Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Alabama: Non-Interference Demonstration for Federal Low-Reid Vapor Pressure Requirement for the Birmingham Area, 21170-21174 [2015-08884]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
21170
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 74 / Friday, April 17, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
Background
The final and temporary regulations
(TD 9674) that are the subject of this
correction are under section 501(c)(3) of
the Internal Revenue Code.
Need for Correction
As published, the final and temporary
regulation (TD 9674) contains an error
and is in need of clarification.
Correction of Publication
In FR Doc. 2014–15623 appearing on
page 37630 in the Federal Register of
Wednesday, July 2, 2014, the following
correction is made:
§ 1.508–1T
[Corrected]
On page 37632, the amendatory
instruction reading ‘‘Par. 7. Section
1.508–1T is revised to read as follows:
’’ is corrected to read ‘‘Par. 7. Section
1.508–1T is added to read as follows:’’.
Martin V. Franks,
Chief, Publications and Regulations Branch,
Legal Processing Division, Associate Chief
Counsel (Procedure and Administration).
[FR Doc. 2015–08856 Filed 4–16–15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4830–01–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R04–OAR–2014–0867; FRL–9926–41–
Region–4]
Approval and Promulgation of
Implementation Plans; Alabama: NonInterference Demonstration for Federal
Low-Reid Vapor Pressure Requirement
for the Birmingham Area
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is approving the State of
Alabama’s November 14, 2014, State
Implementation Plan (SIP) revision,
submitted through the Alabama
Department of Environmental
Management (ADEM), in support of the
State’s request that EPA change the
Federal Reid Vapor Pressure (RVP)
requirements for Jefferson and Shelby
Counties (hereinafter referred to as the
‘‘Birmingham Area’’ or ‘‘Area’’).
Alabama’s November 14, 2014, SIP
revision evaluates whether changing the
Federal RVP requirements in this Area
would interfere with the Area’s ability
to meet the requirements of the Clean
Air Act (CAA or Act). Specifically,
Alabama’s SIP revision concludes that
relaxing the Federal RVP requirement
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:14 Apr 16, 2015
Jkt 235001
from 7.8 pounds per square inch (psi) to
9.0 psi for gasoline sold between June 1
and September 15 of each year in the
Area would not interfere with
attainment or maintenance of the
national ambient air quality standards
(NAAQS) or with any other CAA
requirement. EPA has determined that
Alabama’s November 14, 2014, SIP
revision is consistent with the CAA.
DATES: This rule will be effective April
17, 2015.
ADDRESSES: EPA has established a
docket for this action under Docket
Identification No. EPA–R04–OAR–
2014–0867. 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 Air Regulatory Management Section
(formerly the Regulatory Development
Section), Air Planning and
Implementation Branch (formerly the
Air Planning Branch), Air, Pesticides
and Toxics Management Division, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW.,
Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. EPA
requests that if at all possible, you
contact the person listed in the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to
schedule your inspection. The Regional
Office’s official hours of business are
Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to
4:30 p.m., excluding Federal holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Richard Wong of the Air Regulatory
Management Section, in the Air
Planning and Implementation Branch,
Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management
Division, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street
SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. Mr.
Wong may be reached by phone at (404)
562–8726 or via electronic mail at
wong.richard@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. What is the background for this final
action?
The Birmingham Area was originally
designated as a 1-hour ozone
nonattainment area by EPA on March 3,
1978 (43 FR 8962). A 7.8 psi Federal
RVP requirement was first applied to
the Area during the high ozone season
given its status as a marginal
nonattainment area for the 1-hour ozone
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
standard. Subsequently, in order to
comply with the 1-hour ozone NAAQS,
Alabama opted to implement a state
RVP requirement of 7.0 psi for gasoline
sold in the Birmingham Area during the
high ozone season. EPA incorporated
the state RVP requirement of 7.0 psi for
gasoline sold in the Birmingham Area
into the Alabama SIP on November 7,
2001. See 66 FR 56218. The Area
attained the 1-hour ozone NAAQS and
was redesignated to attainment for the
1-hour ozone on March 12, 2004, based
on 2001–2003 ambient air quality
monitoring data. See 69 FR 11798.
Alabama’s 1-hour ozone redesignation
request did not include a request to
remove the 7.0 psi state RVP
requirement for the Birmingham Area
from the SIP nor a request to relax the
7.8 psi Federal RVP standard.
On April 30, 2004, EPA designated
and classified areas for the 8-hour ozone
NAAQS that was promulgated on July
18, 1997, as unclassifiable/attainment or
nonattainment for the new 8-hour ozone
NAAQS. See 69 FR 23857. The
Birmingham Area was designated as
nonattainment for the 1997 8-hour
ozone NAAQS with a design value of
0.087 parts per million (ppm). The Area
was redesignated to attainment for the
1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS in a final
rulemaking on May 12, 2006. See 71 FR
27631. Alabama’s 1997 8-hour ozone
redesignation request did not include a
request for the removal of the 7.8 psi
Federal RVP standard, nor did it include
a request to change the 7.0 psi state RVP
requirement for the Birmingham Area.
However, to support its request for
redesignation to attainment for the 1997
8-hour ozone NAAQS, Alabama took a
conservative approach and estimated
emissions using a 9.0 psi RVP in its
modeling supporting the State’s
maintenance demonstration.
On March 2, 2012, Alabama
submitted a SIP revision requesting that
EPA remove the State’s 7.0 psi RVP
requirement for the Area from the SIP.
EPA approved Alabama’s March 2,
2012, SIP revision on April 20, 2012.
See 77 FR 23619. In EPA’s final
rulemaking to remove the State RVP
requirement, EPA noted that the action
did not remove the 7.8 psi Federal RVP
requirement for the Birmingham Area.
Effective July 20, 2012, EPA designated
the Birmingham Area as unclassifiable/
attainment for the 2008 8-hour ozone
NAAQS. See 77 FR 30088 (April 30,
2012). Although the Birmingham Area is
designated as attainment, the federal 7.8
psi RVP requirement remains in place.
