Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Texas; Stage II Vapor Recovery Program and Control of Air Pollution From Volatile Organic Compounds, 79340-79344 [2013-31107]
Download as PDF
79340
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 250 / Monday, December 30, 2013 / Proposed Rules
We are issuing this AD to detect and correct
chafing of the AC feeder cable. A chafed and
arcing AC feeder cable could puncture the
adjacent hydraulic line, which, in
combination with the use of the alternate
extension system, could result in an in-flight
fire.
(f) Compliance
Comply with this AD within the
compliance times specified, unless already
done.
(g) Clamp Inspection, Related Investigative
Actions, and Corrective Actions
Within 6,000 flight hours or 36 months
after the effective date of this AD, whichever
occurs earlier: Do a general visual inspection
for installation of clamps between the AC
feeder cables and hydraulic line; and do all
applicable related investigative and
corrective actions; in accordance with the
Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier
Service Bulletin 84–24–53, Revision A, dated
May 16, 2013. Do all applicable related
investigative and corrective actions before
further flight.
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
(h) Credit for Previous Actions
This paragraph provides credit for actions
required by paragraph (g) of this AD, if those
actions were performed before the effective
date of this AD using Bombardier Service
Bulletin 84–24–53, dated May 11, 2012.
(i) Other FAA AD Provisions
The following provisions also apply to this
AD:
(1) Alternative Methods of Compliance
(AMOCs): The Manager, New York Aircraft
Certification Office (ACO), ANE–170, FAA,
has the authority to approve AMOCs for this
AD, if requested using the procedures found
in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR
39.19, send your request to your principal
inspector or local Flight Standards District
Office, as appropriate. If sending information
directly to the ACO, send it to ATTN:
Program Manager, Continuing Operational
Safety, FAA, New York ACO, 1600 Stewart
Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590;
telephone 516–228–7300; fax 516–794–5531.
Before using any approved AMOC, notify
your appropriate principal inspector, or
lacking a principal inspector, the manager of
the local flight standards district office/
certificate holding district office. The AMOC
approval letter must specifically reference
this AD.
(2) Airworthy Product: For any requirement
in this AD to obtain corrective actions from
a manufacturer, use these actions if they are
FAA-approved. Corrective actions are
considered FAA-approved if they were
approved by the State of Design Authority (or
its delegated agent, or the DAH with a State
of Design Authority’s design organization
approval). For a repair method to be
approved, the repair approval must
specifically refer to this AD. You are required
to ensure the product is airworthy before it
is returned to service.
(j) Related Information
(1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing
Airworthiness Information (MCAI) Canadian
Airworthiness Directive CF–2013–16, dated
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:26 Dec 27, 2013
Jkt 232001
June 14, 2013, for related information. This
MCAI may be found in the AD docket on the
Internet at https://www.regulations.gov by
searching for and locating it in Docket No.
FAA–2013–1067.
(2) For service information identified in
this AD, contact Bombardier, Inc., Q-Series
Technical Help Desk, 123 Garratt Boulevard,
Toronto, Ontario M3K 1Y5, Canada;
telephone 416–375–4000; fax 416–375–4539;
email thd.qseries@aero.bombardier.com;
Internet https://www.bombardier.com. You
may view this service information at the
FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601
Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For
information on the availability of this
material at the FAA, call 425–227–1221.
Issued in Renton, Washington, on
December 20, 2013.
Jeffrey E. Duven,
Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate,
Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2013–31188 Filed 12–27–13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–13–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R06–OAR–2013–0439; FRL–9904–87–
Region–6]
Approval and Promulgation of Air
Quality Implementation Plans; Texas;
Stage II Vapor Recovery Program and
Control of Air Pollution From Volatile
Organic Compounds
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve
revisions to the Texas State
Implementation Plan (SIP) submitted by
the Texas Commission on
Environmental Quality (TCEQ). The
EPA is proposing to approve revisions
to regulations that control emissions of
volatile organic compounds (VOCs) at
gasoline dispensing facilities (GDFs) in
Texas. The revisions address the
maintenance and removal of Stage II
vapor recovery equipment at GDFs. The
EPA is also proposing to approve related
revisions to the Stage II SIP narrative
that pertain to the maintenance and
removal of Stage II vapor recovery
equipment and demonstrate that the
absence of Stage II equipment in the
Beaumont-Port Arthur (BPA), DallasFort Worth (DFW) and HoustonGalveston Brazoria (HGB) areas, and in
El Paso County would not interfere with
attainment of the national ambient air
quality standards (NAAQS) for ozone,
reasonable further progress (RFP) or any
other requirement of the Clean Air Act
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
(CAA or Act). The EPA is proposing to
approve these revisions pursuant to
section 110 of the Act and the EPA’s
regulations and consistent with the
EPA’s guidance.
