46990 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 152 / Tuesday, August 7, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

Par. 2. Section 1.42–10 is amended 

by: 

1. Adding a sentence after the first 

sentence of paragraph (a). 

2. Revising the first sentence of 

paragraph (b)(4)(ii)(A). 

3. Adding paragraph (e). 

The additions and revision read as 

follows: 

§ 1.42–10 Utility allowances. 

(a) * * * For purposes of the 

preceding sentence, if the cost of a 

particular utility for a residential unit is 

paid pursuant to an actual-consumption 

submetering arrangement within the 

meaning of paragraph (e)(1) of this 

section, then that cost is treated as being 

paid directly by the tenant(s) and not by 

or through the owner of the building. 

* * * 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(4) * * * 

(ii) * * * 

(A) * * * If none of the rules of 

paragraphs (b)(1), (b)(2), (b)(3), and 

(b)(4)(i) of this section apply to 

determine the appropriate utility 

allowance for a rent-restricted unit, then 

the appropriate utility allowance for the 

unit is the applicable PHA utility 

allowance. * * * 

* * * * * 

(e) Actual-consumption submetering 

arrangements—(1) Definition. For 

purposes of this section, an actualconsumption submetering arrangement 

for a utility in a residential unit 

possesses all of the following attributes: 

(i) The building owner (or its agent or 

other party acting on behalf of the 

building owner) pays the utility 

provider for the particular utility 

consumed by the tenants in the unit; 

(ii) The tenants in the unit are billed 

for, and pay the building owner (or its 

agent or other party acting on behalf of 

the building owner) for, the unit’s 

consumption of the particular utility; 

(iii) The billed amount reflects the 

unit’s actual consumption of the 

particular utility. In the case of sewerage 

charges, however, if the unit’s sewerage 

charges are combined on the bill with 

water charges and the sewerage charges 

are determined based on the actual 

water consumption of the unit, then the 

bill is treated as reflecting the actual 

sewerage consumption of the unit; and 

(iv) The utility rate charged to the 

tenants of the unit does not exceed the 

utility company rate incurred by the 

building owner for that particular 

utility. 

(2) Special rules—(i) Fees. If the 

owner charges a unit’s tenants an 

administrative fee for the owner’s actual 

monthly costs of administering an 

actual-consumption submetering 

arrangement, then the fee is not 

considered gross rent for purposes of 

section 42(g)(2). The preceding 

sentence, however, does not apply 

unless the fee is computed in the same 

manner for every unit receiving the 

same submetered utility service, nor 

does it apply to any amount by which 

the aggregate monthly fee or fees for all 

of the unit’s utilities under one or more 

actual-consumption submetering 

arrangements exceed the lesser of— 

(A) Five dollars per month; or 

(B) The owner’s actual monthly costs 

paid or incurred for administering the 

arrangement. 

(ii) Actual costs. For purposes of 

paragraph (e)(2)(i)(B) of this section, the 

owner’s actual costs of administering an 

actual-consumption submetering 

arrangement include amounts paid to 

employees, independent contractors, 

and service providers for administering 

the submetering arrangement and 

allocable costs that relate to submetering 

equipment and that are not included in 

the building’s eligible basis under 

section 42(d). 

Par. 3. Section 1.42–12 is amended by 

adding paragraph (a)(5) to read as 

follows: 

§ 1.42–12 Effective dates and transitional 

rules. 

(a) * * * 

(5) Submetered buildings. The second 

sentence in § 1.42–10(a), the first 

sentence in § 1.42–10(b)(4)(ii)(A), and 

§ 1.42–10(e) apply to utility allowances 

determined on or after the date the final 

regulations are published in the Federal 

Register. Until the date the final 

regulations are published in the Federal 

Register, taxpayers may rely on Notice 

2009–44 (2009–21 IRB 1037; May 26, 

2009) (see § 601.601(d)(2)(ii)(b) of this 

chapter) for taxable years beginning on 

or after July 29, 2008. 

* * * * * 

Steven T. Miller, 

Deputy Commissioner for Services and 

Enforcement. 

[FR Doc. 2012–19179 Filed 8–6–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4830–01–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R03–OAR–2008–0930; FRL–9711–6 ] 

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: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve 

the attainment demonstration portion of 

the attainment plan submitted by the 

State of Delaware through the Delaware 

Department of Natural Resources and 

Environmental Control (DNREC) as a 

State Implementation Plan (SIP) 

revision that demonstrates attainment of 

the 1997 8-hour ozone national ambient 

air quality standard (NAAQS) for the 

Philadelphia-Wilmington-Atlantic City, 

PA–NJ–MD–DE, moderate 

nonattainment area (Philadelphia Area) 

by the applicable attainment date of 

June 2011. EPA has determined that 

Delaware’s SIP revision meets the 

applicable requirements of the Clean Air 

Act (CAA). This action is being taken in 

accordance with the CAA. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received on or before September 6, 

2012. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID Number EPA– 

R03–OAR–2008–0930 by one of the 

following methods: 

A. www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

B. Email: mastro.donna@epa.gov. 

C. Mail: EPA–R03–OAR–2008–0930, 

Donna Mastro, Acting Associate 

Director, Office of Air Planning 

Program, Mailcode 3AP30, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region III, 1650 Arch Street, 

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. 

D. Hand Delivery: At the previouslylisted EPA Region III address. Such 

deliveries are only accepted during the 

Docket’s normal hours of operation, and 

special arrangements should be made 

for deliveries of boxed information. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–R03–OAR–2008– 

0930. 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 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 152 / Tuesday, August 7, 2012 / Proposed Rules 46991 

1As explained in detail in Section II, EPA 

approved on January 21, 2011 a one-year extension 

of the Philadelphia Area’s attainment date from 

June 2010 to June 2011. 76 FR 3840 (Jan. 21, 2011). 

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 email. 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 email 

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. 

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 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: 

Throughout this document, whenever 

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

EPA. The following is provided to aid 

in locating information in this preamble. 

I. What action is EPA proposing to take? 

II. What is the background for EPA’s 

proposed action? 

III. What are the CAA requirements for a 

moderate 8-hour ozone nonattainment 

area? 

IV. What is included in Delaware’s SIP 

submittal? 

V. What is EPA’s review of Delaware’s 

modeled attainment demonstration and 

weight of evidence analysis for the 

Philadelphia area? 

VI. Proposed Action 

VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. What action is EPA proposing to 

take? 

EPA is proposing to approve the 

attainment demonstration element of a 

SIP revision submitted by DNREC to 

EPA on June 13, 2007. The June 13, 

2007 SIP revision consisted of 

Delaware’s attainment plan for the 1997 

8-hour ozone NAAQS for the 

Philadelphia Area. The ozone 

attainment plan submitted on June 13, 

2007 included the attainment 

demonstration for the Philadelphia Area 

and its associated motor vehicle 

emission budgets (MVEBs) used for 

transportation conformity purposes in 

all three Delaware counties (New Castle, 

Kent and Sussex Counties). The 

Delaware attainment plan also included 

a 2002 base year emissions inventory, 

an analysis of the reasonably available 

control measures/reasonably available 

control technology (RACM/RACT), the 

2008 rate of progress (ROP) plan and its 

associated MVEBs, and contingency 

measures. The ROP plan and its MVEBs, 

2002 base year emissions inventory, 

RACM/RACT analysis, and contingency 

measures (elements of the June 13, 2007 

attainment plan) were approved on 

April 8, 2010 (75 FR 17763). Therefore, 

in this action, EPA is only proposing to 

approve the attainment demonstration 

for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS for 

the Philadelphia Area. 

In a separate and concurrent process, 

EPA is conducting a process to find 

adequate the MVEBs for New Castle, 

Kent, and Sussex Counties which are 

associated with the Delaware attainment 

demonstration for the Philadelphia 

Area. Concurrently with EPA’s proposal 

to approve the SIP, a notice will be 

posted on EPA’s Web site at http:// 

www.epa.gov/otaq/stateresources/ 

transconf/currsips.htm for the purpose 

of opening a 30-day public comment 

period on the adequacy of the MVEBs 

for New Castle, Kent and Sussex 

Counties in the June 13, 2007 SIP 

revision’s attainment demonstration for 

the Philadelphia Area. That notice will 

inform the public of the availability of 

the Delaware SIP revision on DNREC’s 

Web site. Interested members of the 

public could access Delaware’s June 13, 

2007 SIP revision on line at 

www.regulations.gov, Docket No. EPA– 

R03–OAR–2008–0930. Following EPA’s 

public comment period, responses to 

any comments received will be 

addressed. 