Alabama is now requesting that EPA
remove the federal 7.8 psi RVP
requirement for the Birmingham Area,
and it submitted a SIP revision on
E:\FR\FM\17APR1.SGM
17APR1
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 74 / Friday, April 17, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
November 14, 2014, containing a
noninterference demonstration to
support its request.
II. What is the history of the gasoline
volatility requirement?
On August 19, 1987 (52 FR 31274),
EPA determined that gasoline
nationwide had become increasingly
volatile, causing an increase in
evaporative emissions from gasolinepowered vehicles and equipment.
Evaporative emissions from gasoline,
referred to as volatile organic
compounds (VOCs), are precursors to
the formation of tropospheric ozone and
contribute to the nation’s ground-level
ozone problem. Exposure to groundlevel ozone can reduce lung function
(thereby aggravating asthma or other
respiratory conditions), increase
susceptibility to respiratory infection,
and may contribute to premature death
in people with heart and lung disease.
The most common measure of fuel
volatility that is useful in evaluating
gasoline evaporative emissions is RVP.
Under section 211(c) of CAA, EPA
promulgated regulations on March 22,
1989 (54 FR 11868), that set maximum
limits for the RVP of gasoline sold
during the high ozone season. These
regulations constituted Phase I of a twophase nationwide program, which was
designed to reduce the volatility of
commercial gasoline during the summer
ozone control season. On June 11, 1990
(55 FR 23658), EPA promulgated more
stringent volatility controls as Phase II
of the volatility control program. These
requirements established maximum
RVP standards of 9.0 psi or 7.8 psi
(depending on the State, the month, and
the area’s initial ozone attainment
designation with respect to the 1-hour
ozone NAAQS during the high ozone
season).
The 1990 CAA Amendments
established a new section, 211(h), to
address fuel volatility. Section 211(h)
requires EPA to promulgate regulations
making it unlawful to sell, offer for sale,
dispense, supply, offer for supply,
transport, or introduce into commerce
gasoline with an RVP level in excess of
9.0 psi during the high ozone season.
Section 211(h) prohibits EPA from
establishing a volatility standard more
stringent than 9.0 psi in an attainment
area, except that EPA may impose a
lower (more stringent) standard in any
former ozone nonattainment area
redesignated to attainment.
On December 12, 1991 (56 FR 64704),
EPA modified the Phase II volatility
regulations to be consistent with section
211(h) of the CAA. The modified
regulations prohibited the sale of
gasoline with an RVP above 9.0 psi in
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:14 Apr 16, 2015
Jkt 235001
all areas designated attainment for
ozone, beginning in 1992. For areas
designated as nonattainment, the
regulations retained the original Phase II
standards published on June 11, 1990
(55 FR 23658). A current listing of the
RVP requirements for states can be
found at 40 CFR 80.27(a)(2) as well as
on EPA’s Web site at: https://
www.epa.gov/otaq/fuels/gasolinefuels/
volatility/standards.htm.
As explained in the December 12,
1991 (56 FR 64704), Phase II
rulemaking, EPA believes that
relaxation of an applicable RVP
standard is best accomplished in
conjunction with the redesignation
process. In order for an ozone
nonattainment area to be redesignated
as an attainment area, section 107(d)(3)
of the Act requires the state to make a
showing, pursuant to section 175A of
the Act, that the area is capable of
maintaining attainment for the ozone
NAAQS for ten years after
redesignation. Depending on the area’s
circumstances, this maintenance plan
will either demonstrate that the area is
capable of maintaining attainment for
ten years without the more stringent
volatility standard or that the more
stringent volatility standard may be
necessary for the area to maintain its
attainment with the ozone NAAQS.
Therefore, in the context of a request for
redesignation, EPA will not relax the
volatility standard unless the state
requests a relaxation and the
maintenance plan demonstrates, to the
satisfaction of EPA, that the area will
maintain attainment for ten years
without the need for the more stringent
volatility standard.
As noted above, Alabama did not
request relaxation of the applicable 7.8
psi federal RVP standard when the
Birmingham Area was redesignated to
attainment for the either the 1-hour or
the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS but did
take a conservative approach in
estimating emissions for the
maintenance plan associated with its
redesignation request for the 1997 8hour ozone NAAQS by using a level of
9.0 psi.
III. What are the Section 110(l)
requirements?
To support Alabama’s request to relax
the federal RVP requirement in the
Birmingham Area, the State must
demonstrate that the requested change
will satisfy section 110(l) of the CAA.
Section 110(l) requires that a revision to
the SIP not interfere with any applicable
requirement concerning attainment and
reasonable further progress (as defined
in section 171), or any other applicable
requirement of the Act. EPA’s criterion
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
21171
for determining the approvability of
Alabama’s November 14, 2014, SIP
revision is whether the noninterference
demonstration associated with the
relaxation request satisfies section
110(l). Although the modeling
associated with Alabama’s maintenance
plans for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS
and the 1997 Annual PM2.5 and are
premised upon the 9.0 psi RVP
requirements, no requests for a change
in the federal RVP requirement were
made at the time that EPA approved
these plans.1 EPA’s approval of the
maintenance plans was based on an
evaluation of the air quality monitoring
data at the time of the EPA actions, the
information provided in the individual
maintenance plans, and the
maintenance plan requirements in the
CAA.
EPA evaluates each section 110(l)
noninterference demonstration on a
case-by-case basis considering the
circumstances of each SIP revision. EPA
interprets 110(l) as applying to all
NAAQS that are in effect, including
those that have been promulgated but
for which the EPA has not yet made
designations. The degree of analysis
focused on any particular NAAQS in a
noninterference demonstration varies
depending on the nature of the
emissions associated with the SIP
revision. The State’s SIP submission
included a noninterference
demonstration evaluating the impact
that the removal of the 7.8 psi RVP
requirement would have on
maintenance of the 1997 and 2008
ozone standards and on the
maintenance of the other NAAQS.