DATES: Comments must be received on
or before January 29, 2014.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R06–
OAR–2013–0439, by one of the
following methods:
• www.regulations.gov. Follow the
on-line instructions.
• E-Mail: Ms. Carrie Paige at
paige.carrie@epa.gov.
• Mail: Mr. Guy Donaldson, Chief,
Air Planning Section (6PD–L),
Environmental Protection Agency, 1445
Ross Avenue, Suite 1200, Dallas, Texas
75202–2733.
Instructions: Direct your comments to
Docket ID No. EPA–R06–OAR–2013–
0439. EPA’s policy is that all comments
received will be included in the public
docket without change and may be
made available online at https://
www.regulations.gov, including any
personal information provided, unless
the comment includes information
claimed to be Confidential Business
Information (CBI) or other information
the disclosure of which is restricted by
statute. Do not submit information
through https://www.regulations.gov or
email, if you believe that it is CBI or
otherwise protected from disclosure.
The https://www.regulations.gov Web
site is an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system,
which means that 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 https://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 along with any disk or CD–
ROM submitted. 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 and any form of encryption
and should be free of any defects or
viruses. For additional information
about EPA’s public docket, visit the EPA
Docket Center homepage at https://
www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.
Docket: The index to the docket for
this action is available electronically at
www.regulations.gov and in hard copy
E:\FR\FM\30DEP1.SGM
30DEP1
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 250 / Monday, December 30, 2013 / Proposed Rules
at EPA Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue,
Suite 700, Dallas, Texas. While all
documents in the docket are listed in
the index, some information may be
publicly available only at the hard copy
location (e.g., copyrighted material), and
some may not be publicly available at
either location (e.g., CBI). To inspect the
hard copy materials, please schedule an
appointment with the person listed in
the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
paragraph below or Mr. Bill Deese at
214–665–7253.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms.
Carrie Paige, Air Planning Section
(6PD–L); telephone (214) 665–6521;
email address paige.carrie@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Throughout this document, ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’
and ‘‘our’’ means EPA.
Table of Contents
I. Background
II. EPA’s Evaluation of the Revisions
III. Proposed Action
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. Background
A. What is a SIP?
A SIP is a set of air pollution
regulations, control strategies, other
means or techniques, and technical
analyses developed by the state, to
ensure that the state meets the NAAQS.
It is required by section 110 and other
provisions of the CAA. A SIP protects
air quality primarily by addressing air
pollution at its point of origin. A SIP
can be extensive, containing state
regulations or other enforceable
documents, and supporting information
such as emissions inventories,
monitoring networks, and modeling
demonstrations. When a state makes
changes to the regulations and control
strategies in its SIP, such revisions must
be submitted to EPA for approval and
incorporation into the federallyenforceable SIP.
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
B. What is Stage II Vapor Recovery?
When an automobile or other vehicle
is brought into a gas station to be
refueled, the empty portion of the gas
tank on the vehicle contains gasoline
vapors, which belong to a class of
compounds known as VOCs. When
liquid gasoline is pumped into the
partially empty gas tank the vapors are
forced out of the tank as the tank fills
with liquid gasoline. Where air
pollution control technology is not
used, these vapors are emitted into the
air. In the atmosphere, these VOCs can,
in the presence of sunlight, react with
nitrogen oxides (NOX) and VOCs from
other sources to form ozone. The Stage
II system consists of special nozzles and
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:26 Dec 27, 2013
Jkt 232001
coaxial hoses at each gas pump that
capture vapors from the vehicle’s fuel
tank and route them to underground or
aboveground storage tank(s) during the
refueling process.