EPA has determined that Delaware’s 

attainment demonstration meets the 

applicable requirements of the CAA 

because it demonstrates attainment by 

the applicable date of June 15, 2011.1

EPA’s analysis and findings are 

discussed in this proposed rulemaking. 

In addition, a technical support 

document (TSD) for this proposal 

entitled ‘‘Technical Support Document 

for the Modeling and Weight of 

Evidence Portions of the State of 

Delaware’s Ozone State Implementation 

Plan,’’ dated May 2, 2012 (referred to 

herein as the Attainment TSD) is 

available on line at 

www.regulations.gov, Docket No. EPA– 

R03–OAR–2008–0930. The Attainment 

TSD provides additional explanation on 

EPA’s analysis supporting this proposed 

approval of the attainment 

demonstration. 

II. What is the background for EPA’s 

proposed action? 

On June 13, 2007, DNREC submitted 

a comprehensive SIP revision to meet 

the requirements for an attainment plan 

for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS for 

the Philadelphia Area. On May 8, 2009 

(74 FR 21599), EPA proposed to 

disapprove the ozone attainment 

demonstration element of the June 13, 

2007 attainment plan of the 

comprehensive SIP revision. EPA 

proposed to disapprove the attainment 

demonstration of the 1997 8-hour 

NAAQS for the Philadelphia Area 

because EPA determined that the 

photochemical modeling did not 

demonstrate attainment, and the weight 

of evidence analysis used to support the 

attainment demonstration did not 

provide sufficient evidence that the 

Philadelphia Area would attain the 1997 

8-hour ozone NAAQS by the June 2010 

deadline for the ozone nonattainment 

areas classified as moderate. On 

December 9, 2011 (76 FR 76929), EPA 

withdrew the May 8, 2009 proposed 

disapproval of the attainment 

demonstration for the Philadelphia Area 

based on ambient air quality monitoring 

data demonstrating attainment. 

Moderate areas are required to attain 

the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS by no 

later than six years after designation. 

Therefore, the Philadelphia Area was to 

attain by June 15, 2010. See 40 CFR 

51.903 and 69 FR 23951 (April 30, 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
46992 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 152 / Tuesday, August 7, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

2004). However, the Philadelphia Area 

qualified for a one year extension of its 

attainment date, based on the complete, 

certified ambient air quality data for the 

2009 ozone season. See 40 CFR 51.907. 

On January 21, 2011 (76 FR 3840), EPA 

approved a one year extension of the 

Philadelphia Area’s attainment date 

from June 15, 2010 to June 15, 2011, 

based in part on air quality data 

recorded during the 2009 ozone season. 

On March 26, 2012 (77 FR 17341), 

EPA published two determinations 

regarding the 1997 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS for the Philadelphia Area. First, 

EPA made a clean data determination 

that the Philadelphia Area had attained 

the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. This 

determination was based upon 

complete, quality assured, and certified 

ambient air monitoring data that 

showed the Philadelphia Area had 

monitored attainment of the 1997 8- 

hour ozone NAAQS for the 2008–2010 

monitoring period. Ambient air 

monitoring data for the 2009–2011 

monitoring period is consistent with 

continued attainment. Second, pursuant 

to section 181(b)(2)(A) of the CAA, EPA 

made a determination of attainment that 

the Philadelphia Area had attained the 

1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS by its 

attainment date of June 15, 2011. 

III. What are the CAA requirements for 

a moderate 8-hour ozone 

nonattainment area? 

