39330 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 132 / Thursday, July 10, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

TABLE 52.385—EPA-APPROVED REGULATIONS

Connecticut 

State citation Title/subject 

Dates 

Federal 

Register 

citation 

Section 52.370 Comments/ 

description Date 

adopted by 

State 

Date 

approved 

by EPA 

* * * * * * * 

22a–174–19a Control of sulfur dioxide emissions from power plants 

and other large stationary 

sources of air pollution.

12/28/00 7/10/14 [Insert Federal 

Register 

page number where 

the document begins].

[Insert next 

available 

paragraph 

number in 

sequence].

Approves the sulfur dioxide 

emission standards and fuel 

sulfur limits for units subject 

to the CT NOX Budget program. The following sections were not submitted as 

part of the SIP: Sections 

(a)(5); (a)(8); (a)(11); (d); 

(e)(4); (f); (g); (h); and in 

(i)(2) reference to (e)(4). 

* * * * * * * 

22a–174–22 ... Control of nitrogen oxides 

emissions.

12/28/00 7/10/14 [Insert Federal 

Register 

page number where 

the document begins].

[Insert next 

available 

paragraph 

number in 

sequence].

Approves the Oct–April NOX

emission limits for units 

subject to the CT NOX

Budget program. Only section (e)(3) was submitted as 

part of the SIP revision. 

* * * * * * * 

Sec. 16a–21a Sulfur content of home heating oil and off-road diesel 

fuel. Suspension of requirements for emergency.

6/2/08 7/10/14 [Insert Federal 

Register 

page number where 

the document begins].

[Insert next 

available 

paragraph 

number in 

sequence].

Approves the sulfur content of 

number two home heating 

oil and off road diesel at 

such time that New York, 

Massachusetts, and Rhode 

Island adopt similar limits. 

[FR Doc. 2014–16071 Filed 7–9–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R03–OAR–2013–0241; FRL–9913–26- 

Region 3] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; 

Pennsylvania; Control of Commercial 

Fuel Oil Sulfur Limits for Combustion 

Units 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is approving a State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) revision 

submitted by the Commonwealth of 

Pennsylvania. This revision will 

implement low-sulfur fuel oil 

provisions that will reduce the amount 

of sulfur in fuel oils used in combustion 

units, which will aid in reducing sulfur 

dioxide (SO2) emissions and the 

formation of sulfates that cause 

decreased visibility. This action is being 

taken under the Clean Air Act (CAA). 

DATES: This final rule is effective on July 

10, 2014. 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket ID 

Number EPA–R03–OAR–2013–0241. All 

documents in the docket are listed in 

the http://www.regulations.gov Web 

site. Although listed in the electronic 

docket, some information is not publicly 

available, i.e., confidential business 

information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Certain other material, such as 

copyrighted material, is not placed on 

the Internet and will be publicly 

available only in hard copy form. 

Publicly available docket materials are 

available either electronically through 

http://www.regulations.gov or in hard 

copy for public inspection during 

normal business hours at the Air 

Protection Division, Environmental 

Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 

Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 

19103. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Gregory Becoat, (215) 814–2036, or by 

email at becoat.gregory@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

On February 20, 2014 (79 FR 9701), 

EPA published a notice of proposed 

rulemaking (NPR) seeking comment on 

EPA’s proposed approval of 

Pennsylvania’s SIP revision that 

incorporates the Commonwealth’s lowsulfur fuel oil provisions into the SIP. 

The SIP revision was submitted by the 

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania on 

February 25, 2013, adopting revisions to 

25 Pennsylvania Code (Pa. Code) 

Chapters 121, 123, and 139. In response 

to the NPR, EPA received one comment, 

dated March 24, 2014, from Ms. Jane 

Kozinski, Assistant Commissioner for 

the State of New Jersey Department of 

Environmental Protection (NJDEP). A 

summary of the NJDEP comment and 

EPA’s response is provided in Unit III. 

(Summary of Public Comment and EPA 

Response) of this final rulemaking 

action. 