The 1990 CAA Amendments require
owners or operators of GDFs in serious,
severe or extreme ozone nonattainment
areas to install and operate a system for
recovery of gas vapor from the fueling
of vehicles. This requirement only
applies to facilities that sell more than
a specified number of gallons per month
and is set forth in section 182(b)(3)(A)–
(C) and section 324(a)–(c) of the CAA.
States were required to adopt rules for
this requirement no later than two years
after the enactment of the 1990 CAA
Amendments. As a consequence of
these provisions, GDF owners or
operators in moderate or worse
nonattainment areas have installed
these vapor control systems, known as
‘‘Stage II controls.’’ 1
The first Stage II SIP for Texas was
submitted by the State to EPA on
September 30, 1992. The SIP required
owners and operators of GDFs to install
and operate Stage II vapor recovery
equipment in the four Texas ozone
nonattainment areas classified as
moderate or worse. The EPA approved
these rules on April 15, 1994 (59 FR
17940). The four areas where Stage II is
required are comprised of 16 counties:
Beaumont-Port Arthur (BPA), including
Hardin, Jefferson and Orange counties;
Dallas-Fort Worth (DFW), including
Collin, Dallas, Denton and Tarrant
counties; El Paso County; and HoustonGalveston-Brazoria (HGB), including
Brazoria, Chambers, Fort Bend,
Galveston, Harris, Liberty, Montgomery,
and Waller counties. In this rulemaking,
where we refer to all 16 of these
counties, we will note such as ‘‘the 16
counties.’’ For additional information
on Stage II, including the history of
Stage II in Texas, please see the
technical support document (TSD) in
the docket for this action.
C. What is Onboard Refueling Vapor
Recovery (ORVR)?
In addition to Stage II controls, the
1990 CAA Amendments required
another method of controlling vehicle
refueling emissions. Section 202(a)(6) of
the Act requires an onboard system of
capturing vehicle refueling emissions,
referred to as an ORVR system. The
ORVR system captures fuel vapors from
1 Stage I vapor recovery systems are installed on
the transport tanker trucks that deliver gasoline to
the service stations. Stage I systems direct vapors
from the underground storage tank at the service
station back into the tanker truck as the
underground tank is filled with liquid gasoline from
the tanker truck.
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
79341
the vehicle gas tank during refueling.
The gas tank and fill pipe are designed
so that when refueling the vehicle, fuel
vapors in the gas tank travel into a
special canister, which adsorbs the
vapor. When the engine is in operation,
it draws the gasoline vapors into the
engine to be used as fuel. In fact, the
per-vehicle vapor recovery efficiency of
ORVR exceeds that of Stage II. The EPA
began the phase-in of ORVR by
requiring that 40 percent of passenger
cars manufactured in model year 1998
be equipped with ORVR, increasing to
100 percent by model year 2000. The
phase-in of ORVR included other
vehicle types and ORVR has been a
required control on nearly all new
gasoline-powered highway vehicles
since 2006.2
Each year, non-ORVR vehicles
continue to be replaced with ORVR
vehicles. Stage II and ORVR emission
control systems are redundant, and on
May 16, 2012, the EPA determined that
emission reductions from ORVR are
essentially equal to and will soon
surpass the emission reductions
achieved by Stage II alone (see 77 FR
28772). In the May 16, 2012 action, we
found that ORVR vehicles are in
‘‘widespread use’’ and waived the Stage
II requirement in order to ensure that
refueling vapor control regulations are
beneficial without being unnecessarily
burdensome to American business.
Effective May 16, 2012, a state
previously required to implement a
Stage II program may take appropriate
action to remove the program from its
SIP (77 FR 28772, codified at 40 CFR
51.126).
D. What did the State submit?
On October 31, 2013, the TCEQ
submitted revisions to Title 30 of the
Texas Administrative Code, Chapter 115
(denoted 30 TAC 115 or Chapter 115)
and corresponding revisions to the
Texas Stage II SIP. Chapter 115
addresses control of air pollution from
VOCs. The revisions to Chapter 115
specify that new GDFs would not be
required to install Stage II equipment
and provide removal (also defined as
decommissioning) procedures that
existing GDFs in the 16 counties must
complete by August 31, 2018. The GDFs
electing to retain Stage II equipment for
some time until August 31, 2018, would
be required to maintain such equipment
pursuant to the rules in the approved
SIP. The revisions to the Stage II SIP
narrative describe the removal of Stage
2 For more detailed information on the phase-in
of ORVR, please see the discussion in EPA’s
proposed rule for the Widespread Use for Onboard
Refueling Vapor Recovery and Stage II Waiver,
published on July 15, 2011 (76 FR 41731).