In 1997, EPA revised the health-based 

NAAQS for ozone, setting it at 0.08 

parts per million (ppm) averaged over 

an 8-hour time frame. EPA set the 1997 

8-hour ozone standard based on 

scientific evidence demonstrating that 

ozone causes adverse health effects at 

lower ozone concentrations and over 

longer periods of time than was 

understood when the pre-existing 1- 

hour ozone standard was set. EPA 

determined that the 1997 8-hour 

standard would be more protective of 

human health, especially for children 

and adults who are active outdoors, and 

individuals with a pre-existing 

respiratory disease, such as asthma. 

On April 30, 2004 (69 FR 23951), EPA 

finalized its attainment/nonattainment 

designations for areas across the country 

with respect to the 1997 8-hour ozone 

standard. These actions became 

effective on June 15, 2004. In addition, 

on April 30, 2004 (69 FR 23951), EPA 

promulgated its Phase 1 Implementation 

Rule which provided how areas 

designated nonattainment for the 1997 

8-hour ozone standard would be 

classified. Among those nonattainment 

areas is the Philadelphia Area, which 

includes all three counties in Delaware, 

five counties in eastern Pennsylvania, 

one county in Maryland, and eight 

counties in southern New Jersey. 

Therefore, the Philadelphia Area 

includes New Castle, Kent and Sussex 

Counties in Delaware. EPA’s Phase 2 

Implementation Rule published on 

November 29, 2005 (70 FR 71612) 

specifies that states must submit 

attainment demonstrations for their 

nonattainment areas to EPA by no later 

than three years from the effective date 

of designation, that is, by June 15, 2007. 

See 40 CFR 51.908(a). 

Pursuant to the Phase 1 

Implementation Rule, an area was 

classified under subpart 2 of Title I of 

the CAA based on its 8-hour design 

value if it had a 1-hour design value at 

or above 0.12 ppm. Based on this 

criterion, the Philadelphia Area was 

classified under subpart 2 as a moderate 

nonattainment area. The Phase 2 

Implementation Rule addressed the 

control obligations that apply to areas 

classified under subpart 2. Among other 

things, the Phase 1 and 2 

Implementation Rules outline the 

required SIP elements and deadlines for 

those various requirements in areas 

designated as moderate nonattainment. 

IV. What is included in Delaware’s SIP 

submittal? 

On June 13, 2007, Delaware submitted 

a comprehensive attainment plan as a 

SIP revision for the 1997 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS. The SIP revision included an 

attainment demonstration with MVEBs, 

the ROP plan with MVEBs, a RACM/ 

RACT analysis, the 2002 base year 

emissions inventory, and contingency 

measures. The attainment 

demonstration of the June 13, 2007 SIP 

submittal is the only subject of this 

proposed rulemaking. In a separate and 

concurrent process, EPA is proposing an 

adequacy determination for the 2009 

MVEBs associated with the ozone 

attainment demonstration for all three 

counties of Delaware. The other 

elements of the June 13, 2007 SIP 

submittal were approved by EPA on 

April 8, 2010 (75 FR 17863). 

V. What is EPA’s review of Delaware’s 

modeled attainment demonstration and 

weight of evidence analysis for the 

Philadelphia area? 

Section 110(a)(2)(K) of the CAA 

requires states to prepare air quality 

modeling to show how they will meet 

ambient air quality standards. EPA 

determined that areas classified as 

moderate or above must use 

photochemical grid modeling or any 

other analytical method determined by 

the Administrator to be at least as 

effective to demonstrate attainment of 

the ozone health-based standard by the 

required attainment date (November 29, 

2005, 70 FR 71612, and 40 CFR 51.908). 

On April 30, 2004 (69 FR 23951 and 40 

CFR 51.903), EPA specified how areas 

would be classified with regard to the 8- 

hour ozone standard set by EPA in 1997. 

On April 30, 2004 (69 FR 23858), EPA 

followed these procedures and 

classified the Philadelphia Area as 

moderate, and the nonattainment area 

was required to attain the 1997 8-hour 

ozone standard by June 2010. Because 

the attainment date was June 2010 for 

moderate areas, states had to achieve 

emission reductions by the ozone 

season of 2009 in order for ozone 

concentrations to be reduced and show 

attainment during the last complete 

ozone season before the 2010 deadline. 

A. EPA Guidance for Using Models To 

Determine Attainment 

EPA’s photochemical modeling 

guidance is found at Guidance on the 

Use of Models and Other Analyses for 

Demonstrating Attainment of Air 

Quality Goals for Ozone, PM 2.5, and 

Regional Haze, EPA–454/B–07–002, 

April 2007. The photochemical 

modeling guidance is divided into two 

parts. One part describes how to use a 

photochemical grid model for ozone to 

assess whether an area will come into 

attainment of the air quality standard. A 

second part describes how the user 

should perform supplemental analyses, 

using various analytical methods, to 

determine if the model over predicts, 

under predicts, or accurately predicts 

the air quality improvement projected to 

occur by the attainment date. The 

guidance indicates that states should 

review these supplemental analyses, in 

combination with the modeling 

analysis, in a ‘‘weight of evidence’’ 

assessment to determine whether each 

area is likely to achieve timely 

attainment. 

A description of how the attainment 

demonstration from the June 13, 2007 

SIP revision addresses this EPA 

modeling guidance for a modeled 

attainment demonstration can be found 

in the Attainment TSD, available on line 

at www.regulations.gov, Docket number 

EPA–R03–OAR–2008–0930. 

In the June 13, 2007 SIP revision, the 

photochemical grid model used 

projected emissions for 2009, including 

emission changes due to regulations 

Delaware and its neighboring states 

were planning to implement and 

expected growth by the 2009 ozone 

season. Meteorological conditions from 

2002, the same as the base year 

modeling, were used in the projection 

modeling for 2009. Using the base case 

meteorology allows the effect of changes 

in states’ emissions to be determined 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 152 / Tuesday, August 7, 2012 / Proposed Rules 46993 

without being influenced by yearly 

fluctuations in meteorology and is 

consistent with EPA guidance. 

The attainment test used in the 

Philadelphia Area modeling 

demonstration involved the application 

of model-based relative response factors 

(RRFs) to base year design values at 

each monitor to produce projected 

future year design values (2009). The 

projected 2009 design values represent 

design values that should result from 

emission controls Delaware and other 

states planned to have in place in 2009. 

As discussed in the Attainment TSD, 

the 2009 design values should be less 

than or equal to 84 parts per billion 

(ppb) at all monitoring stations to meet 

the attainment test. The SIP modeling 

predicts that in 2009, the Philadelphia 

Area will not pass the attainment test 

since design values are projected to be 

over the 84 ppb standard. 

In summary, the basic photochemical 

grid modeling presented in the 

Delaware SIP revision meets EPA’s 

guidelines and when used with the 

methods recommended in EPA’s 

modeling guidance, is acceptable to 

EPA. However, when EPA’s attainment 

test is applied to the modeling results, 

the 2009 ozone design value is 

predicted to be 91 ppb in the 

Philadelphia Area. Thus, based on 

EPA’s modeled attainment test, the 

Philadelphia Area has not demonstrated 

that it will reach attainment of the 1997 

8-hour ozone standard in the attainment 

year with the modeled emission 

reduction strategies committed to by 

Delaware and the neighboring states in 

the Ozone Transport Region (OTR). 

Therefore, a weight of evidence (WOE) 

analysis was used by Delaware and 

reviewed by EPA to demonstrate 

attainment of the 1997 8-hour ozone 

standard in the Philadelphia Area. 

B. Weight of Evidence Demonstration 

EPA’s modeling guidance describes 

how to use a photochemical grid model 

and additional analytical methods to 

complete a WOE analysis to estimate if 

emissions control strategies will lead to 

attainment of the 1997 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS. A WOE analysis is a 

supporting analysis that helps to 

determine if the results of the 

photochemical modeling system are 

correctly (or not correctly) predicting 

future air quality. 

The WOE analysis presented in the 

Delaware SIP revision describes the 

analyses performed, databases used, key 

assumptions and outcomes of each 

analysis, and why the evidence, viewed 

as a whole, supports a conclusion that 

the Philadelphia Area will attain the 

NAAQS despite the model prediction 

that some monitors’ future design values 

exceed the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. 

EPA’s review of the WOE analysis in 

the Attainment TSD included the 

following: (1) A comparison of modelpredicted 2009 ozone design values to 

monitored design values for 2006–2011; 

(2) an analysis of recent ozone trends in 

the Philadelphia Area; and (3) 

alternative methods for calculating the 

2009 ozone design value. As discussed 

in detail in the Attainment TSD, the 

2009 model over predicted ozone design 

values for 2006–2011 for most cases. 

Further, in the Attainment TSD, EPA’s 

analysis concurs with Delaware’s 

analysis of significant declining trends 

in the Philadelphia Area ozone design 

values. The Attainment TSD concluded 

that additional emissions reductions 

have continued to occur due mostly to 

local controls in each nonattainment 

area and to a few reductions in major 

sources due to initiatives in the OTR. 

The Attainment TSD noted that 

monitored ozone design values for each 

of the Philadelphia Area monitors 

continued to decline and to show 

attainment in 2010 and 2011. 

As discussed in detail in the 

Attainment TSD, Delaware’s attainment 

demonstration also asserted an 

alternative baseline concentration could 

be used to demonstrate attainment. 

However, EPA determined in the 

Attainment TSD that the modeling 

would still show nonattainment even 

with this alternative baseline value. 

Likewise, EPA determined in the 

Attainment TSD that Delaware’s 

recalculation of 2009 modeled ozone 

design values with a relative response 

factor in Delaware’s June 13, 2007 SIP 

revision reduced the modeled 2009 

ozone design values slightly but the 

model still over predicts the actual 

monitored 2009 design values. In 

conclusion, in the Attainment TSD, EPA 

determined with the benefit of 2009 

monitored design values that the model 

in Delaware’s June 13, 2007 SIP revision 

over predicts actual concentrations even 

when model adjustments are made as 

discussed herein to attempt to account 

for model over prediction. 

EPA has determined that the 

Delaware photochemical grid modeling 

results predict a 2009 projected design 

value well above the 1997 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS for the Philadelphia Area. 

However, after taking into account WOE 

arguments regarding model over 

prediction of the 2009 monitored design 

values and recent ozone design value 

trends, which show attainment of the 

standard by 2010, EPA determined that 

the Delaware SIP has demonstrated 

attainment of the ozone standard by the 

extended attainment date of June 2011 

as discussed in detail in the Attainment 

TSD. 

VI. Proposed Action 

EPA is proposing to approve the 1997 

8-hour ozone NAAQS attainment 

demonstration, included in Delaware’s 

June 13, 2007 attainment plan SIP 

revision, as demonstrating attainment 

for the Philadelphia Area by the 

applicable attainment date of June 15, 

2011. EPA is soliciting public comments 

on the issues discussed in this 

document. These comments will be 

considered before taking final action. 

VII. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

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 proposes to approve state law as 

meeting Federal requirements and does 

not impose additional requirements 

beyond those imposed by state law. For 

that reason, this proposed 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 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
46994 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 152 / Tuesday, August 7, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

• 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 proposed rule, 

pertaining to the 1997 8-hour ozone 

attainment demonstration for the 

Philadelphia Area submitted by 

Delaware on June 13, 2007, 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. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Nitrogen dioxide, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Volatile organic 

compounds. 

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

Dated: July 26, 2012. 

W.C. Early, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region III. 

[FR Doc. 2012–19173 Filed 8–6–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 272 

[EPA–R06–RCRA–2012–0471; FRL9701–6] 

Oklahoma: Incorporation by Reference 

of State Hazardous Waste Management 

Program 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The EPA proposes to codify 

in the regulations entitled ‘‘Approved 

State Hazardous Waste Management 

Programs’’, Oklahoma’s authorized 

hazardous waste program. The EPA will 

incorporate by reference into the Code 

of Federal Regulations (CFR) those 

provisions of the State regulations that 

are authorized and that the EPA will 

enforce under the Solid Waste Disposal 

Act, commonly referred to as the 

Resource Conversation and Recovery 

Act (RCRA). 

