[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 74 (Friday, April 17, 2015)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 21170-21174]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing 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 <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#ddaab2b3baf3afb4beb5bcafb99db8adbcf3bab2ab"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="1b6c74757c35697278737a697f5b7e6b7a357c746d">[email protected]</span></a>.

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: 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 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 NO<INF>X</INF> emissions from RVP 
relaxation and larger decreases in emissions resulting from fleet 
turnover. The modeling also predicted continual decreases in VOC and 
NO<INF>X</INF> 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 NO<INF>2</INF> 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 NO<INF>X</INF> 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 NO<INF>X</INF> and VOC emissions by 24 tpy and 80 tpy, 
respectively, and that fleet turnover will reduce NO<INF>X</INF> 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:
    <bullet> 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);
    <bullet> does not impose an information collection burden under the 
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
    <bullet> 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.);
    <bullet> 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);
    <bullet> does not have Federalism implications as specified in 
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, October 7, 1999);
    <bullet> is not an economically significant regulatory action based 
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 
19885, April 23, 1997);
    <bullet> is not a significant regulatory action subject to 
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
    <bullet> 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
    <bullet> 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


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>