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 

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 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 74 / Friday, April 17, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 21171 

1The 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. 

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 

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: http://

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. 

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 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
21172 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 74 / Friday, April 17, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

2Alabama 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. 

3EPA 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). 

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. 

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 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 74 / Friday, April 17, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 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. 

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 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 52 

continues to read as follows: 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
21174 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 74 / Friday, April 17, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

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

Subpart B—Alabama 

■ 2. Section 52.50(e) is amended by 

adding a new entry for ‘‘Noninterference Demonstration for Federal 

Low-Reid Vapor Pressure Requirement 

for the Birmingham Area’’ at the end of 

the table to read as follows: 

§ 52.50 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(e) * * * 

EPA APPROVED ALABAMA NON-REGULATORY PROVISIONS

Name of nonregulatory SIP provision Applicable geographic or 

nonattainment area 

State submittal 

date/effective 

date 

EPA approval date Explanation 

*******

Non-interference Demonstration for Federal Low-Reid Vapor Pressure Requirement for the Birmingham Area.Jefferson and Shelby 

Counties.

11/14/2014 4/17/2015 [Insert citation 

of publication]. 

[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 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Direct final rule. 

SUMMARY: 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 

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 

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. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 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. 

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 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES