Daily Rules, Proposed Rules, and Notices of the Federal Government
On May 28, 2014, Pennsylvania submitted formal revisions to its SIP. The SIP revisions consist of updated MVEBs for NO
On July 18, 1997 (62 FR 38856), EPA established the 1997 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS. On April 30, 2004 (69 FR 23858), Lackawanna, Luzerne, Wyoming, and Monroe Counties were designated as nonattainment for the 1997 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS as a part of the Scranton/Wilkes-Barre Nonattainment Area. On June 12, 2007, the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP) submitted a SIP revision which consisted of a maintenance plan, a 2002 base year inventory, and MVEBs for transportation conformity purposes. On November 19, 2007 (72 FR 64948), EPA approved the SIP revision as well as the redesignation request made by PADEP; therefore, the Scranton/Wilkes-Barre Nonattainment Area was redesignated to a maintenance area.
The current SIP-approved MVEBs for the Scranton/Wilkes-Barre Maintenance Area were developed using the Highway Mobile Source Emission Factor Model (MOBILE6.2). On March 2, 2010 (75 FR 9411), EPA published a notice of availability for the Motor Vehicle
These SIP revisions include an update to the MVEBs for NO
In addition to the updated inventories and MVEBs, the SIP revisions also provide general conformity budgets for NO
EPA is proposing to approve Pennsylvania's SIP revision submittal from May 28, 2014 to update the MVEBs for the Scranton/Wilkes-Barre Maintenance Area to reflect the use of the MOVES model. EPA is also proposing to approve the updates to the point and area source inventories. Additionally, EPA is proposing approval of the general conformity budgets for the construction of the Bell Bend Nuclear Power Plant. EPA is approving these SIP revisions because it will allow the Scranton/Wilkes-Barre Maintenance Area to continue to maintain the 1997 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS. Our in depth review of the SIP revisions leads EPA to conclude that the updated MVEBs meet the adequacy requirements set forth in 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4)(i)-(vi), and that the updated MVEBs have been correctly calculated to reflect the use of the MOVES model as explained in our TSDs. EPA also concludes that the general conformity budgets meet all requirements of the general conformity rule found at 40 CFR part 93, subpart B as explained in our TSDs. EPA is soliciting public comments on the issues discussed in this document. These comments will be considered before taking final action.
Under the CAA, 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 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 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
• 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
• 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
• 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 proposed rule, pertaining to the update of the MVEBs, point and area source inventories, as well as the general conformity budgets for the Scranton/Wilkes-Barre Maintenance Area, 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.
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Volatile organic compounds.
42 U.S.C. 7401