II. Summary of SIP Revision 

The SIP revision incorporates 

Pennsylvania’s low-sulfur fuel oil 

provisions which apply to the owners 

and/or operators of the following: (1) 

Refineries; (2) pipelines; (3) terminals; 

(4) retail outlet fuel storage facilities and 

ultimate consumers; (5) commercial and 

industrial facilities; and (6) facilities 

with a unit burning regulated fuel oil to 

produce electricity and domestic home 

heaters. The SIP revision implements 

low-sulfur fuel oil provisions that will 

reduce the amount of sulfur in fuel oils 

used in combustion units and amends 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 132 / Thursday, July 10, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 39331 

1EPA originally finalized a limited approval of 

the Pennsylvania regional haze SIP on July 13, 

2012. 77 FR 41279. Our approval was limited due 

to Pennsylvania’s reliance upon the Clean Air 

Interstate Rule (CAIR) for certain emission 

requirements for electric generating units. In 

response to a petition for review of that final action 

in the United States Court of Appeals for the Third 

Circuit, EPA successfully moved for a voluntary 

remand without vacatur. On April 30, 2014, EPA 

reissued its final limited approval of the 

Pennsylvania SIP to implement the 

Commonwealth’s regional haze program for the first 

planning period through 2018. 79 FR 24340. EPA 

is approving Pennsylvania’s SIP revision to 

incorporate the low-sulfur fuel oil regulations as a 

SIP strengthening measure and not to address any 

specific regional haze requirements in the CAA or 

in 40 CFR 51.308. 

2See ‘‘Statement of the Mid-Atlantic/Northeast 

Visibility Union (MANE–VU) Concerning a Course 

of Action within MANE–VU toward Assuring 

Reasonable Progress’’ (January 20, 2007), also 

known as the MANE–VU ‘‘Ask,’’ in Appendix M of 

the December 20, 2010 Pennsylvania regional haze 

SIP submission available in the docket for EPA’s 

rulemaking approving the Pennsylvania regional 

haze SIP at http://www.regulations.gov, Docket ID 

Number EPA–R03–OAR–2012–0002. 

3Pennsylvania’s low-sulfur fuel oil regulations 

include a compliance date in 2016. The MANE–VU 

‘‘Ask’’ provided for ‘‘outer zone’’ states to 

implement a low-sulfur fuel oil strategy by 2014 

and ‘‘to further reduce the sulfur content of 

distillate oil to 15 ppm by 2018, depending on 

supply availability.’’ See Pennsylvania’s December 

20, 2010 regional haze SIP, Appendix M (MANE– 

VU ‘‘Ask’’). Pennsylvania cited concerns with 

desulfurization capacity at refineries when 

publishing its low-sulfur fuel oil regulations with 

the 500 ppm sulfur limit for distillate oil and 2016 

compliance date. See 43 Pa. B. 806 (February 9, 

2013). 

4See ‘‘Technical Support Document (TSD) for the 

Pennsylvania Regional Haze State Implementation 

Plan—Mid Atlantic and Northeast Visibility Union 

(MANE–VU) ‘Asks’ Reasonable Progress Goals’’ 

(January 17, 2012) available in the docket for EPA’s 

rulemaking approving the Pennsylvania regional 

haze SIP at http://www.regulations.gov, Docket ID 

Number EPA–R03–OAR–2012–0002. 

associated definitions, sampling and test 

methods, and recordkeeping and 

recording provisions. The low-sulfur 

fuel oil provisions will aid in reducing 

SO2 emissions and the formation of 

sulfates that cause decreased visibility. 

EPA believes that these regulations will 

decrease SO2 emissions in the 

Commonwealth from certain fuel 

combustion sources and therefore 

strengthen the Pennsylvania SIP. EPA 

also believes that the additional SO2

emission reductions and reductions in 

sulfates from Pennsylvania sources will 

assist the Commonwealth in achieving 

further reasonable progress towards 

reducing regional haze.1 The rationale 

for EPA’s proposed action is explained 

in the NPR and will not be restated here. 

Relevant support documents for this 

action are available online at http://

www.regulations.gov, Docket number 

EPA–R03–OAR–2013–0241. 

III. Summary of Public Comment and 

EPA Response 

Comment: NJDEP commented that 

Pennsylvania’s SIP revision, which 

incorporates low-sulfur fuel oil 

regulations to reduce the sulfur content 

of distillate fuel oil to 500 parts per 

million (ppm), is not consistent with 

standards adopted by nearby states, 

which limit sulfur content to 15 ppm. 