ADEM’s noninterference analysis
utilized EPA’s 2010b Motor Vehicle
Emissions Simulator (MOVES) emission
modeling system to estimate the
potential impacts to the NAAQS that
might result from changing the high
ozone season RVP requirement from 7.8
psi to 9.0 psi. The modeling results
predicted minor increases in VOC and
NOX emissions from RVP relaxation and
larger decreases in emissions resulting
from fleet turnover. The modeling also
predicted continual decreases in VOC
and NOX emissions from mobile sources
1 The State used a planning factor of 7.8 psi in
its maintenance plan associated with the
redesignation for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS.
In the February 13, 2015, proposed rulemaking
action, EPA incorrectly stated that the modeling
associated with that maintenance plan was
premised on a 9.0 psi RVP requirement. Alabama’s
use of a 7.8 psi planning factor in the
aforementioned maintenance plan does not affect
EPA’s analysis of the State’s November 14, 2014
noninterference demonstration because the
demonstration does not rely on that maintenance
plan or the modeling associated with that
maintenance plan.
E:\FR\FM\17APR1.SGM
17APR1
21172
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 74 / Friday, April 17, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
for years 2015 through 2024 using 9.0
psi RVP fuel and the fleet turnover
assumptions contained in EPA’s 2010b
MOVES model. Therefore, the state’s
modeling analysis demonstrated that a
change in the summertime RVP limit to
9.0 psi would not interfere with
attainment or maintenance of the ozone,
PM or NO2 NAAQS. EPA presented a
detailed analysis of the State’s
noninterference demonstration in
Section V of the proposed rulemaking
notice. See 80 FR 8018, 8020–23
(February 13, 2015).
EPA notes that this action only
approves the State’s technical
demonstration that the Area can attain
and maintain the NAAQS and meet
other CAA requirements after switching
to the sale of gasoline with an RVP of
9.0 psi in the Birmingham Area during
the high ozone season and amends the
SIP to include this demonstration.
Consistent with CAA section 211(h) and
the Phase II volatility regulations, EPA
will initiate a separate rulemaking to
relax the current federal requirement to
use gasoline with an RVP of 7.8 psi in
the Birmingham Area.
IV. What is EPA’s response to
comments?
EPA received two sets of comments
on its February 13, 2015, proposed
rulemaking action. Specifically, EPA
received comments from Sierra Club
and from one member of the general
public (these commenters are
hereinafter collectively referred to as
‘‘the Commenter’’). Full sets of these
comments are provided in the docket for
this final action. A summary of the
comments and EPA’s responses are
provided below.
Comment 1: The Commenter does not
believe that the Deputy Regional
Administrator was authorized to sign
the proposed approval of Alabama’s SIP
submission because, according to the
Commenter, only the Regional
Administrator is authorized under
EPA’s delegations manual to sign
regional SIP actions.
Response 1: The Commenter is
incorrect. Under CAA section 110(k),
the EPA Administrator is tasked with
acting on SIP submittals by approving or
disapproving the submittal in whole or
in part. This authority may be delegated
to other EPA officials. It is the EPA’s
policy that, in order for other Agency
management officials to act on behalf of
the Administrator, the authority must be
delegated officially. These official
delegations are recorded in the ‘‘EPA
Delegations Manual.’’ Under EPA
Delegation 1–21. Federal Register (1200
TN 543, 4/22/2002), the EPA
Administrator has delegated the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:14 Apr 16, 2015
Jkt 235001
authority to sign and submit proposed
actions on SIPs for publication in the
Federal Register to the Assistant
Administrator for Air and Radiation and
to Regional Administrators. Section 2.d.
This delegation allows for this authority
to be redelegated to the Deputies of the
authorized officials. Section 4.a. Based
on the authority to redelegate provided
in Delegation 1–21, EPA Region 4
redelegated the authority to sign and
submit proposed actions on SIPs for
publication in the Federal Register to
the Deputy Regional Administrator. See
EPA Region 4 Delegation 1–21.
Therefore, an appropriate EPA official,
the Region 4 Deputy Regional
Administrator, signed and submitted the
proposal to approve Alabama’s
November 14, 2014, SIP submission.
EPA notes that an earlier delegation,
Delegation 7–10. Approval/Disapproval
of State Implementation Plans (1200 TN
441, 5/6/97), did not allow redelegation
of the authority to act on proposed SIP
actions beyond the Regional
Administrator. Because Delegation 1–21
post-dates Delegation 7–10 and
specifically addresses the authority at
issue, it is the applicable delegation for
EPA’s February 13, 2015, proposed
rulemaking action. Delegation 1–21 does
not change the limitation on
redelegation beyond the Regional
Administrator found in Delegation 7–10
for final actions on SIPs.
Comment 2: The Commenter ‘‘would
not approve of the noninterference
demonstration submitted by the SIP
because there has been insufficient
evidence to show that the pollution
levels will continue to decrease for the
next ten years.’’ The Commenter
acknowledges that the ‘‘data shows that
there has been a downtrend in the
amount of pollution,’’ but believes that
the data collected by the State was
‘‘based on RVP numbers when the
requirements for RVP was to keep it
under 7.8 RVP’’ and that ‘‘there is
nothing to say that this downtrend isn’t
the result of the requirement itself.’’
According to the Commenter, EPA
should require evidence that the
downtrend will continue despite the
‘‘raised requirements for RVP.’’
Response 2: EPA disagrees with the
Commenter. The criterion for
determining the approvability of
Alabama’s November 14, 2014, SIP
revision is whether the noninterference
demonstration satisfies section 110(l).
Under this section of the CAA, EPA can
approve a SIP relaxation if the State
demonstrates that any increases allowed
by the revision would not be enough to
interfere with NAAQS attainment or
maintenance. There is no prescriptive
CAA requirement that each
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
noninterference analysis demonstrate
that pollution levels will decrease for
ten years following the relaxation of a
SIP requirement.
In its demonstration, Alabama used
EPA’s mobile source modeling software
to estimate the change in mobile source
emissions resulting from a switch to 9.0
psi RVP fuel and to estimate total
mobile source emissions over the next
ten years using 9.0 psi RVP fuel.
