31116 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 109 / Monday, June 8, 1998 /Rules and Regulations

sections 503 and 505 of SMCRA (30

U.S.C. 1253 and 1255) and 30 CFR

730.11, 732.15, and 732.17(h)(10),

decisions on proposed State regulatory

programs and program amendments

submitted by the States must be based

solely on a determination of whether the

submittal is consistent with SMCRA and

its implementing Federal regulations

and whether the other requirements of

30 CFR Parts 730, 731, and 732 have

been met.

National Environmental Policy Act

No environmental impact statement is

required for this rule since section

702(d) of SMCRA (30 U.S.C. 1292(d))

provides that agency decisions on

proposed State regulatory program

provisions do not constitute major

Federal actions within the meaning of

section 102(2)(C) of the National

Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C.

4332(2)(C)).

Paperwork Reduction Act

This rule does not contain

information collection requirements that

require approval by OMB under the

Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C.

3507 et seq.).

Regulatory Flexibility Act

The Department of the Interior has

determined that this rule will not have

a significant economic impact on a

substantial number of small entities

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5

U.S.C. 601 et seq.). The State submittal

which is the subject of this rule is based

upon corresponding Federal regulations

for which an economic analysis was

prepared and certification made that

such regulations would not have a

significant economic effect upon a

substantial number of small entities.

Accordingly, this rule will ensure that

existing requirements previously

promulgated by OSM will be

implemented by the State. In making the

determination as to whether this rule

would have a significant economic

impact, the Department relied upon the

data and assumptions for the

corresponding Federal regulations.

Unfunded Mandates

OSM has determined and certifies

pursuant to the Unfunded Mandates

Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1502 et seq.) that

this rule will not impose a cost of $100

million or more in any given year on

local, state, or tribal governments or

private entities.

List of Subjects in 30 CFR Part 943

Intergovernmental relations, Surface

mining, Underground mining.

Dated: May 22, 1998.

Brent Wahlquist,

Regional Director, Mid-Continent Regional

Coordinating Center.

For the reasons set out in the

preamble, 30 CFR part 943 is amended

as set forth below:

PART 943—TEXAS

1. The authority citation for Part 943

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 30 U.S.C. 1201 et seq.

2. Section 943.15 is amended in the

table by adding a new entry in

chronological order by ‘‘Date of final

publication’’ to read as follows:

§ 943.15 Approval of Texas regulatory

program amendments.

* * * * *

Original amendment submission

date Date of final publication Citation/description

* * * * * * *

December 1, 1997 .......................... June 8, 1998 .................................. 16 TAC 12.3; 12.201(d)(5); 12.237(2), (2)(B) and (C); 12.243(a),

(a)(4) and (5); 12.309(1); 12.312(a) and (b); 12.313(a), (b), (d), and

(f); 12.387; 12.388.

[FR Doc. 98–15241 Filed 6–5–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310–05–M

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[SIPTRAX NO. PA110–4068a; FRL–6102–9]

Approval and Promulgation of Air

Quality Implementation Plans;

Pennsylvania; Gasoline Volatility

Requirements for the PittsburghBeaver Valley Ozone Nonattainment

Area

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

SUMMARY: EPA is approving a State

Implementation Plan (SIP) revision

submitted by the Commonwealth of

Pennsylvania. This revision amends the

gasoline volatility requirement for the

Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley nonattainment

area. The intended effect of this action

is to approve a summertime gasoline

Reid vapor pressure (RVP) limit of 7.8

pounds per square inch (psi) for

gasoline sold in Allegheny, Armstrong,

Beaver, Butler, Fayette, Washington,

and Westmoreland counties in

Pennsylvania. These seven counties

comprise the Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley

ozone nonattainment area.

DATES: This final rule will become

effective July 23, 1998 without further

notification unless the Agency receives

relevant adverse comments by July 8,

1998. If adverse comment is received,

EPA will publish a timely withdrawal of

the rule in the Federal Register.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed to

David Arnold, Chief, Ozone and Mobile

Source Section, Mailcode 3AP21, U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency,

Region III, 841 Chestnut Building,

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19107.

Copies of the documents relevant to this

action are available for public

inspection during normal business

hours at the Air Protection Division,

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,

Region III, 841 Chestnut Building,

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19107;

Pennsylvania Department of

Environmental Protection, Bureau of Air

Quality, P.O. Box 8468, 400 Market

Street, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17105.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Marcia L. Spink at (215) 566–2104.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On

December 3, 1997, the Commonwealth

of Pennsylvania submitted a formal

revision to its State Implementation

Plan (SIP). The SIP revision amends the

gasoline volatility requirement for the

seven county Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley

ozone nonattainment area (the

Pittsburgh area). On April 17, 1998 the

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania revised

its December 3, 1997 SIP revision

request by deleting the provisions

relating to the use of reformulated

gasoline (RFG).

I. Background

In July 1995, EPA determined that the

air quality of the Pittsburgh area met the

national ambient air quality standard
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 109 / Monday, June 8, 1998 /Rules and Regulations 31117

(NAAQS) for ozone based upon 1991

through 1994 monitoring data. (Note:

That this determination by EPA did not

constitute an agency action to

redesignate the Pittsburgh area to

attainment.) Therefore, under an EPA

policy applicable to ozone areas with

three years of violation free data, the

requirement for an attainment

demonstration and other related

requirements were waived for the

Pittsburgh area. However, subsequent to

EPA’s determination, there were a

number of exceedances in the 1995

ozone season that resulted in a violation

of the ozone NAAQS, and the

previously waived requirements,

including the need for an attainment

demonstration, were reinstated. In

response to the violation of the NAAQS

in the Pittsburgh area, Pennsylvania

Governor Thomas Ridge convened the

Southwestern Pennsylvania Stakeholder

Working Group to review the problem

and recommend additional emission

control strategies to reduce ozone

precursors and produce the required

attainment demonstration.

One of the measures the Southwestern

Pennsylvania Stakeholder Working

Group (the Stakeholders) recommended

as necessary to achieve the ozone

standard in the Pittsburgh area was a

fuels program for cleaner gasoline.

There was much debate during the

Stakeholders’ deliberations as to

whether the Group should recommend

the adoption of a lower RVP program or

whether the Governor should opt the

moderate Pittsburgh ozone

nonattainment area into the federal RFG

program, which is mandated for ozone

nonattainment areas classified as

serious or above. (The federal RFG

program is mandated, for example, in

the Philadelphia-Wilmington-Trenton

severe ozone nonattainment area.) The

Stakeholders’ eventual majority

recommendation was for a so-called

‘‘dual fuel rule’’ for the Pittsburgh area

whereby either low RVP or RFG could

be used to provide for market driven

considerations. (There was a minority

opinion issued by some Stakeholders

who felt compelled to represent their

constituencies by ‘‘going on record’’ that

they recommended the federal RFG

program.) Under the dual fuel scenario,

however, it is important to recognize

that any RFG distributed and sold in the

Pittsburgh area would not have been

required by and enforceable under the

federal RFG program. The Pennsylvania

Department of Environmental Protection

(PADEP), in accordance with the

Stakeholders’ majority recommendation,

proceeded to adopt a dual fuel

regulation for the Pittsburgh area, and

on December 3, 1997 submitted that

regulation to EPA as a SIP revision.

After PADEP adopted the dual fuel

regulation and submitted it as a SIP

revision, however, the dual fuel

regulation became an issue of concern

and debate in the Pennsylvania

legislature. While concerns were raised

over both low RVP gasoline and RFG,

there was an understanding that a clean

fuels program was an ozone precursor

reduction measure that the Stakeholders

had recommended as both cost-effective

and necessary for timely attainment of

the NAAQS for ozone in the Pittsburgh

area. Moreover, the attainment

demonstration submitted by PADEP to

satisfy the reinstated requirement that

such a demonstration be submitted for

the Pittsburgh area by December 31,

1997, took credit for the reductions

predicted to be achieved by the

implementation of the clean fuels

program. Modeling analyses performed

during the Stakeholders process

indicated that there was very little

difference between low RVP gasoline

and RFG as control strategies in terms

of their effectiveness in lowering

predicted ground level ozone

concentrations. In fact, the modeling

analyses performed for the actual

attainment demonstration assumed the

level of emission reductions that would

occur if the low RVP program were to

be implemented.

In order to move forward with the

implementation of a clean gasoline

program in the Pittsburgh area in time

to realize its public health benefits for

the 1998 ozone season, the PADEP

informed the legislature that it would

amend the dual fuel regulations to

remove the RFG provisions and that low

RVP gasoline would be the ‘‘complying

fuel’’ for the Pittsburgh area. On April

17, 1998, Pennsylvania amended its

December 3, 1997 SIP revision request

to EPA by asking that only the low RVPrelated provisions of its regulations be

approved into the SIP for the Pittsburgh

area.

This low RVP program adds new

regulations to the Pennsylvania SIP for

the Pittsburgh area. These new

regulations apply to the sale of gasoline

in the Pittsburgh area between May 1

and September 15 of each calendar year.

The regulation imposes a RVP limit of

7.8 pounds per square inch (psi) on all

gasoline marketed in Allegheny,

Armstrong, Beaver, Butler, Fayette,

Washington, and Westmoreland

counties. The restrictions on fuel would

be effective between May 1 and

September 15 of each year beginning in

calender year 1998 for all refiners,

distributors, resellers, carriers, and

wholesalers. The restrictions would be

applicable between June 1 and

September 15 of each year for all

wholesale purchaser consumers and

retailers of gasoline.

RVP is a measure of a fuel’s volatility

and thereby affects the rate at which

gasoline evaporates and emits VOCs.

The lower a fuel’s RVP, the lower the

rate of evaporation of the fuel. The RVP

of gasoline can be lowered by reducing

the amount of its volatile components,

such as butane. Lowering RVP of

gasoline sold during the summer

months can offset the effect of summer

temperature upon the evaporation of the

fuel, which in turn lowers emissions of

VOCs. Because VOCs are a component

in the formation of ground-level ozone

on sunny, hot summer days, lowering

the RVP of gasoline sold in the

Pittsburgh area is an effective ozone

control strategy because it will reduce

the VOC emissions from gasoline

marketing and from vehicles.

The EPA first proposed to regulate

gasoline RVP in 1987 (52 FR 31274).

The EPA’s gasoline RVP proposal

resulted in a two-phased final regulation

which was in large part incorporated

into the 1990 Amendments to the CAA

in section 211(h). Phase I of the federal

regulation took effect in 1990 (54 FR

11868) for the years 1990 and 1991.

Phase II of the regulation became

effective in 1992 (55 FR 23658). This

federal rule divides the continental

United States into two control regions,

Class B and Class C. Generally speaking,

the Class B states are the warmer

southern and western states, and Class

C states are the cooler northern states.

The Phase II federal regulation limits

the volatility of gasoline sold during the

high ozone season to 9.0 psi for Class C

areas and 7.8 psi for Class B ozone nonattainment areas. Pennsylvania is a

Class C State, and therefore, required

under the Federal rule to meet the 9.0

psi standard. Therefore, in order to

approve the Commonwealth’s SIP

revision, EPA must find under section

211(c)(4)(C) of the CAA that the state’s

requirement is necessary for the

Pittsburgh area to meet the ozone

NAAQS.

II. Summary and Approval of SIP

Revision

State governments are preempted

under section 211(c)(4)(A) of the CAA

from prescribing a control respecting a

fuel characteristic or component that is

not identical to a federal control

promulgated under section 211(c)(1)

that is applicable to the same

characteristic or component. However,

under section 211(c)(4)(C) a State can

require, through a SIP revision, a more

stringent RVP standard for a particular
31118 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 109 / Monday, June 8, 1998 /Rules and Regulations

area if the EPA finds that the more

stringent standard is necessary to

achieve the NAAQS for ozone and

approves the SIP revision. In addition to

demonstrating necessity under section

211(c)(4)(C), under section 110 the State

must also submit an adequate

description of the low RVP program and

associated enforcement procedures. If

EPA finds that a State has shown

necessity and has provided an adequate

description of the program, EPA may

approve the SIP revision requiring the

lower state RVP standard for the

selected areas.

A. Approval of Pennsylvania’s

Preempted State Fuel Control Program

Pennsylvania has submitted to EPA

data and analysis to support a finding

under section 211(c)(4)(C) that its low

RVP requirement is necessary for the

Pittsburgh nonattainment area to

achieve the ozone NAAQS. The

Commonwealth has (1) identified the

quantity of reductions of VOCs needed

to achieve attainment of the ozone

NAAQS; (2) identified all other control

measures and the quantity of reductions

each would achieve; and (3) shown that

even with the implementation of all

reasonable and practicable control

measures, the additional emissions from

the low RVP program are needed for the

Pittsburgh area to meet the ozone

NAAQS on a timely basis.

Pennsylvania submitted analyses to

EPA demonstrating the necessity for the

low RVP requirement as part of the

attainment demonstration SIP revision it

submitted for the Pittsburgh area. The

Commonwealth’s submission used

Urban Airshed Modeling to estimate the

quantity of emissions of VOCs necessary

to achieve the ozone NAAQS.

Next, the Stakeholders evaluated a

broad range of potential control

measures to determine whether there

are sufficient reasonable and practicable

measures available to produce the

needed emissions reductions without

requiring low RVP gasoline. In addition

to assessing the quantity of emission

reductions attributable to each control

measure, the state also considered the

time needed for implementations and

cost effectiveness of each measure in

evaluating the reasonableness of the

other control measures in comparison to

the low RVP gasoline requirements.

Pennsylvania found that a 7.8 psi RVP

requirement would produce an

estimated 13.12 tons per day of VOC

emissions reductions. Based on the

Commonwealth’s evaluation, EPA finds

that there are not sufficient other

reasonable and practicable measures

available to produce the quantity of

emissions reductions needed to achieve

the NAAQS for ozone, and thus a low

RVP requirement is necessary.

The EPA concurs with the

Commonwealth’s analysis and its

implicit determination that ‘‘other

measures’’ (as specified in section

211(c)(4)) need not encompass other

state fuel measures including state optin to RFG. The EPA believes that the

CAA does not require a state to

demonstrate that other fuel measures are

unreasonable or impracticable, but

rather section 211(c)(4) is intended to

ensure that a state resorts to a fuel

measure only if there are no available,

practicable, and reasonable non-fuels

measures. Thus, in demonstrating that

measures other than requiring low RVP

gasoline are unreasonable or

impracticable, a state is not required to

submit a demonstration that other state

fuel requirements or state opt-in to RFG

are unreasonable or impracticable. This

interpretation resolves the ambiguity of

the phrase ‘‘other measures’’ and

reasonably balances the interests

underlying the statutory preemption

provision. In addition, the result

preserves the state’s role, specified in

section 101(a)(3) of the CAA as the

entity primarily responsible for

determining the mix of controls to be

used to achieve the required emission

reductions. The Commonwealth has

already adopted virtually every other

available control measure it could

practically implement in the Pittsburgh

area. The other measures that have been

adopted to reduce ozone precursor

emissions, (such as enhanced Inspection

and Maintenance, Stage II Vapor

Recovery, Phase II of the NOx reduction

requirements implemented pursuant to

the Ozone Transport Region’s

Memorandum of Understanding,

reasonably available control technology

on numerous source categories) would

not achieve all the reductions needed. A

detailed discussion of Pennsylvania’s

evaluation relative to the emission

reduction potential of each of these

measures can be found as an attachment

to EPA’s Technical Support Document

(TSD) prepared for this rulemaking.

Copies of TSD are available, upon

request, from the Regional Office listed

in the ADDRESSES of this document.

B. Description of Pennsylvania Low RVP

Program

The Pennsylvania submittal specifies

that the gasoline distributed in

Allegheny, Armstrong, Beaver, Butler,

Fayette, Washington, and Westmoreland

counties at the retail level must meet a

RVP standard of 7.8 psi or less per

gallon between May 1 and September 1

of each calendar year for all refiners,

distributors, resellers, carriers, and

wholesalers. The restrictions would be

applicable between June 1 and

September 15 of each year for all

wholesale purchaser consumers and

retailers of gasoline. In order for the

seven county area to meet the 7.8 psi

standard in calendar year 1998, the

requirement will be effective for all

entities as well as wholesale purchaser

consumers and retailers on July 23,

1998. Because the State has satisfied all

the program description elements, EPA

has determined the Commonwealth’s

low RVP program for the Pittsburgh area

meets all applicable federal

requirements for approval as a SIP

revision.