NJDEP stated that a sulfur-content 

standard of 15 ppm would be consistent 

with the standard set in the MidAtlantic/Northeast Visibility Union 

(MANE–VU)’s agreement on measures 

to control air pollutants that contribute 

to regional haze. NJDEP expressed 

concern that Pennsylvania’s adoption of 

a higher sulfur-content standard of 500 

ppm may jeopardize continued progress 

to improve visibility levels at the 

Brigantine Wilderness Area (Brigantine). 

NJDEP stated that a sulfur-content 

standard of 15 ppm for distillate fuel oil 

is a reasonable, cost-effective air 

pollution control measure necessary to 

ensure that the reasonable progress 

goals (RPGs) at Brigantine are met in the 

future. NJDEP also stated that a lower 

sulfur-content standard of 15 ppm is a 

reasonable, cost-effective control 

measure for SO2 and fine particulates 

and ‘‘would make for a more widelymarketable fuel across the northeastern 

and mid-Atlantic United States.’’ 

Further, NJDEP stated that in EPA’s 

proposed approval of the Pennsylvania 

regional haze SIP, ‘‘Pennsylvania 

reports that sulfur dioxide emission 

reductions from the closure of the 

Portland Power [P]lant in northeastern 

Pennsylvania will offset sulfur dioxide 

emissions expected from a 500 ppm 

sulfur content in distillate fuel oil in 

Pennsylvania.’’ NJDEP commented that, 

on the contrary, lowering the sulfur 

content in distillate oil to 15 ppm would 

have a greater impact on visibility at 

Brigantine than reductions at Portland 

because emission reductions would 

occur over a widespread area from a 

large number of sources, especially from 

fuel-burning sources in metropolitan 

Philadelphia, which is frequently 

upwind of Brigantine. 

Response: EPA appreciates NJDEP’s 

comment on the SIP revision and 

acknowledges that Pennsylvania is a 

member state in MANE–VU. 

Pennsylvania participated fully in the 

MANE–VU consultation process, which 

resulted in a course of action for all 

participating states to reduce emissions 

to collectively meet the RPGs in the 

MANE–VU region.2 The MANE–VU 

‘‘Ask’’ provided the MANE–VU states, 

including Pennsylvania, with up to ten 

years to pursue adoption and 

implementation of reasonable and costeffective nitrogen oxides (NOX) and SO2

emissions reduction measures. In its 

regional haze SIP, Pennsylvania stated 

that it ‘‘will pursue these measures, as 

appropriate and necessary, and in five 

years at the time of Pennsylvania’s first 

periodic SIP report, expects to report on 

progress toward adoption of these 

measures by 2018.’’ With respect to the 

low-sulfur fuel strategy, the MANE–VU 

‘‘Ask’’ established two sets of goals, one 

for the ‘‘inner zone’’ states of the 

MANE–VU region (Delaware, New 

Jersey, New York, and Pennsylvania, or 

portions thereof) and one goal for the 

‘‘outer zone’’ states. The ‘‘inner zone’’ 

goals contained more aggressive 

compliance schedules and sulfurcontent limits than the ‘‘outer zone’’ 

goals. Nevertheless, states in the ‘‘inner 

zone’’ could choose to comply with the 

‘‘outer zone’’ goals if they experienced 

supply disruption issues, and the ‘‘Ask’’ 

effectively provided all states until 2018 

to complete the implementation of their 

low-sulfur fuel strategies. Consistent 

with this approach, Pennsylvania 

indicated in its regional haze SIP that, 

‘‘[b]ased on supply concerns, 

Pennsylvania will pursue a strategy that 

will not be less stringent than the outer 

zone strategy and would meet the sulfur 

content emission limits listed above by 

2018.’’ 

On July 13, 2012, EPA finalized a 

limited approval of the Pennsylvania 

regional haze SIP (77 FR 41279). 

Subsequently, Pennsylvania submitted 

its February 25, 2013 SIP revision to 

EPA that included low-sulfur fuel 

regulations that met the ‘‘outer zone’’ 

strategy requirements and therefore do 

not require the sulfur content of 

distillate oil be reduced to 15 ppm.3 As 

EPA explained in detail in the technical 

support document (TSD) 4 that 

accompanied our July 13, 2012 limited 

approval of the Pennsylvania regional 

haze SIP, Pennsylvania had secured an 

additional 23,051 tons in SO2

reductions that were not anticipated at 

the time of the MANE–VU ‘‘Ask.’’ When 

these reductions are considered in 

combination with reductions that will 

result from Pennsylvania’s low-sulfur 

fuel regulations, EPA believes that a 15 

ppm limit on distillate oil is no longer 

‘‘appropriate and necessary’’ to achieve 

the goals of the MANE–VU ‘‘Ask’’ 

during the first planning period ending 

in 2018. Consequently, EPA believes 

that the Pennsylvania regional haze SIP 

includes all measures necessary to 

obtain its share of the emission 

reductions needed to meet the RPGs of 

downwind states including New Jersey’s 

and therefore has met the requirements 

of 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(ii). See 79 FR 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
39332 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 132 / Thursday, July 10, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

5EPA notes that it was our conclusion in the TSD 

supporting approval of Pennsylvania’s regional 

haze SIP, and not Pennsylvania’s, that additional 

SO2 emission reductions from Federally enforceable 

measures at point sources such as the Portland 

Power Plant supported our conclusion that the 

delay in implementing a low-sulfur fuel oil strategy 

was not anticipated to interfere with the ability of 

other states to meet their respective RPGs. 

24340 (April 30, 2014) (reissuing 

limited approval of Pennsylvania’s 

regional haze SIP). However, EPA 

recognizes that a 15 ppm sulfur content 

limit for distillate oil, if subsequently 

implemented, would provide further 

SO2 emissions reductions from 

Pennsylvania sources and further 

reasonable progress towards the 

national goal of remedying visibility 

impairment in Class I areas. 

As EPA explained in the NPR for this 

rulemaking action, EPA believes these 

regulations strengthen the Pennsylvania 

SIP and provide additional SO2 and 

sulfate reductions that supplement 

reductions from the Pennsylvania 

regional haze SIP. Therefore, EPA 

concludes that the adoption of a lowsulfur fuel oil strategy will provide 

Pennsylvania additional emission 

reductions furthering progress towards 

reducing emissions that contribute to 

visibility impairment and furthering 

reasonable progress in the first 

implementation period towards RPGs 

for Class I areas outside the 

Commonwealth affected by emissions 

from Pennsylvania’s sources. While EPA 

appreciates NJDEP’s comment that 15 

ppm distillate fuel oil is a reasonable, 

cost-effective control measure, EPA has 

concluded that a 15 ppm limit on 

distillate oil is no longer ‘‘appropriate 

and necessary’’ for Pennsylvania to 

achieve the goals of the MANE–VU 

‘‘Ask’’ during the first planning period 

ending in 2018. 

While it is possible that a 15 ppm 

distillate fuel oil standard may result in 

greater visibility improvement at 

Brigantine than the closure of Portland 

as NJDEP alleges, EPA previously 

concluded in its TSD supporting 

approval of Pennsylvania’s regional 

haze SIP that Pennsylvania’s delay in 

implementing low-sulfur fuel oil 

regulations was not anticipated to 

interfere with the ability of other states 

to meet their respective RPGs.5 Based on 

our previous approval of Pennsylvania’s 

regional haze SIP, and particularly upon 

our conclusion that a 15 ppm limit on 

distillate oil is no longer ‘‘appropriate 

and necessary’’ to achieve the goals of 

the MANE–VU ‘‘Ask,’’ EPA believes the 

approved Pennsylvania regional haze 

SIP adequately addresses visibility 

impacts from Pennsylvania emission 

sources on Class I areas outside the 

Commonwealth, including Brigantine, 

for the first implementation period and 

ensures sufficient emission reductions 

for Class I area states to meet their RPGs. 

See 77 FR 41279 and 79 FR 24340. Any 

significant changes in emissions of 

visibility-impairing pollutants or 

impacts at Class I areas can be 

addressed when Pennsylvania evaluates 

its progress made in the first 

implementation period towards RPGs 

for the Class I areas outside the 

Commonwealth affected by emissions 

from Pennsylvania’s sources as required 

by 40 CFR 51.308(g). If Pennsylvania’s 

assessment determines an adjustment to 

its SIP is necessary to ensure reasonable 

progress, EPA regulations require a SIP 

revision within a year of the five-year 

progress report. See 40 CFR 

51.308(h)(4). 