E:\FR\FM\30DEP1.SGM
30DEP1
79342
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 250 / Monday, December 30, 2013 / Proposed Rules
II equipment at GDFs and require
maintenance of the Stage II equipment
until decommissioning occurs. The
revisions to the SIP narrative also
include a demonstration that the
removal of, or failure to install, Stage II
equipment in the 16 counties is
consistent with section 110(l) of the Act.
Section 110(l) precludes the
Administrator from approving a SIP
revision if it would interfere with
applicable CAA requirements, including
attainment and maintenance of the
ozone NAAQS.
In addition to the October 31, 2013
submittal, there are two submittals that
address revisions to the State’s Stage II
rules and related SIP, dated November
14, 2002 and June 27, 2007, on which
EPA has not taken action.
The revisions in the November 14,
2002 submittal addressed the Stage II
rules at 30 TAC 115 (Division 4) and the
Stage II SIP narrative. The EPA
approved the revisions to Chapter 115
(see 70 FR 15769, March 29, 2005) but
evidently overlooked the SIP narrative.
EPA is not taking action on the 2002
Stage II SIP narrative because it is
superseded by the October 31, 2013
submittal.
The revisions submitted on June 27,
2007, revise Chapter 115 to add
exemption language for fleets having
95% or more vehicles with ORVR. EPA
is not taking action on the June 27, 2007
revisions because they would be
superseded by the revisions in the
October 31, 2013 submittal. In addition,
in the TCEQ’s submittal dated October
31, 2013, the TCEQ adopted the
withdrawal of the June 27, 2007
submittal from the EPA.
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
II. EPA’s Evaluation of the Revisions
A. Revisions to 30 TAC 115 and the
Stage II SIP Narrative
The TCEQ submitted revisions to 30
TAC 115 sections 240–247 and 249. The
revised language details the
requirements for decommissioning
equipment and the requirements for
operating the Stage II equipment until it
is decommissioned. We have reviewed
the revisions and believe the revisions
are consistent with 77 FR 28772 and 40
CFR 51.126, EPA’s Guidance on
Removing Stage II Gasoline Vapor
Control Programs from State
Implementation Plans and Assessing
Comparable Measures 3 (EPA’s
Guidance on Removing Stage II), and
the recommended installation and
decommissioning procedures published
3 EPA document number EPA–457/B–12–001,
dated August 7, 2012 and available electronically at
www.epa.gov/glo/pdfs/20120807guidance.pdf. This
guidance is also in the docket for today’s action.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:26 Dec 27, 2013
Jkt 232001
by the Petroleum Equipment Institute
(PEI RP300–93).4 For a line-by-line
evaluation of these revisions, please see
the TSD. We are proposing approval of
the revisions to sections 115.240–
115.247 and 115.249.
The TCEQ is also revising the Stage II
SIP narrative, which provides an
accounting and description of the Stage
II program components. The appendix
also explains why the revisions to allow
decommissioning of Stage II equipment
meet the requirements of the Clean Air
Act, Section 110(l). These revisions are
consistent with the EPA’s Stage II
Waiver at 77 FR 28772 and 40 CFR
51.126, the EPA’s Guidance on
Removing Stage II, and the PEI RP300–
93.
B. Section 110(l) Analysis
Our primary consideration for
determining the approvability of the
TCEQ’s revisions to remove Stage II
vapor control requirements from the SIP
and provide for decommissioning of all
Stage II equipment by August 31, 2018
in the BPA, DFW and HGB areas and El
Paso County is whether these revisions
comply with section 110(l) of the Act.