DATES: Send written comments by 

September 6, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: Send written comments to 

Alima Patterson, Region 6 Regional 

Authorization Coordinator, or Julia 

Banks, Codification Coordinator, State/ 

Tribal Oversight Section (6PD–O), 

Multimedia Planning and Permitting 

Division at the address shown below. 

You can examine copies of the materials 

that form the basis for this authorization 

and incorporation by reference during 

normal business hours at the following 

location: EPA Region 6, 1445 Ross 

Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75202–2733, 

phone number (214) 665–6533 or (214) 

665–8178. You may also submit 

comments electronically or through 

hand delivery/courier; please follow the 

detailed instructions in the ADDRESSES

section of the direct final rule which is 

located in the Rules section of this 

Federal Register. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Alima Patterson (214) 665–8533 or Julia 

Banks (214) 665–8178. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the 

‘‘Rules and Regulations’’ section of this 

Federal Register, the EPA is codifying 

and incorporating by reference the 

State’s hazardous waste program as a 

direct final rule. The EPA did not make 

a proposal prior to the direct final rule 

because we believe these actions are not 

controversial and do not expect 

comments that oppose them. We have 

explained the reasons for this 

codification and incorporation by 

reference in the preamble to the direct 

final rule. Unless we get written 

comments which oppose this 

incorporation by reference during the 

comment period, the direct final rule 

will become effective on the date it 

establishes, and we will not take further 

action on this proposal. If we get 

comments that oppose these actions, we 

will withdraw the direct final rule and 

it will not take effect. We will then 

respond to public comments in a later 

final rule based on this proposal. You 

may not have another opportunity for 

comment. If you want to comment on 

this action, you must do so at this time. 

For additional information, please see 

the direct final rule published in the 

‘‘Rules and Regulations’’ section of this 

Federal Register. 

Authority: This action is issued under the 

authority of sections 2002(a), 3006, and 

7004(b) of the Solid Waste Disposal Act, as 

amended, 42 U.S.C. 6912(a), 6926, and 

6974(b). 

Dated: July 5, 2012. 

Samuel Coleman, 

Acting Regional Administrator, EPA Region 

6. 

[FR Doc. 2012–19140 Filed 8–6–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Federal Emergency Management 

Agency 

44 CFR Part 67 

[Docket ID FEMA–2011–0002; Internal 

Agency Docket No. FEMA–B–1178] 

Proposed Flood Elevation 

Determinations 

AGENCY: Federal Emergency 

Management Agency, DHS. 

ACTION: Proposed rule; correction. 

SUMMARY: On February 16, 2011, FEMA 

published in the Federal Register a 

proposed rule that contained an 

erroneous table. This notice provides 

corrections to that table, to be used in 

lieu of the information published. The 

table provided here represents the 

flooding sources, location of referenced 

elevations, effective and modified 

elevations, and communities affected for 

Bolivar County, Mississippi, and 

Incorporated Areas. Specifically, it 

addresses the following flooding 

sources: Jones Bayou, Mississippi River, 

and Porter Bayou. 

DATES: Comments are to be submitted 

on or before November 5, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, 

identified by Docket No. FEMA–B– 

1178, to Luis Rodriguez, Chief, 

Engineering Management Branch, 

Federal Insurance and Mitigation 

Administration, Federal Emergency 

Management Agency, 500 C Street SW., 

Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646–4064 

or (email) 

Luis.Rodriguez3@fema.dhs.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Luis 

Rodriguez, Chief, Engineering 

Management Branch, Federal Insurance 

and Mitigation Administration, Federal 

Emergency Management Agency, 500 C 

Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, 

(202) 646–4064, or (email) 

Luis.Rodriguez3@fema.dhs.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

Federal Emergency Management Agency 

(FEMA) publishes proposed 

determinations of Base (1% annualchance) Flood Elevations (BFEs) and 

modified BFEs for communities 

participating in the National Flood 

Insurance Program (NFIP), in 

accordance with section 110 of the 

Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 

42 U.S.C. 4104, and 44 CFR 67.4(a). 

These proposed BFEs and modified 

BFEs, together with the floodplain 

management criteria required by 44 CFR 

60.3, are minimum requirements. They 

should not be construed to mean that 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1