Finally, EPA appreciates NJDEP’s 

comment regarding potential increased 

availability and marketability of lower 

sulfur distillate fuel oil if Pennsylvania 

were to implement a 15 ppm sulfurcontent standard. However, this 

comment is not relevant to this 

rulemaking action and no further 

response is required. 

IV. Final Action 

EPA has determined that the revisions 

made to 25 Pa. Code Chapters 121, 123, 

and 139 meet the SIP revision 

requirements of the CAA and is 

approving the amendments to 

Pennsylvania’s regulations for 

commercial fuel oil sulfur limits for 

combustion units. 

V. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

A. General Requirements 

This action, which makes a 

determination of attainment based on 

air quality, will result in the suspension 

of certain Federal requirements and/or 

will not impose any 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 Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993); 

• Does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

U.S.C. 3501 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, August 10, 

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, this rulemaking action 

does not have tribal implications as 

specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 

FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because 

the determination is not approved to 

apply in Indian country located in the 

state, and EPA notes that it will not 

impose substantial direct costs on tribal 

governments or preempt tribal law. 

B. Submission to Congress and the 

Comptroller General 

The Congressional Review Act, 5 

U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides 

that before a rule may take effect, the 

agency promulgating the rule must 

submit a rule report, which includes a 

copy of the rule, to each House of the 

Congress and to the Comptroller General 

of the United States. EPA will submit a 

report containing this 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). 

C. Petitions for Judicial Review 

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 September 8, 2014. 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 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 132 / Thursday, July 10, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 39333 

extend the time within which a petition 

for judicial review may be filed, and 

shall not postpone the effectiveness of 

such rule or action. 

This action, approving the 

implementation of low-sulfur fuel oil 

provisions that will reduce the amount 

of sulfur in fuel oils used in combustion 

units in Pennsylvania, 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, Particulate matter, Reporting 

and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur 

oxides. 

Dated: June 11, 2014. 

W.C. Early, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region III. 

Therefore, 40 CFR part 52 is amended 

as follows: 

PART 52—[AMENDED] 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 52 

continues to read as follows: 

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

■ 2. In § 52.2020, the paragraph (c)(1) 

table is amended by revising the entries 

for Title 25, Chapters 121, 123, and 139, 

Sections 121.1, 123.22, 139.4, and 

139.16 and adding entries for Title 25, 

Chapter 123, Sections 123.22(f) and 

123.22(g) to read as follows: 

§ 52.2020 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(1) * * * 

State citation Title/subject 

State 

effective 

date 

EPA approval date 

Additional 

explanation/ 

§ 52.2063 citation 

Title 25—Environmental Protection Article III—Air Resources 

Chapter 121—General Provisions 

Section 121.1 ........................... Definitions ............................... 02/09/13 07/10/14 [insert Federal Register citation].Added and amended definitions. 

* * * * * * * 

Chapter 123—Standards for Contaminants 

* * * * * * * 

Section 123.22 ......................... Combustion units. [General 

provisions—air basins and 

non-air basins.

02/09/13 07/10/14 [insert Federal Register citation].Amended sections 123.22(a), 

123.22(b), 123.22(c), 

123.22(d), and 123.22(e). 

* * * * * * * 

Section 123.22(f) ...................... Combustion units—Sampling 

and testing.

02/09/13 07/10/14 [insert Federal Register citation].New section. 

Section 123.22(g) ..................... Combustion units—Recordkeeping and reporting.02/09/13 07/10/14 [insert Federal Register citation].New section 

* * * * * * * 

Chapter 139—Sampling and Testing 

* * * * * * * 

Section 139.4 ........................... References ............................. 02/09/13 07/10/14 [insert Federal Register citation].Amended and added references. 

* * * * * * * 

Section 139.16 ......................... Sulfur in fuel oil ....................... 02/09/13 07/10/14 [insert Federal Register citation].Amended to add cross references. 

* * * * * * * 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2014–16087 Filed 7–9–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES