/subject 

State 

effective 

date 

EPA approval date 

Additional 

explanation/ 

§ 52.2063 

citation 

Title 25—Environmental Protection Article III—Air Resources 

*******

Chapter 127—Construction, Modification, Reactivation and Operation of Sources 

*******

Subchapter B—Plan Approval Requirements 

*******

Section 127.12b ..................... Plan Approval Terms and Conditions ............ 5/24/08 10/5/12 [Insert page number 

where the document begins].

Revised; limited 

approval. 

*******

Section 127.12d ..................... Completeness Determination ......................... 5/24/08 10/5/12 [Insert page number 

where the document begins].

Added; limited 

approval. 

*******

Section 127.44 ....................... Public Notice .................................................. 5/24/08 10/5/12 [Insert page number 

where the document begins].

Revised; limited 

approval. 

Section 127.45 ....................... Contents of Notice ......................................... 5/24/08 10/5/12 [Insert page number 

where the document begins].

Revised; limited 

approval. 

*******

Section 127.48 ....................... Conferences and Hearings ............................ 5/24/08 10/5/12 [Insert page number 

where the document begins].

Revised; limited 

approval. 

*******

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2012–24524 Filed 10–4–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES
60914 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 194 / Friday, October 5, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R03–OAR–2008–0930; FRL–9737–9] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; 

Delaware; Attainment Demonstration 

for the 1997 8-Hour Ozone National 

Ambient Air Quality Standard for the 

Philadelphia-Wilmington-Atlantic City 

Moderate Nonattainment Area 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is approving the 

attainment demonstration portion of the 

attainment plan submitted by the State 

of Delaware as a State Implementation 

Plan (SIP) revision. The SIP revision 

demonstrates attainment of the 1997 8- 

hour ozone national ambient air quality 

standard (NAAQS) for the PhiladelphiaWilmington-Atlantic City, PA-NJ-MDDE moderate nonattainment area 

(Philadelphia Area) by the applicable 

attainment date of June 2011. EPA is 

approving the SIP revision in 

accordance with the requirements of the 

Clean Air Act (CAA). 

DATES: This final rule is effective on 

November 5, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket ID 

Number EPA–R03–OAR–2008–0930. All 

documents in the docket are listed in 

the www.regulations.gov Web site. 

Although listed in the electronic docket, 

some information is not publicly 

available, i.e., confidential business 

information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Certain other material, such as 

copyrighted material, is not placed on 

the Internet and will be publicly 

available only in hard copy form. 

Publicly available docket materials are 

available either electronically through 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy for 

public inspection during normal 

business hours at the Air Protection 

Division, U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, 

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. 

Copies of the State submittal are 

available at the Delaware Department of 

Natural Resources and Environmental 

Control, 89 Kings Highway, P.O. Box 

1401, Dover, Delaware 19903. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rose 

Quinto, (215) 814–2182, or by email at 

quinto.rose@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

On August 7, 2012 (77 FR 46990), 

EPA published a notice of proposed 

rulemaking (NPR) for the State of 

Delaware. The NPR proposed approval 

of the attainment demonstration portion 

of the attainment plan for the 1997 8- 

hour ozone NAAQS for the Philadelphia 

Area. The formal SIP revision was 

submitted by Delaware on June 13, 

2007. 

II. Summary of SIP Revision 

The SIP revision consists of the 

attainment demonstration portion of the 

attainment plan submitted by Delaware 

as a SIP revision on June 13, 2007 to 

demonstrate attainment of the 1997 8- 

hour ozone NAAQS for the Philadelphia 

Area by the applicable attainment date 

of June 2011. EPA previously approved 

other portions of the Delaware 

attainment plan submitted on June 13, 

2007. See 75 FR 17863 (April 8, 2010). 

EPA has determined that the weight of 

evidence analysis that Delaware used to 

support the attainment demonstration 

provides sufficient evidence that the 

Philadelphia Area would attain the 1997 

8-hour ozone NAAQS by the applicable 

attainment date of June 2011. Specific 

requirements of the attainment 

demonstration and the rationale for 

EPA’s proposed action are explained in 

the NPR and the technical support 

document (TSD) and will not be restated 

here. No public comments were 

received on the NPR. 

Separately, EPA conducted a process 

to find adequate the motor vehicle 

emission budgets (MVEBs) for New 

Castle, Kent and Sussex Counties which 

are associated with the Delaware 

attainment demonstration for the 

Philadelphia Area. A notice was posted 

on EPA’s Web site for a 30-day public 

comment period on the adequacy 

determination for the 2009 MVEBs 

associated with the attainment 

demonstration for all three counties in 

Delaware. No comments were received 

during the public comment period. 

Therefore, EPA finds adequate the 

MVEBs for transportation conformity 

purposes for all three counties in 

Delaware. 

III. Final Action 

EPA is approving the 1997 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS attainment 

demonstration portion of the attainment 

plan submitted by Delaware on June 13, 

2007. EPA has determined that 

Delaware’s SIP revision demonstrates 

attainment of the 1997 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS for the Philadelphia Area by 

the applicable attainment date of June 

2011. EPA also has determined that the 

SIP revision meets the applicable 

requirements of the CAA. EPA is also 

approving and finding adequate the 

2009 MVEBs associated with the 

attainment demonstration for all three 

counties in Delaware. 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

A. General Requirements 

Under the CAA, the Administrator is 

required to approve a SIP submission 

that complies with the provisions of the 

CAA and applicable Federal regulations. 

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

Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, 

EPA’s role is to approve state choices, 

provided that they meet the criteria of 

the CAA. Accordingly, this action 

merely approves state law as meeting 

Federal requirements and does not 

impose additional requirements beyond 

those imposed by state law. For that 

reason, this action: 

• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ subject to review by the Office 

of Management and Budget under 

Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993); 

• Does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

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

• Is certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

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

• Does not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); 

• Does not have Federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• Is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

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

• Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); 

• Is not subject to requirements of 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

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

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the CAA; and 

• Does not provide EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address, as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES