Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 194 / Friday, October 5, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 60907 

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 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 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, Particulate matter, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile 

organic compounds. 

Dated: September 25, 2012. 

A. Stanley Meiburg, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4. 

40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows: 

PART 52—APPROVAL AND 

PROMULGATION OF 

IMPLEMENTATION PLANS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 52 

continues to read as follows: 

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

Subpart B—Alabama 

■ 2. In § 52.50, table ‘‘EPA Approved 

Alabama Non-Regulatory Provisions’’ in 

paragraph (e) is amended by adding a 

new entry for ‘‘Attainment Plan for the 

Alabama Portion of the Chattanooga 

1997 Annual PM2.5 Nonattainment 

Area’’ to read as follows: 

§ 52.50 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(e) * * * 

EPA-APPROVED ALABAMA NON-REGULATORY PROVISIONS

Name of non-regulatory SIP 

provision 

Applicable geographic or 

nonattainment area 

State submittal 

date/effective 

date 

EPA approval date Explanation 

*******

Attainment Plan for the Alabama 

Portion of the Chattanooga 1997 

Annual PM2.5 Nonattainment 

Area.

A portion of Jackson County, Alabama.10/07/2009 10/05/2012 [Insert citation of publication].

[FR Doc. 2012–24525 Filed 10–4–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R01–OAR–2011–0453, FRL–9736–5] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans; Vermont: 

Prevention of Significant Deterioration; 

Greenhouse Gas Permitting Authority 

and Tailoring Rule 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is approving revisions to 

the Vermont State Implementation Plan 

(SIP), submitted by the Vermont 

Department of Environmental 

Conservation (VT DEC) Air Pollution 

Control Division to EPA on February 14, 

2011. The SIP revision modifies 

Vermont’s Prevention of Significant 

Deterioration (PSD) program to establish 

appropriate emission thresholds for 

determining which new stationary 

sources and modification projects 

become subject to Vermont’s PSD 

permitting requirements for their 

greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. EPA 

proposed approval of these regulatory 

revisions on August 16, 2012, and 

received no comments. This action 

affects major stationary sources in 

Vermont that have GHG emissions 

above the thresholds established in the 

PSD regulations. 

DATES: Effective Date: This rule is 

effective on November 5, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket 

Identification No. EPA–R01–OAR– 

2011–0453. All documents in the docket 

are listed on the www.regulations.gov 

Web site. Although listed in the index, 

some information is not publicly 

available, i.e., Confidential Business 

Information 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 at 

the U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, EPA New England Regional 

Office, Office of Ecosystem Protection, 

Air Permits, Toxics, and Indoor 

Programs Unit, 5 Post Office Square— 

Suite 100, Boston, MA. EPA requests 

that if at all possible, you contact the 

person listed in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section for further 

information. The Regional Office’s 

official hours of business are Monday 

through Friday, 8:30 to 4:30, excluding 

Federal holidays. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

information regarding the Vermont SIP, 

contact Donald Dahl, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, EPA 

New England Regional Office, Office of 

Ecosystem Protection, Air Permits, 

Toxics, and Indoor Programs Unit, 5 

Post Office Square—Suite 100, (mail 

code OEP05–2), Boston, MA 02109— 

3912. Mr. Dahl’s telephone number is 

(617) 918–1657; email address: 

dahl.donald@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document whenever 

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

EPA. 

Table of Contents 

I. What is the background for this action? 

II. What comments did EPA receive? 

III. What is the effect of this action? 

IV. What action is EPA taking? 

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES
60908 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 194 / Friday, October 5, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

1 ‘‘Endangerment and Cause or Contribute 

Findings for Greenhouse Gases Under Section 

202(a) of the Clean Air Act.’’ 74 FR 66496 

(December 15, 2009). 

2 ‘‘Interpretation of Regulations that Determine 

Pollutants Covered by Clean Air Act Permitting 

Programs.’’ 75 FR 17004 (April 2, 2010). 

3 ‘‘Light-Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emission 

Standards and Corporate Average Fuel Economy 

Standards; Final Rule.’’ 75 FR 25324 (May 7, 2010). 

4 ‘‘Prevention of Significant Deterioration and 

Title V Greenhouse Gas Tailoring Rule; Final Rule.’’ 

75 FR 31514 (June 3, 2010). 

5 ‘‘Limitation of Approval of Prevention of 

Significant Deterioration Provisions Concerning 

Greenhouse Gas Emitting-Sources in State 

Implementation Plans.’’ 75 FR 82536 (December 30, 

2010). 

6 40 CFR 52.2372(b) codifies EPA’s limiting its 

approval of Vermont’s PSD SIP to not cover the 

applicability of PSD to GHG-emitting sources below 

the Tailoring Rule thresholds. 

7As we noted in the proposed rulemaking, the 

definition of ‘‘Significant’’ in Vermont’s SIP 

revision lacks significance thresholds for several 

non-GHG pollutants, but we are approving the 

revised definition as ‘‘SIP strengthening.’’ See 77 FR 

49407. 

I. What is the background for this 

action? 

EPA has recently undertaken a series 

of actions pertaining to the regulation of 

GHGs that, although for the most part 

distinct from one another, establish the 

overall framework for today’s final 

action on the Vermont SIP. Four of these 

actions include, as they are commonly 

called, the ‘‘Endangerment Finding’’ 

and ‘‘Cause or Contribute Finding,’’ 

which EPA issued in a single final 

action,1 the ‘‘Johnson Memo 

Reconsideration,’’ 2 the ‘‘Light-Duty 

Vehicle Rule,’’ 3 and the ‘‘Tailoring 

Rule.’’ 4 Taken together and in 

conjunction with the Clean Air Act 

(CAA), these actions established 

regulatory requirements for GHGs 

emitted from new motor vehicles and 

new motor vehicle engines; determined 

that such regulations, when they took 

effect on January 2, 2011, subjected 

GHGs emitted from stationary sources to 

PSD requirements; and limited the 

applicability of PSD requirements to 

GHG sources on a phased-in basis. 

Recognizing that some states had 

approved SIP PSD programs that do 

apply PSD to GHGs, but that do so for 

sources that emit as little as 100 or 250 

tons per year of GHG, and do not limit 

PSD applicability to GHGs to the higher 

thresholds in the Tailoring Rule, EPA 

published a final rule on December 30, 

2010, narrowing its previous approval of 

PSD programs as applicable to GHGemitting sources in SIPs for 24 states, 

including Vermont (PSD Narrowing 

Rule).5 In the PSD Narrowing Rule, EPA 

withdrew its approval of Vermont’s SIP, 

among other SIPs, to the extent that SIP 

applies PSD permitting requirements to 

GHG emissions from sources emitting at 

levels below those set in the Tailoring 

Rule. As a result of the Narrowing Rule, 

Vermont’s approved SIP provided the 

state with authority to regulate GHGs, 

but only at and above the Tailoring Rule 

thresholds, and required new and 

modified sources to receive a PSD 

permit based on GHG emissions only if 

they emitted at or above the Tailoring 

Rule thresholds. 

On February 14, 2011, in response to 

the Tailoring Rule and earlier GHGrelated EPA rules, VT DEC submitted a 

revision to EPA for approval into the 

Vermont SIP to establish appropriate 

emission thresholds for determining 

which new or modified stationary 

sources become subject to PSD 

permitting requirements for GHG 

emissions. Subsequently, on August 16, 

2012 (77 FR 49404), EPA published a 

proposed approval of this SIP submittal. 

Specifically, Vermont’s February 14, 

2011 SIP revision establishes 

appropriate emissions thresholds for 

determining PSD applicability to new 

and modified GHG-emitting sources in 

accordance with EPA’s Tailoring Rule. 

Detailed background information and 

EPA’s rationale for the proposed 

approval are provided in EPA’s August 

16, 2012, Federal Register action. 

II. What comments did EPA receive? 

The public comment period on the 

proposed approval of Vermont’s SIP 

revision ended on September 17, 2012. 

EPA did not receive any comments on 

the proposed approval of this SIP 

revision. 

III. What is the effect of this action? 

Final approval of Vermont’s February 

14, 2011 SIP revision incorporates 

changes to the state’s rules to establish 

the GHG emission thresholds for PSD 

applicability set forth in EPA’s Tailoring 

Rule, confirming that smaller GHG 

sources emitting less than these 

thresholds will not be subject to PSD 

permitting requirements under the 

approved Vermont SIP. EPA has 

determined the SIP revision approved 

by today’s action is consistent with 

EPA’s regulations, including the 

Tailoring Rule. Furthermore, EPA has 

determined this SIP revision is 

consistent with section 110 of the CAA; 

therefore, EPA is approving this revision 

into Vermont’s SIP. 

As a result of today’s action approving 

Vermont’s incorporation of the 

appropriate GHG permitting thresholds 

into its SIP, paragraph 40 CFR 

52.2372(b), as included in EPA’s PSD 

Narrowing Rule, is no longer necessary.6

Thus, today’s action also amends 40 

CFR 52.2372 to remove this unnecessary 

regulatory language. 

IV. What action is EPA taking? 

Pursuant to section 110 of the CAA, 

EPA is approving Vermont’s February 

14, 2011 SIP revision, relating to PSD 

requirements for GHG-emitting sources. 

Our approval includes amendments to 

Subchapter I as follows: new definitions 

of ‘‘Greenhouse Gases’’ and ‘‘Subject to 

Regulation,’’ amendments to the 

definition of ‘‘Major Stationary Source,’’ 

and the addition of a provision 

regarding significance levels of 

greenhouse gases to the definition of 

‘‘Significant.’’ 7 For federal purposes, 

EPA is adopting the interpretations of 

Vermont’s use of the terms ‘‘Greenhouse 

Gases,’’ ‘‘Subject to Regulation,’’ and its 

incorporation by reference of various 

federal regulations, as set forth in our 

proposed approval. See 77 FR 49407. 

EPA is also approving the classification 

of certain sources of greenhouse gas 

emissions as air contaminant sources in 

Subchapter IV, section 5–401(16). 

These revisions establish appropriate 

emissions thresholds for determining 

PSD applicability with respect to new or 

modified GHG-emitting stationary 

sources in accordance with EPA’s June 

3, 2010, Tailoring Rule. With this 

approval, EPA also amends 40 CFR 

52.2372 by removing subsection (b). 

EPA has made the determination this 

SIP revision is approvable because it is 

in accordance with the CAA and EPA 

regulations regarding PSD permitting for 

GHGs. The detailed rationale for this 

action is set forth in the proposed 

rulemaking referenced above, and in 

this final rule. 

V. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the Clean Air Act, the 

Administrator is required to approve a 

SIP submission that complies with the 

provisions of the Act 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 Clean Air Act. 

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 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 194 / Friday, October 5, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 60909 

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 Clean Air Act; 

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 Clean 

Air Act, 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 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, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

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

Dated: September 24, 2012. 

H. Curtis Spalding, 

Regional Administrator, EPA New England. 

Part 52 of chapter I, title 40 of the 

Code of Federal Regulations 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 UU—Vermont 

■ 2. § 52.2370(c) the Table ‘‘EPAApproved Vermont Regulations’’ is 

amended by: 

■ a. Revising entries to state citations for 

Section 5–101 and 5–401. 

■ b. Adding footnote 1. 

The revisions and addition read as 

follows. 

§ 52.2370 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

EPA-APPROVED VERMONT REGULATIONS

State citation Title/subject 

State 

effective 

date 

EPA approval date 1 Explanations 

*******

Section 5–101 ................ Definitions .................... 2/8/2011 10/5/2012, [Insert Federal Register page 

number where the 

document begins].

Added definitions of ‘‘Greenhouse Gases’’ and 

‘‘Subject to Regulation,’’ amended definition 

of ‘‘Major Stationary Source,’’ added significance level for greenhouse gases to the definition of ‘‘Significant.’’ 

*******

Section 5–401 ................ Classification of air contaminant sources.2/8/2011 10/5/2012, [Insert Federal Register page 

number where the 

document begins].

Added certain sources of greenhouse gas 

emissions to the list of air contaminant 

sources 

*******

1 In order to determine the EPA effective date for a specific provision listed in this table, consult the Federal Register notice cited in this column for the particular provision. 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES
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