To ensure enforcement of the

program, each entity in the gasoline

dispensing network, beginning with the

terminal owner, is required to maintain

records of the date, name and address of

transferor and transferee, the location

and volume of gasoline being sold or

transferred, and a statement certifying

that the gasoline meets the RVP

requirement. The PADEP will conduct

enforcement of the program. Sampling

will be performed in accordance with

the procedures described by EPA in its

gasoline volatility regulations in 40 CFR

part 80, Appendix D. Gasoline volatility

tests will be performed following

procedures described by EPA in 40 CFR

part 80, Appendix E.

EPA is approving this rule without

prior proposal because it anticipates no

adverse comments and believes that

expedited approval of the low RVP

program so it is implemented for the

1998 ozone season is in the best interest

of the citizens of the area from a public

health perspective. However, in the

proposed rules section of this Federal

Register publication, EPA is publishing

a separate document that will serve as

the proposal to approve the SIP revision

should EPA receive relevant adverse

comments on the notice of proposed

rulemaking. This rule will become

effective July 23, 1998 without further

notice unless the Agency receives

relevant adverse comments by July 8,

1998.

Should EPA receive such comments,

it will publish a notice informing the

public that this rule did not take effect.

All public comments received will then

be addressed in a subsequent final rule

based on the proposed rule. EPA will

not institute a second comment period

on the proposed rule. Parties interested

in commenting on this action should do

so at this time. If no such comments are

received, the public is advised that this

rule will become effective on July 23,

1998 and no further action will be taken

on the proposed rule.
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 109 / Monday, June 8, 1998 /Rules and Regulations 31119

Final Action

EPA is approving as a revision to the

Pennsylvania SIP, the provisions of

Pennsylvania’s regulations pertaining to

low RVP gasoline requirements for the

Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley ozone

nonattainment area submitted by the

Pennsylvania Department of

Environmental Protection on December

3, 1997 and April 17, 1998. Nothing in

this action should be construed as

permitting or allowing or establishing a

precedent for any future request for

revision to any state implementation

plan. Each request for revision to the

state implementation plan shall be

considered separately in light of specific

technical, economic, and environmental

factors and in relation to relevant

statutory and regulatory requirements.

III. Administrative Requirements

A. Executive Order 12866

The Office of Management and Budget

(OMB) has exempted this regulatory

action from E.O. 12866.

B. Regulatory Flexibility

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act,

5 U.S.C. 600 et seq., EPA must prepare

a regulatory flexibility analysis

assessing the impact of any proposed or

final rule on small entities. 5 U.S.C. 603

and 604. Alternatively, EPA may certify

that the rule will not have a significant

impact on a substantial number of small

entities. Small entities include small

businesses, small not-for-profit

enterprises, and government entities

with jurisdiction over populations of

less than 50,000. This federal action

authorizes and approves into the

Pennsylvania SIP requirements

previously adopted by the state, and

imposes no new requirements.

Therefore, EPA certifies that it does not

have a significant impact on any small

entities affected. Moreover, due to the

nature of the Federal-State relationship

under the CAA, preparation of a

flexibility analysis would constitute

Federal inquiry into the economic

reasonableness of state action. The

Clean Air Act forbids EPA to base its

actions concerning SIPs on such

grounds. Union Electric Co. v. U.S. EPA,

427 U.S. 246, 255–66 (1976); 42 U.S.C.

7410(a)(2).

C. Unfunded Mandates

Under section 202 of the Unfunded

Mandates Reform Act of 1995

(‘‘Unfunded Mandates Act’’), signed

into law on March 22, 1995, EPA must

prepare a budgetary impact statement to

accompany any proposed or final rule

that includes a federal mandate that

may result in estimated costs to State,

local, or tribal governments in the

aggregate, or to the private sector, of

$100 million or more in any one year.

Under section 205, EPA must select the

most cost-effective and least

burdensome alternative that achieves

the objectives of the rule and is

consistent with statutory requirements.

Section 203 requires EPA to establish a

plan for informing and advising any

small governments that may be

significantly or uniquely impacted by

the rule. EPA has determined that this

final action does not include a federal

mandate that may result in estimated

costs of $100 million or more to either

State, local, or tribal governments in the

aggregate, or to the private sector. This

federal action authorizes and approves

into the Pennsylvania SIP requirements

previously adopted by the State, and

imposes no new requirements.

Accordingly, no additional costs to

State, local, or tribal governments, or to

the private sector, result from this

action.

D. Submission to Congress and the

General Accounting Office

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 rule 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. This rule is not a

‘‘major rule’’ as defined by 5 U.S.C.

804(2).

E. Petitions for Judicial Review

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean

Air Act, petitions for judicial review of

this action, must be filed in the United

States Court of Appeals for the

appropriate circuit by August 7, 1998.

Filing a petition for reconsideration by

the Administrator of this final rule does

not affect the finality of this rule 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,

pertaining to the low RVP gasoline

volatility requirements for the

Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley ozone

nonattainment area, may not be

challenged later in proceedings to

enforce its requirements. (See section

307(b)(2).)

F. Executive Order 13045

Protection of Children from

Environmental Health Risks and Safety

Risks. Executive Order 13045 (62 FR

19885, April 23, 1997), applies to any

rule that is (1) likely to be

‘‘economically significant’’ as defined

under Executive Order 12866, and (2)

the Agency has reason to believe that

the environmental health or safety risk

addressed by the rule may have a

disproportionate effect on children. If a

regulatory action meets both criteria, the

Agency must evaluate the

environmental health or safety effects of

the planned rule on children, and

explain why the planned regulation is

preferable to other potentially effective

and reasonably feasible alternatives

considered by the Agency.

This rule is not subject to E.O. 13045,

‘‘Protection of Children from

Environmental Health Risks and Safety

Risks’’ because this is not an

‘‘economically significant’’ regulatory

action as defined by E.O. 12866, and

because it does not involve decisions on

environmental health or safety risks that

may disproportionately affect children.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air

pollution control, Hydrocarbons,

Incorporation by reference,

Intergovernmental relations, Reporting

and recordkeeping requirements.

Dated: May 15, 1998.

A.R. Morris,

Acting Regional Administrator, Region III.

40 CFR part 52, subpart NN of chapter

I, title 40 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.

Subpart NN—Pennsylvania

2. Section 52.2020 is amended by

adding paragraph (c)(131) to read as

follows:

§ 52.2020 Identification of plan.

* * * * *

(c) * * *

(131) Revisions to the Pennsylvania

Regulations governing gasoline

volatility requirements submitted on

December 3, 1997 and April 17, 1998 by

the Pennsylvania Department of

Environmental Protection:

(i) Incorporation by reference.

(A) Letters dated December 3, 1997

and April 17, 1998 from the

Pennsylvania Department of

Environmental Protection transmitting

the low RVP gasoline volatility
31120 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 109 / Monday, June 8, 1998 /Rules and Regulations

requirements for the Pittsburgh-Beaver

Valley ozone nonattainment area.

(B) Revisions to 25 Pa Code, Chapters

121, 126, 139 pertaining to Gasoline

Volatility Requirements, effective

November 1, 1997.

(1) Revisions to section 121.1—

definitions of compliant fuel,

distributor, Importer, Low RVP gasoline,

Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley Area, RVPReid Vapor Pressure.

(2) Addition of sections 126.301(a)

through (c), 126.302 except for portions

relating to RFG of (a)(6), and 126.303 (a).

(3) Addition of paragraphs 139.4(18)

and (19) pertaining to sampling

procedures for Reid Vapor Pressure and

gasoline volatility.

(ii) Additional Material—Remainder

of December 3, 1997 State submittal

pertaining to the use of low RVP

gasoline.

[FR Doc. 98–15023 Filed 6–5–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[TN–184–1–(9812)a; TN–199–1–(9813)a;

FRL–6104–1]

Approval and Promulgation of

Implementation Plans; Tennessee:

Approval of Revisions to the Knox

County Portion of the Tennessee SIP

Regarding Volatile Organic

Compounds (VOCs) and Process

Particulate Emissions

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

SUMMARY: EPA is approving revisions to

section 19.2 and section 46.2.A.34 of the

Knox County portion of the Tennessee

State Implementation Plan (SIP) which

were submitted to EPA through the

Tennessee Department of Air Pollution

Control (TDAPC), on December 24, 1996

and June 18, 1997. Section 19.2 is

revised to include terminology which

more clearly defines the subject matter

of this section: process particulate

emissions. Section 46.2.A.34 is revised

to incorporate by reference the

definition for volatile organic

compounds (VOCs) contained in 40 CFR

part 51, subpart F.

DATES: This final rule is effective August

7, 1998 unless adverse or critical

comments are received by July 8, 1998.

If adverse comment is received, EPA

will publish a timely withdrawal of the

rule in the Federal Register.

ADDRESSES: Written comments on this

action should be addressed to Allison

Humphris at the Environmental

Protection Agency, Region 4 Air

Planning Branch, 61 Forsyth Street, SW,

Atlanta, Georgia 30303. Copies of

documents relative to this action are

available for public inspection during

normal business hours at the following

locations. The interested persons

wanting to examine these documents

should make an appointment with the

appropriate office at least 24 hours

before the visiting day. Reference files

TN184–01–9812 and TN199–01–9813.

The Region 4 office may have additional

background documents not available at

the other locations.

Air and Radiation Docket and

Information Center (Air Docket 6102),

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,

401 M Street, SW, Washington, DC

20460, telephone (202) 260–7549.

Environmental Protection Agency,

Region 4 Air Planning Branch, 61

Forsyth Street, SW, Atlanta, Georgia

30303. Allison Humphris, 404/562–

9030. Tennessee Department of

Environment and Conservation,

Division of Air Pollution Control, L & C

Annex, 9th Floor, 401 Church Street,

Nashville, Tennessee 37243–1531. 615/

532–0554.

Knox County Department of Air

Pollution Control, City-County Building,

Suite 339, 400 West Main Street,

Knoxville, Tennessee, 37902. 423/215–

2488

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Allison Humphris at 404/562–9030.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The EPA

is approving revisions to sections 19.2

and 46.2.A.34 of the Knoxville

regulations. Section 19.2 is revised to

include terminology which more clearly

defines the subject matter of this

section: process particulate emissions.

Section 46.2.A.34 is revised to

incorporate by reference the definition

for volatile organic compounds (VOCs)

contained in 40 CFR part 51, subpart F.

Section 19.2, ‘‘Process Emissions’’

This section was revised by changing

all references of ‘‘process emissions’’ to

‘‘process particulate emissions.’’ The

change was made for clarity and to be

consistent with the language in section

18.2, ‘‘Non-Process Particulate

Emissions.’’

Section 46.2.A.34, ‘‘Volatile Organic

Compound (VOC)’’

The definition of ‘‘volatile organic

compound’’ was revised to incorporate

by reference the definition contained in

40 CFR part 51, subpart F. EPA

exempted acetone (per 60 FR 31633—

June 16, 1995), perchloroethylene (per

61 FR 4588—February 7, 1996), and

hydrofluorocarbon (HFC) 43–10mee,

hydrochlorofluorocarbon (HCFC) 225ca

and cb (all per 61 FR 52848—October 8,

1996) from regulation as VOCs due to

the determination that these compounds

have negligible photochemical reactivity

and do not significantly contribute to

the formation of ozone.

Final Action

The Agency has reviewed this request

for revision of the Federally-approved

State implementation plan for

conformance with the provisions of the

Clean Air Act amendments enacted on

November 15, 1990. The Agency has

determined that this action conforms

with those requirements. EPA is

publishing this rule without prior

proposal because the Agency views this

as a noncontroversial amendment and

anticipates no adverse comments.

However, in the proposed rules section

of this Federal Register publication,

EPA is publishing a separate document

that will serve as the proposal to

approve the SIP revision should

relevant adverse comments be filed.

This rule will be effective August 7,

1998 without further notice unless the

Agency receives relevant adverse

comments by July 8, 1998. If the EPA

receives such comments, then EPA will

publish a notice withdrawing the final

rule and informing the public that the

rule did not take effect. All public

comments received will then be

addressed in a subsequent final rule

based on the proposed rule. The EPA

will not institute a second comment

period on the proposed rule. Any

parties interested in commenting on the

proposed rule should do so at this time.

If no such comments are received, the

public is advised that this rule will be

effective on August 7, 1998 and no

further action will be taken on the

proposed rule.

Nothing in this action should be

construed as permitting or allowing or

establishing a precedent for any future

request for revision to any state

implementation plan. Each request for

revision to the state implementation

plan shall be considered separately in

light of specific technical, economic,

and environmental factors and in

relation to relevant statutory and

regulatory requirements.

Administrative Requirements

A. Executive Order 12866

The Office of Management and Budget

(OMB) has exempted this regulatory

action from E.O. 12866 review.