Alabama’s modeling projects that
mobile source emissions will continue
to decrease in the Area through 2024
with the use of 9.0 psi RVP fuel and that
the minor increases in VOC and NOX
emissions from RVP relaxation are
outweighed by larger decreases in
emissions resulting from fleet turnover.2
The ozone and PM design values
presented in Tables 4 and 5 of the
proposed rulemaking notice are far
enough below the NAAQS that the
minor increase in mobile source
emissions associated with the RVP
relaxation, ignoring reductions from
fleet turnover, would not interfere with
maintenance of these standards. EPA
acknowledges that the downtrend in
these design values was observed while
7.8 psi RVP fuel was used in the Area;
however, the State’s modeling predicts
that this downtrend will continue with
the use of 9.0 psi RVP fuel.
Comment 3: The Commenter believes
that approving the State’s
noninterference demonstration would
be ‘‘contradictory to the purpose of the
CAA;’’ that ‘‘we should be taking steps
toward limiting gasoline consumption
and RVP levels, not steps backwards;’’
and that ‘‘unless dire need is shown to
raise the levels, as has not been shown
here, we should not allow an increase
in pollution by a State.’’
Response 3: EPA disagrees with the
Commenter. The Administrator is
required to approve a SIP submittal that
complies with the provisions of the Act,
and as discussed above, section 110(l)
governs EPA’s evaluation of Alabama’s
noninterference demonstration.3 42
U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). The test
for approvability under section 110(l) is
not ‘‘dire need,’’ it is whether any
emissions increases resulting from the
proposed SIP relaxation would be
2 Alabama estimated that relaxing the RVP
standard would increase NOX and VOC emissions
by 24 tpy and 80 tpy, respectively, and that fleet
turnover will reduce NOX and VOC emissions by
489 tpy and 156 tpy, respectively, in the Area for
2015. See 80 FR 8021.
3 EPA also notes that the requested change from
7.8 psi to 9.0 psi is within the federal approved RVP
limit for ozone attainment areas. See 40 CFR 80.27;
CAA section 211(h)(2) (prohibiting EPA from
establishing a volatility standard more stringent
than 9.0 psi in an ozone attainment area that was
not redesignated from nonattainment).
E:\FR\FM\17APR1.SGM
17APR1
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 74 / Friday, April 17, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
enough to interfere with the attainment
or maintenance of a NAAQS. EPA is
therefore approving the nonattainment
demonstration pursuant to section
110(l) because it has concluded that the
switch to 9.0 psi RVP fuel will not
interfere with the attainment or
maintenance of a NAAQS for the
reasons discussed in Response 2 and in
Section V of the proposed rulemaking
notice.
V. Final Action
EPA is taking final action to approve
the State of Alabama’s noninterference
demonstration, submitted on November
14, 2014, in support of the State’s
request that EPA change the Federal
RVP requirements for the Birmingham
Area from 7.8 psi to 9.0 psi.
Specifically, EPA is approving that this
change in the RVP requirements for the
Birmingham Area will not interfere with
attainment or maintenance of any
NAAQS or with any other applicable
requirement of the CAA.
EPA has determined that Alabama’s
November 14, 2014, SIP revision,
containing the noninterference
demonstration associated with the
State’s request for the change of the
Federal RVP requirements is consistent
with the applicable provisions of the
CAA. EPA is not approving action today
to remove the Birmingham Area from
the Federal 7.8 psi RVP requirement.
Any such action will occur in a separate
and subsequent rulemaking.
In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(d),
EPA finds that there is good cause for
this action to become effective
immediately upon publication. This is
because a delayed effective date is
unnecessary because this action
approves a noninterference
demonstration that will serve as the
basis of a subsequent action to relieve
the Area from certain CAA requirements
that would otherwise apply to it. The
immediate effective date for this action
is authorized under both 5 U.S.C.
553(d)(1), which provides that
rulemaking actions may become
effective less than 30 days after
publication if the rule grants or
recognizes an exemption or relieves a
restriction, and section 553(d)(3), which
allows an effective date less than 30
days after publication as otherwise
provided by the agency for good cause
found and published with the rule. The
purpose of the 30-day waiting period
prescribed in section 553(d) is to give
affected parties a reasonable time to
adjust their behavior and prepare before
the final rule takes effect. This rule,
however, does not create any new
regulatory requirements such that
affected parties would need time to
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:14 Apr 16, 2015
Jkt 235001
prepare before the rule takes effect.
Rather, this rule will serve as a basis for
a subsequent action to relieve the Area
from certain CAA requirements. For
these reasons, EPA finds good cause
under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3) for this action
to become effective on the date of
publication of this action.
VI. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
Under the CAA, the Administrator is
required to approve a SIP submittal 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
propose to 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 Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735,
October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821,
January 21, 2011);
• 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, October 7,
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).
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
21173
In addition, the SIP is not approved
to apply on any Indian reservation land
or in any other area where EPA or an
Indian tribe has demonstrated that a
tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of
Indian country, the rule does not have
tribal implications as specified by
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249,
November 9, 2000) nor will it 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 CAA,
petitions for judicial review of this
action must be filed in the United States
Court of Appeals for the appropriate
circuit by June 16, 2015. 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, Ozone, Particulate
matter, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Volatile organic
compounds.
Dated: April 7, 2015.
Heather McTeer Toney,
Regional Administrator, Region 4.
40 CFR parts 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:
■
E:\FR\FM\17APR1.SGM
17APR1
21174
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 74 / Friday, April 17, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
interference Demonstration for Federal
Low-Reid Vapor Pressure Requirement
for the Birmingham Area’’ at the end of
the table to read as follows:
Subpart B—Alabama
2. Section 52.50(e) is amended by
adding a new entry for ‘‘Non-
■
§ 52.50
*
Identification of plan.
*
*
(e) * * *
*
*
EPA APPROVED ALABAMA NON-REGULATORY PROVISIONS
Name of nonregulatory SIP provision
*
*
Non-interference Demonstration for Federal Low-Reid Vapor Pressure Requirement for the Birmingham Area.
Applicable geographic or
nonattainment area
State submittal
date/effective
date
*
Jefferson and Shelby
Counties.
*
[FR Doc. 2015–08884 Filed 4–16–15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R05–OAR–2014–0294; FRL–9926–29–
Region–5]
Approval and Promulgation of Air
Quality Implementation Plans; Indiana;
CO Monitoring
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Direct final rule.
AGENCY:
The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is approving a revision to
Indiana’s monitoring requirements as a
revision to the State Implementation
Plan (SIP). The SIP revision was
submitted by Indiana to EPA on January
22, 2014. Once approved, the SIP would
authorize emission units that combust
sewage sludge to continuously monitor
carbon monoxide emissions, consistent
with Federal requirements.
DATES: This direct final rule will be
effective June 16, 2015, unless EPA
receives adverse comments by May 18,
2015. If adverse comments are received,
EPA will publish a timely withdrawal of
the direct final rule in the Federal
Register informing the public that the
rule will not take effect.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R05–
OAR–2014–0294, by one of the
following methods:
1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the
on-line instructions for submitting
comments.
2. Email: blakley.pamela@epa.gov.
3. Fax: (312) 692–2490.
4. Mail: Pamela Blakley, Chief,
Control Strategies Section, Air Programs
Branch (AR–18J), U.S. Environmental
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:14 Apr 16, 2015
Jkt 235001
11/14/2014
EPA approval date
*
*
4/17/2015 [Insert citation
of publication].
Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson
Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604.
5. Hand Delivery: Pamela Blakley,
Chief, Control Strategies Section, Air
Programs Branch (AR–18J), U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 77
West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago,
Illinois 60604. Such deliveries are only
accepted during the Regional Office
normal hours of operation, and special
arrangements should be made for
deliveries of boxed information. The
Regional Office official hours of
business are Monday through Friday,
8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding
Federal holidays.
Instructions: Direct your comments to
Docket ID No. EPA–R05–OAR–2014–
0294. 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
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
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
Explanation
*
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 docket
are listed in the www.regulations.gov
index. Although listed in the index,
some information is not publicly
available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Certain other material, such as
copyrighted material, will be publicly
available only in hard copy. Publicly
available docket materials are available
either electronically in
www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at
the Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 5, Air and Radiation Division, 77
West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago,
Illinois 60604. This facility is open from
8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through
Friday, excluding Federal holidays. We
recommend that you telephone Matt
Rau, Environmental Engineer, at (312)
886–6524 before visiting the Region 5
office.
Matt
Rau, Environmental Engineer, Control
Strategies Section, Air Programs Branch
(AR–18J), Environmental Protection
Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson
Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604,
(312) 886–6524, rau.matthew@epa.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Throughout this document whenever
‘‘we’’, ‘‘us’’, or ‘‘our’’ is used, we mean
EPA. This supplementary information
section is arranged as follows:
I. What is the background for this action?
II. What is EPA’s analysis?
III. What action is EPA taking?
IV. Incorporation by Reference
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
E:\FR\FM\17APR1.SGM
17APR1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 74 (Friday, April 17, 2015)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 21170-21174]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-08884]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R04-OAR-2014-0867; FRL-9926-41-Region-4]
Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Alabama: Non-
Interference Demonstration for Federal Low-Reid Vapor Pressure
Requirement for the Birmingham Area
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving the
State of Alabama's November 14, 2014, State Implementation Plan (SIP)
revision, submitted through the Alabama Department of Environmental
Management (ADEM), in support of the State's request that EPA change
the Federal Reid Vapor Pressure (RVP) requirements for Jefferson and
Shelby Counties (hereinafter referred to as the ``Birmingham Area'' or
``Area''). Alabama's November 14, 2014, SIP revision evaluates whether
changing the Federal RVP requirements in this Area would interfere with
the Area's ability to meet the requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA
or Act). Specifically, Alabama's SIP revision concludes that relaxing
the Federal RVP requirement from 7.8 pounds per square inch (psi) to
9.0 psi for gasoline sold between June 1 and September 15 of each year
in the Area would not interfere with attainment or maintenance of the
national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) or with any other CAA
requirement. EPA has determined that Alabama's November 14, 2014, SIP
revision is consistent with the CAA.
DATES: This rule will be effective April 17, 2015.
ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket
Identification No. EPA-R04-OAR-2014-0867. 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 Air Regulatory Management Section (formerly the Regulatory
Development Section), Air Planning and Implementation Branch (formerly
the Air Planning Branch), Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management
Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth
Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. EPA requests that if at all
possible, you contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT section to schedule your inspection. The Regional Office's
official hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30
p.m., excluding Federal holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Richard Wong of the Air Regulatory
Management Section, in the Air Planning and Implementation Branch, Air,
Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia
30303-8960. Mr. Wong may be reached by phone at (404) 562-8726 or via
electronic mail at wong.richard@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. What is the background for this final action?
The Birmingham Area was originally designated as a 1-hour ozone
nonattainment area by EPA on March 3, 1978 (43 FR 8962). A 7.8 psi
Federal RVP requirement was first applied to the Area during the high
ozone season given its status as a marginal nonattainment area for the
1-hour ozone standard. Subsequently, in order to comply with the 1-hour
ozone NAAQS, Alabama opted to implement a state RVP requirement of 7.0
psi for gasoline sold in the Birmingham Area during the high ozone
season. EPA incorporated the state RVP requirement of 7.0 psi for
gasoline sold in the Birmingham Area into the Alabama SIP on November
7, 2001. See 66 FR 56218. The Area attained the 1-hour ozone NAAQS and
was redesignated to attainment for the 1-hour ozone on March 12, 2004,
based on 2001-2003 ambient air quality monitoring data. See 69 FR
11798. Alabama's 1-hour ozone redesignation request did not include a
request to remove the 7.0 psi state RVP requirement for the Birmingham
Area from the SIP nor a request to relax the 7.8 psi Federal RVP
standard.
On April 30, 2004, EPA designated and classified areas for the 8-
hour ozone NAAQS that was promulgated on July 18, 1997, as
unclassifiable/attainment or nonattainment for the new 8-hour ozone
NAAQS. See 69 FR 23857. The Birmingham Area was designated as
nonattainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS with a design value of
0.087 parts per million (ppm). The Area was redesignated to attainment
for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS in a final rulemaking on May 12, 2006.
See 71 FR 27631. Alabama's 1997 8-hour ozone redesignation request did
not include a request for the removal of the 7.8 psi Federal RVP
standard, nor did it include a request to change the 7.0 psi state RVP
requirement for the Birmingham Area. However, to support its request
for redesignation to attainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS,
Alabama took a conservative approach and estimated emissions using a
9.0 psi RVP in its modeling supporting the State's maintenance
demonstration.
On March 2, 2012, Alabama submitted a SIP revision requesting that
EPA remove the State's 7.0 psi RVP requirement for the Area from the
SIP. EPA approved Alabama's March 2, 2012, SIP revision on April 20,
2012. See 77 FR 23619. In EPA's final rulemaking to remove the State
RVP requirement, EPA noted that the action did not remove the 7.8 psi
Federal RVP requirement for the Birmingham Area. Effective July 20,
2012, EPA designated the Birmingham Area as unclassifiable/attainment
for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. See 77 FR 30088 (April 30, 2012).
Although the Birmingham Area is designated as attainment, the federal
7.8 psi RVP requirement remains in place.
Alabama is now requesting that EPA remove the federal 7.8 psi RVP
requirement for the Birmingham Area, and it submitted a SIP revision on
[[Page 21171]]
November 14, 2014, containing a noninterference demonstration to
support its request.
II. What is the history of the gasoline volatility requirement?
On August 19, 1987 (52 FR 31274), EPA determined that gasoline
nationwide had become increasingly volatile, causing an increase in
evaporative emissions from gasoline-powered vehicles and equipment.
Evaporative emissions from gasoline, referred to as volatile organic
compounds (VOCs), are precursors to the formation of tropospheric ozone
and contribute to the nation's ground-level ozone problem. Exposure to
ground-level ozone can reduce lung function (thereby aggravating asthma
or other respiratory conditions), increase susceptibility to
respiratory infection, and may contribute to premature death in people
with heart and lung disease.
The most common measure of fuel volatility that is useful in
evaluating gasoline evaporative emissions is RVP. Under section 211(c)
of CAA, EPA promulgated regulations on March 22, 1989 (54 FR 11868),
that set maximum limits for the RVP of gasoline sold during the high
ozone season. These regulations constituted Phase I of a two-phase
nationwide program, which was designed to reduce the volatility of
commercial gasoline during the summer ozone control season. On June 11,
1990 (55 FR 23658), EPA promulgated more stringent volatility controls
as Phase II of the volatility control program. These requirements
established maximum RVP standards of 9.0 psi or 7.8 psi (depending on
the State, the month, and the area's initial ozone attainment
designation with respect to the 1-hour ozone NAAQS during the high
ozone season).
The 1990 CAA Amendments established a new section, 211(h), to
address fuel volatility. Section 211(h) requires EPA to promulgate
regulations making it unlawful to sell, offer for sale, dispense,
supply, offer for supply, transport, or introduce into commerce
gasoline with an RVP level in excess of 9.0 psi during the high ozone
season. Section 211(h) prohibits EPA from establishing a volatility
standard more stringent than 9.0 psi in an attainment area, except that
EPA may impose a lower (more stringent) standard in any former ozone
nonattainment area redesignated to attainment.
On December 12, 1991 (56 FR 64704), EPA modified the Phase II
volatility regulations to be consistent with section 211(h) of the CAA.
The modified regulations prohibited the sale of gasoline with an RVP
above 9.0 psi in all areas designated attainment for ozone, beginning
in 1992. For areas designated as nonattainment, the regulations
retained the original Phase II standards published on June 11, 1990 (55
FR 23658). A current listing of the RVP requirements for states can be
found at 40 CFR 80.27(a)(2) as well as on EPA's Web site at: https://www.epa.gov/otaq/fuels/gasolinefuels/volatility/standards.htm.
As explained in the December 12, 1991 (56 FR 64704), Phase II
rulemaking, EPA believes that relaxation of an applicable RVP standard
is best accomplished in conjunction with the redesignation process. In
order for an ozone nonattainment area to be redesignated as an
attainment area, section 107(d)(3) of the Act requires the state to
make a showing, pursuant to section 175A of the Act, that the area is
capable of maintaining attainment for the ozone NAAQS for ten years
after redesignation. Depending on the area's circumstances, this
maintenance plan will either demonstrate that the area is capable of
maintaining attainment for ten years without the more stringent
volatility standard or that the more stringent volatility standard may
be necessary for the area to maintain its attainment with the ozone
NAAQS. Therefore, in the context of a request for redesignation, EPA
will not relax the volatility standard unless the state requests a
relaxation and the maintenance plan demonstrates, to the satisfaction
of EPA, that the area will maintain attainment for ten years without
the need for the more stringent volatility standard.
As noted above, Alabama did not request relaxation of the
applicable 7.8 psi federal RVP standard when the Birmingham Area was
redesignated to attainment for the either the 1-hour or the 1997 8-hour
ozone NAAQS but did take a conservative approach in estimating
emissions for the maintenance plan associated with its redesignation
request for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS by using a level of 9.0 psi.
III. What are the Section 110(l) requirements?
To support Alabama's request to relax the federal RVP requirement
in the Birmingham Area, the State must demonstrate that the requested
change will satisfy section 110(l) of the CAA. Section 110(l) requires
that a revision to the SIP not interfere with any applicable
requirement concerning attainment and reasonable further progress (as
defined in section 171), or any other applicable requirement of the
Act. EPA's criterion for determining the approvability of Alabama's
November 14, 2014, SIP revision is whether the noninterference
demonstration associated with the relaxation request satisfies section
110(l). Although the modeling associated with Alabama's maintenance
plans for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS and the 1997 Annual
PM2.5 and are premised upon the 9.0 psi RVP requirements, no
requests for a change in the federal RVP requirement were made at the
time that EPA approved these plans.\1\ EPA's approval of the
maintenance plans was based on an evaluation of the air quality
monitoring data at the time of the EPA actions, the information
provided in the individual maintenance plans, and the maintenance plan
requirements in the CAA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The State used a planning factor of 7.8 psi in its
maintenance plan associated with the redesignation for the 2006 24-
hour PM2.5 NAAQS. In the February 13, 2015, proposed
rulemaking action, EPA incorrectly stated that the modeling
associated with that maintenance plan was premised on a 9.0 psi RVP
requirement. Alabama's use of a 7.8 psi planning factor in the
aforementioned maintenance plan does not affect EPA's analysis of
the State's November 14, 2014 noninterference demonstration because
the demonstration does not rely on that maintenance plan or the
modeling associated with that maintenance plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA evaluates each section 110(l) noninterference demonstration on
a case-by-case basis considering the circumstances of each SIP
revision. EPA interprets 110(l) as applying to all NAAQS that are in
effect, including those that have been promulgated but for which the
EPA has not yet made designations. The degree of analysis focused on
any particular NAAQS in a noninterference demonstration varies
depending on the nature of the emissions associated with the SIP
revision. The State's SIP submission included a noninterference
demonstration evaluating the impact that the removal of the 7.8 psi RVP
requirement would have on maintenance of the 1997 and 2008 ozone
standards and on the maintenance of the other NAAQS. ADEM's
noninterference analysis utilized EPA's 2010b Motor Vehicle Emissions
Simulator (MOVES) emission modeling system to estimate the potential
impacts to the NAAQS that might result from changing the high ozone
season RVP requirement from 7.8 psi to 9.0 psi. The modeling results
predicted minor increases in VOC and NOX emissions from RVP
relaxation and larger decreases in emissions resulting from fleet
turnover. The modeling also predicted continual decreases in VOC and
NOX emissions from mobile sources
[[Page 21172]]
for years 2015 through 2024 using 9.0 psi RVP fuel and the fleet
turnover assumptions contained in EPA's 2010b MOVES model. Therefore,
the state's modeling analysis demonstrated that a change in the
summertime RVP limit to 9.0 psi would not interfere with attainment or
maintenance of the ozone, PM or NO2 NAAQS. EPA presented a
detailed analysis of the State's noninterference demonstration in
Section V of the proposed rulemaking notice. See 80 FR 8018, 8020-23
(February 13, 2015).
EPA notes that this action only approves the State's technical
demonstration that the Area can attain and maintain the NAAQS and meet
other CAA requirements after switching to the sale of gasoline with an
RVP of 9.0 psi in the Birmingham Area during the high ozone season and
amends the SIP to include this demonstration. Consistent with CAA
section 211(h) and the Phase II volatility regulations, EPA will
initiate a separate rulemaking to relax the current federal requirement
to use gasoline with an RVP of 7.8 psi in the Birmingham Area.
IV. What is EPA's response to comments?
EPA received two sets of comments on its February 13, 2015,
proposed rulemaking action. Specifically, EPA received comments from
Sierra Club and from one member of the general public (these commenters
are hereinafter collectively referred to as ``the Commenter''). Full
sets of these comments are provided in the docket for this final
action. A summary of the comments and EPA's responses are provided
below.
Comment 1: The Commenter does not believe that the Deputy Regional
Administrator was authorized to sign the proposed approval of Alabama's
SIP submission because, according to the Commenter, only the Regional
Administrator is authorized under EPA's delegations manual to sign
regional SIP actions.
Response 1: The Commenter is incorrect. Under CAA section 110(k),
the EPA Administrator is tasked with acting on SIP submittals by
approving or disapproving the submittal in whole or in part. This
authority may be delegated to other EPA officials. It is the EPA's
policy that, in order for other Agency management officials to act on
behalf of the Administrator, the authority must be delegated
officially. These official delegations are recorded in the ``EPA
Delegations Manual.'' Under EPA Delegation 1-21. Federal Register (1200
TN 543, 4/22/2002), the EPA Administrator has delegated the authority
to sign and submit proposed actions on SIPs for publication in the
Federal Register to the Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation
and to Regional Administrators. Section 2.d. This delegation allows for
this authority to be redelegated to the Deputies of the authorized
officials. Section 4.a. Based on the authority to redelegate provided
in Delegation 1-21, EPA Region 4 redelegated the authority to sign and
submit proposed actions on SIPs for publication in the Federal Register
to the Deputy Regional Administrator. See EPA Region 4 Delegation 1-21.
Therefore, an appropriate EPA official, the Region 4 Deputy Regional
Administrator, signed and submitted the proposal to approve Alabama's
November 14, 2014, SIP submission. EPA notes that an earlier
delegation, Delegation 7-10. Approval/Disapproval of State
Implementation Plans (1200 TN 441, 5/6/97), did not allow redelegation
of the authority to act on proposed SIP actions beyond the Regional
Administrator. Because Delegation 1-21 post-dates Delegation 7-10 and
specifically addresses the authority at issue, it is the applicable
delegation for EPA's February 13, 2015, proposed rulemaking action.
Delegation 1-21 does not change the limitation on redelegation beyond
the Regional Administrator found in Delegation 7-10 for final actions
on SIPs.
Comment 2: The Commenter ``would not approve of the noninterference
demonstration submitted by the SIP because there has been insufficient
evidence to show that the pollution levels will continue to decrease
for the next ten years.'' The Commenter acknowledges that the ``data
shows that there has been a downtrend in the amount of pollution,'' but
believes that the data collected by the State was ``based on RVP
numbers when the requirements for RVP was to keep it under 7.8 RVP''
and that ``there is nothing to say that this downtrend isn't the result
of the requirement itself.'' According to the Commenter, EPA should
require evidence that the downtrend will continue despite the ``raised
requirements for RVP.''
Response 2: EPA disagrees with the Commenter. The criterion for
determining the approvability of Alabama's November 14, 2014, SIP
revision is whether the noninterference demonstration satisfies section
110(l). Under this section of the CAA, EPA can approve a SIP relaxation
if the State demonstrates that any increases allowed by the revision
would not be enough to interfere with NAAQS attainment or maintenance.
There is no prescriptive CAA requirement that each noninterference
analysis demonstrate that pollution levels will decrease for ten years
following the relaxation of a SIP requirement.
In its demonstration, Alabama used EPA's mobile source modeling
software to estimate the change in mobile source emissions resulting
from a switch to 9.0 psi RVP fuel and to estimate total mobile source
emissions over the next ten years using 9.0 psi RVP fuel. Alabama's
modeling projects that mobile source emissions will continue to
decrease in the Area through 2024 with the use of 9.0 psi RVP fuel and
that the minor increases in VOC and NOX emissions from RVP
relaxation are outweighed by larger decreases in emissions resulting
from fleet turnover.\2\ The ozone and PM design values presented in
Tables 4 and 5 of the proposed rulemaking notice are far enough below
the NAAQS that the minor increase in mobile source emissions associated
with the RVP relaxation, ignoring reductions from fleet turnover, would
not interfere with maintenance of these standards. EPA acknowledges
that the downtrend in these design values was observed while 7.8 psi
RVP fuel was used in the Area; however, the State's modeling predicts
that this downtrend will continue with the use of 9.0 psi RVP fuel.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Alabama estimated that relaxing the RVP standard would
increase NOX and VOC emissions by 24 tpy and 80 tpy,
respectively, and that fleet turnover will reduce NOX and
VOC emissions by 489 tpy and 156 tpy, respectively, in the Area for
2015. See 80 FR 8021.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment 3: The Commenter believes that approving the State's
noninterference demonstration would be ``contradictory to the purpose
of the CAA;'' that ``we should be taking steps toward limiting gasoline
consumption and RVP levels, not steps backwards;'' and that ``unless
dire need is shown to raise the levels, as has not been shown here, we
should not allow an increase in pollution by a State.''
Response 3: EPA disagrees with the Commenter. The Administrator is
required to approve a SIP submittal that complies with the provisions
of the Act, and as discussed above, section 110(l) governs EPA's
evaluation of Alabama's noninterference demonstration.\3\ 42 U.S.C.
7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). The test for approvability under section
110(l) is not ``dire need,'' it is whether any emissions increases
resulting from the proposed SIP relaxation would be
[[Page 21173]]
enough to interfere with the attainment or maintenance of a NAAQS. EPA
is therefore approving the nonattainment demonstration pursuant to
section 110(l) because it has concluded that the switch to 9.0 psi RVP
fuel will not interfere with the attainment or maintenance of a NAAQS
for the reasons discussed in Response 2 and in Section V of the
proposed rulemaking notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ EPA also notes that the requested change from 7.8 psi to 9.0
psi is within the federal approved RVP limit for ozone attainment
areas. See 40 CFR 80.27; CAA section 211(h)(2) (prohibiting EPA from
establishing a volatility standard more stringent than 9.0 psi in an
ozone attainment area that was not redesignated from nonattainment).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
V. Final Action
EPA is taking final action to approve the State of Alabama's
noninterference demonstration, submitted on November 14, 2014, in
support of the State's request that EPA change the Federal RVP
requirements for the Birmingham Area from 7.8 psi to 9.0 psi.
Specifically, EPA is approving that this change in the RVP requirements
for the Birmingham Area will not interfere with attainment or
maintenance of any NAAQS or with any other applicable requirement of
the CAA.
EPA has determined that Alabama's November 14, 2014, SIP revision,
containing the noninterference demonstration associated with the
State's request for the change of the Federal RVP requirements is
consistent with the applicable provisions of the CAA. EPA is not
approving action today to remove the Birmingham Area from the Federal
7.8 psi RVP requirement. Any such action will occur in a separate and
subsequent rulemaking.
In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(d), EPA finds that there is good
cause for this action to become effective immediately upon publication.
This is because a delayed effective date is unnecessary because this
action approves a noninterference demonstration that will serve as the
basis of a subsequent action to relieve the Area from certain CAA
requirements that would otherwise apply to it. The immediate effective
date for this action is authorized under both 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(1), which
provides that rulemaking actions may become effective less than 30 days
after publication if the rule grants or recognizes an exemption or
relieves a restriction, and section 553(d)(3), which allows an
effective date less than 30 days after publication as otherwise
provided by the agency for good cause found and published with the
rule. The purpose of the 30-day waiting period prescribed in section
553(d) is to give affected parties a reasonable time to adjust their
behavior and prepare before the final rule takes effect. This rule,
however, does not create any new regulatory requirements such that
affected parties would need time to prepare before the rule takes
effect. Rather, this rule will serve as a basis for a subsequent action
to relieve the Area from certain CAA requirements. For these reasons,
EPA finds good cause under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3) for this action to become
effective on the date of publication of this action.
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submittal 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 propose to 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 Orders 12866 (58
FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
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, October 7, 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, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian
reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has
demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian
country, the rule does not have tribal implications as specified by
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000) nor will it
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 CAA, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by June 16, 2015. 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, Ozone,
Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile
organic compounds.
Dated: April 7, 2015.
Heather McTeer Toney,
Regional Administrator, Region 4.
40 CFR parts 52 is amended as follows:
PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS
0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:
[[Page 21174]]
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Subpart B--Alabama
0
2. Section 52.50(e) is amended by adding a new entry for ``Non-
interference Demonstration for Federal Low-Reid Vapor Pressure
Requirement for the Birmingham Area'' at the end of the table to read
as follows:
Sec. 52.50 Identification of plan.
* * * * *
(e) * * *
EPA Approved Alabama Non-Regulatory Provisions
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
State
Name of nonregulatory SIP Applicable geographic submittal date/ EPA approval date Explanation
provision or nonattainment area effective date
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
Non-interference Demonstration for Jefferson and Shelby 11/14/2014 4/17/2015 [Insert citation of .....................................
Federal Low-Reid Vapor Pressure Counties. publication].
Requirement for the Birmingham
Area.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[FR Doc. 2015-08884 Filed 4-16-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
