Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 210 / Tuesday, November 1, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 65847 

Name of source Permit 

number County State effective date EPA approval date 

Additional explanation/§ 52.2063 

citation 

* * * * * * * 

SGL Carbon Corporation ................................. OP 24–131 Elk ............... 5/12/95 

5/31/95 

11/1/05 [Insert page 

number where the 

document begins].

52.2020(d)(1)(e). 

Salem Tube, Inc. .............................................. OP 43–142 Mercer ......... 2/16/99 11/1/05 [Insert page 

number where the 

document begins].

52.2020(d)(1)(e). 

Dominion Trans, Inc. ........................................ 18–00006 Clinton ......... 6/15/99 

9/29/03 

11/1/05 [Insert page 

number where the 

document begins].

52.2020(d)(1)(e). 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 05–21752 Filed 10–31–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[R03–OAR–2005–DE–0001; FRL–7992–3] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; 

Delaware; Ambient Air Quality 

Standard for Ozone and Fine 

Particulate Matter 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is taking final action to 

approve revisions to the Delaware State 

Implementation Plan (SIP). The 

revisions were submitted by the 

Delaware Department of Natural 

Resources and Environmental Control 

(DNREC) and consist of modifications to 

the ambient air quality standards for 

ozone and fine particulate matter. EPA 

is approving these revisions in the SIP 

in accordance with the Clean Air Act 

(CAA). 

DATES: This final rule is effective on 

December 1, 2005. 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Regional 

Material in EDocket (RME) ID Number 

R03–OAR–2005–DE–0001. All 

documents in the docket are listed in 

the RME index at http://docket.epa.gov/ 

rmepub/. Once in the system, select 

‘‘quick search,’’ then key in the 

appropriate RME identification number. 

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 in RME 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 e-mail at 

quinto.rose@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

On April 1, 2003, DNREC submitted 

a formal SIP revision that consists of an 

amendment that included the revised 

ambient air quality standards for ozone 

and particulate matter. On July 18, 2005 

(70 FR 41146), EPA published a direct 

final rule (DFR) approving revisions to 

the Delaware’s SIP. An explanation of 

the CAA’s requirements as they apply to 

Delaware and EPA’s rationale for 

approving these SIP revisions were 

provided in the DFR and will not be 

restated here. In accordance with direct 

final rulemaking procedures, on July 18, 

2005 (70 FR 41166), EPA also published 

a companion notice of proposed 

rulemaking (NPR) on these SIP revisions 

inviting interested parties to comment 

on the DFR. Timely adverse comments 

were submitted on EPA’s July 18, 2005 

DFR. 

On September 16, 2005 (70 FR 54639), 

due to receipt of the adverse comments 

submitted in response to the DFR, EPA 

published a withdrawal of the DFR. A 

summary of those comments and EPA’s 

responses are provided in Section II of 

this document. 

II. Summary of Public Comments and 

EPA Responses 

Comment: On July 18, 2005, a citizen 

submitted adverse comments on EPA’s 

DFR notice approving Delaware’s 

ambient air quality standards for ozone 

and fine particulate matter. The 

commenter states that the regulations 

are not strict enough and that they leave 

too much latitude for polluters to poison 

and kill us. The commenter also states 

that the fines and penalties for polluters 

should be increased by one thousand 

percent. 

Response: The rulemaking at issue is 

limited in scope and addresses the 1997 

Federal 8-hour ozone and PM2.5 

standards that Delaware incorporates 

into Section 6 of Regulation 3 of the 

Delaware Regulations Governing the 

Control of Air Pollution. The 

commenter did not submit any 

supporting technical data or information 

to support that the regulations are not 

strict enough. Rather the commenter 

makes broad statements alleging (1) that 

the regulations should be more stringent 

than those required under the Act, and 

(2) that the fines and penalties for 

polluters should be increased one 

thousand percent. These comments are 

not ‘‘significant comments’’ to which 

EPA needs to respond. Whitman v. 

American Trucking Ass’n., 531 U.S. 

457, n.2 at 471 (2001) (Under the CAA, 

EPA need only respond to significant 

comments, i.e., comments relevant to 

EPA’s decision). Mere ‘‘assertions that 

in the opinions of the commenter the 

Agency got it wrong,’’ are not relevant 

comments warranting a response. 

International Fabricare Inst. v. EPA, 972 

F.2d 384, 391 (D.C. Cir. 1992). As to the 

comment that the rules should be more 

stringent than required under the Act, 

EPA has no authority to mandate that a 

State regulate more stringently than 

required. Under the CAA’s bifurcated 

scheme, the State is responsible for 

choosing how air pollution sources 

must be regulated for purposes of 

attaining the national ambient air 

quality standards (NAAQS) and EPA’s 

role is limited in reviewing the State’s 

choice to ensure it meets the minimum 

statutory requirements. Here, as is clear 

from the commenter’s first comment, 

the commenter is not claiming that the 

65848 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 210 / Tuesday, November 1, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 

regulations do not meet the statutory 

minimum, but rather that the statute 

does not require enough. EPA has no 

authority to modify the statute, as 

requested by the commenter nor does 

EPA have authority to require the State 

to regulate more stringently than 

required by the statute. The CAA is 

based upon ‘‘cooperative federalism,’’

which contemplates that each State will 

develop its own SIP, and that States 

retain a large degree of flexibility in 

choosing which sources to control and 

to what degree. EPA must approve a 

State’s plan if it meets the ‘‘minimum 

requirements of the CAA.’’ Union Elec. 

Co. v. EPA, 427 U.S. 246, 264–266 

(1976). 

As to the commenter’s second point, 

this rulemaking does not address fines 

and penalties for polluters and, 

therefore, is not relevant to this 

rulemaking. 

III. Final Action 

EPA is approving the revisions to the 

Delaware SIP submitted by DNREC on 

April 1, 2003 to incorporate the 8-hour 

ambient air quality standards for ozone 

and fine particulate matter. Delaware’s 

SIP revisions for the ambient air quality 

standards for ozone and fine particulate 

matter are consistent with the 8-hour 

Federal NAAQS. 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

A. General Requirements 

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 

51735, October 4, 1993), this action is 

not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ and 

therefore is not subject to review by the 

Office of Management and Budget. For 

this reason, this action is also not 

subject to Executive Order 

13211,’’Actions Concerning Regulations 

That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

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

22, 2001). This action merely approves 

state law as meeting Federal 

requirements and imposes no additional 

requirements beyond those imposed by 

state law. Accordingly, the 

Administrator certifies that this rule 

will not have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities under the Regulatory Flexibility 

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

rule approves pre-existing requirements 

under state law and does not impose 

any additional enforceable duty beyond 

that required by state law, it does not 

contain any unfunded mandate or 

significantly or uniquely affect small 

governments, as described in the 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 

(Pub. L. 104–4). This rule also does not 

have tribal implications because it will 

not have a substantial direct effect on 

one or more Indian tribes, on the 

relationship between the Federal 

Government and Indian tribes, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities between the Federal 

Government and Indian tribes, as 

specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 

FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This 

action also does not have Federalism 

implications because it does not have 

substantial direct effects on the States, 

on the relationship between the national 

government and the States, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government, as specified in 

Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, 

August 10, 1999). This action merely 

approves a state rule implementing a 

Federal standard, and does not alter the 

relationship or the distribution of power 

and responsibilities established in the 

Clean Air Act. This rule also is not 

subject to Executive Order 13045 

‘‘Protection of Children from 

Environmental Health Risks and Safety 

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

because it is not economically 

significant. 

In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA’s 

role is to approve state choices, 

provided that they meet the criteria of 

the Clean Air Act. In this context, in the 

absence of a prior existing requirement 

for the State to use voluntary consensus 

standards (VCS), EPA has no authority 

to disapprove a SIP submission for 

failure to use VCS. It would thus be 

inconsistent with applicable law for 

EPA, when it reviews a SIP submission, 

to use VCS in place of a SIP submission 

that otherwise satisfies the provisions of 

the Clean Air Act. Thus, the 

requirements of section 12(d) of the 

National Technology Transfer and 

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

272 note) do not apply. This rule does 

not impose an information collection 

burden under the provisions of the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 

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

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 rule 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. This rule 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 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 January 3, 2006. 

Filing a petition for reconsideration by 

the Administrator of this final rule does 

not affect the finality of this rule 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 

approving the Delaware’s 8-hour 

ambient air quality standards for ozone 

and fine particulate matter 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, Nitrogen dioxide, 

Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting 

and recordkeeping requirements, 

Volatile organic compounds. 

Dated: October 21, 2005. 

Donald S. Welsh, 

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 I—Delaware 

■ 2. In Section 52.420, the table in 

paragraph (c) is amended by adding an 

entry for Regulation 1, Section 2 after 

the existing entry, and revising the 

entries for Regulation 3, Sections 1, 6, 

and 11 to read as follows: 

§ 52.420 Identification of plan. 

(c) EPA approved regulations. 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 210 / Tuesday, November 1, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 65849 

EPA-APPROVED REGULATIONS IN THE DELAWARE SIP 

State citation Title/subject State effective 

date EPA approval date Additional explanation 

Regulation 1 Definitions and Administrative Principles 

* * * * * * * 

Section 2 ........................ Definitions ........................................................... 02/11/2003 11/1/2005 [Insert page 

number where the 

document begins].

Added definition of 

PM2.5. 

* * * * * * * 

Regulation 3 Ambient Air Quality Standards 

Section 1 ........................ General Provisions ............................................. 02/11/2003 11/1/2005 [Insert page 

number where the 

document begins].

Addition of section 

1.6.j. 

* * * * * * * 

Section 6 ........................ Ozone ................................................................. 02/11/2003 11/1/2005 [Insert page 

number where the 

document begins].

Addition to section 

6.1—‘‘This standard 

shall be applicable to 

New Castle and Kent 

Counties.’’

Addition of section 6.2. 

* * * * * * * 

Section 11 ...................... PM10 and PM2.5 Particulates ............................ 02/11/2003 11/1/2005 [Insert page 

number where the 

document begins].

Section title added 

‘‘and PM2.5.’’

Addition of sections 

11.2.a. and 11.2.b. 

* * * * * * * 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 05–21751 Filed 10–31–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Federal Emergency Management 

Agency 

44 CFR Part 64 

[Docket No. FEMA–7899] 

Suspension of Community Eligibility 

AGENCY: Department of Homeland 

Security, Federal Emergency 

Management Agency (FEMA), 

Mitigation Division. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: This rule identifies 

communities, where the sale of flood 

insurance has been authorized under 

the National Flood Insurance Program 

(NFIP), that are scheduled for 

suspension on the effective dates listed 

within this rule because of 

noncompliance with the floodplain 

management requirements of the 

program. If FEMA receives 

documentation that the community has 

adopted the required floodplain 

management measures prior to the 

effective suspension date given in this 

rule, the suspension will not occur and 

a notice of this will be provided by 

publication in the Federal Register on a 

subsequent date. 

DATES: Effective Dates: The effective 

date of each community’s scheduled 

suspension is the third date (‘‘Susp.’’) 

listed in the third column of the 

following tables. 

ADDRESSES: If you want to determine 

whether a particular community was 

suspended on the suspension date, 

contact the appropriate FEMA Regional 

Office or the NFIP servicing contractor. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Michael M. Grimm, Mitigation Division, 

500 C Street SW., Room 412, 

Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646–2878. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The NFIP 

enables property owners to purchase 

flood insurance which is generally not 

otherwise available. In return, 

communities agree to adopt and 

administer local floodplain management 

aimed at protecting lives and new 

construction from future flooding. 

Section 1315 of the National Flood 

Insurance Act of 1968, as amended, 42 

U.S.C. 4022, prohibits flood insurance 

coverage as authorized under the NFIP, 

42 U.S.C. 4001 et seq.; unless an 

appropriate public body adopts 

adequate floodplain management 

measures with effective enforcement 

measures. The communities listed in 

this document no longer meet that 

statutory requirement for compliance 

with program regulations, 44 CFR part 

59 et seq. Accordingly, the communities 

will be suspended on the effective date 

in the third column. As of that date, 

flood insurance will no longer be 

available in the community. However, 

some of these communities may adopt 

and submit the required documentation 

of legally enforceable floodplain 

management measures after this rule is 

published but prior to the actual 

suspension date. These communities 

will not be suspended and will continue 

their eligibility for the sale of insurance. 

A notice withdrawing the suspension of 

the communities will be published in 

the Federal Register. 

In addition, FEMA has identified the 

Special Flood Hazard Areas (SFHAs) in 

these communities by publishing a 

Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM). The 

date of the FIRM, if one has been 

published, is indicated in the fourth 

column of the table. No direct Federal 

financial assistance (except assistance