Section 110(l) of the Act provides that
the EPA cannot approve a SIP revision
if that revision interferes with any
applicable requirement regarding
attainment, reasonable further progress
(RFP) or any requirement established in
the CAA. The EPA can, however,
approve a SIP revision that removes or
modifies control measures in the SIP
once the State makes a
‘‘noninterference’’ demonstration that
such removal or modification will not
interfere with attainment of the NAAQS,
RFP or any other CAA requirement. As
such, Texas must make a demonstration
of noninterference in the 16 counties in
order to remove the Stage II
requirements from its SIP.
The TCEQ estimated the impacts on
air quality from decommissioning Stage
II in Texas by using the equations in the
EPA’s Guidance on Removing Stage II.
The TCEQ assumed there would not be
any Stage II equipment in place and
calculated emissions based on the
national average for replacement of
older vehicles with newer, ORVRequipped models (fleet turnover). We
note that the State is not requiring or
4 The EPA regulations do not require the use of
a particular issue of code. The PEI and several states
have recommended practices or specific
requirements for decommissioning Stage II systems.
The PEI guidance referred to as PEI RP300–93 was
developed by industry experts with a focus on
regulatory compliance and safety. The EPA’s
Guidance on Removing Stage II is included in the
docket for this rulemaking. The PEI document is
protected by copyright and is available at
www.pei.org/.
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
expecting decommissioning to occur at
all GDFs in the 16 counties in the first
year following approval of the SIP
revision, but assumed an absence of
Stage II equipment as a worst-case
scenario. The TCEQ compared the
estimated impacts against future
emission inventories already established
in RFP and maintenance plans for these
16 counties. For each area, the
calculations show that there would be
increases in VOC emissions from Stage
II decommissioning and we refer to
these increases as a ‘‘loss in benefit.’’
Our evaluation of each of the four areas
is provided below. For more detail
regarding each area, please see the TSD.
1. The Beaumont-Port Arthur Area
The BPA area was redesignated as
attainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone
standard on October 20, 2010, (75 FR
64675). The approved maintenance plan
for the redesignated area (see 78 FR
7672, February 4, 2013) 5 demonstrates
attainment of the 1997 ozone NAAQS
through 2021. We compared the loss in
benefit from decommissioning against
the VOC emissions approved in the BPA
maintenance plan (78 FR 7672) for 2014
and 2021. For each of the future years
2014, 2017 and 2021, the loss in benefit
is estimated to be 0.166 tpd, 0.109 tpd
and 0.059 tpd respectively. In the
approved maintenance plan, the VOC
emissions for the future years 2014,
2017 and 2021 are greater than the base
year (2005) emissions, thus these future
years show a shortfall in emissions
reductions. Adding the loss in benefit
from decommissioning, the shortfall
from 2005 to 2021 increases to an
estimated 12.24 tpd or 5.8%. However,
the approved maintenance plan
provides a drop in NOX emissions for
the years 2014, 2017 and 2021 and the
decrease from 2005 to 2021 is 7.3%,
which offsets the 5.8% shortfall in VOC
emissions reductions. These numbers
indicate that with decommissioning of
Stage II equipment, emissions in the
BPA area would continue to decline.
Furthermore, the TCEQ calculated the
loss in benefit through 2030 and the
losses shrink each year.6 The dwindling
of loss in VOC benefits is expected over
time, as non-ORVR vehicles continue to
be replaced with ORVR vehicles.
In addition, the photochemical
modeling analysis in the approved
maintenance plan (75 FR 64675)
showed that the formation of ozone in
the BPA area is more sensitive to NOX
5 The action at 78 FR 7672 approved the
replacement of the BPA motor vehicle emission
budgets with new budgets based on the
MOVES2010a emissions model.
6 See Table 12–1 in the TCEQ proposal dated
April 23, 2013, in the docket for this rulemaking.
E:\FR\FM\30DEP1.SGM
30DEP1
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 250 / Monday, December 30, 2013 / Proposed Rules
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
emissions than to VOC emissions.
Specifically, the modeling showed that
to decrease the ozone design value in
the BPA area, reducing NOX emissions
is 3.76 times as effective as reducing
VOC emissions.7 Based on this analysis
and with the surplus of NOX emissions
reductions projected through 2021, we
would not expect the loss in benefit
from Stage II decommissioning to
contribute to future violations of the
ozone standard in the BPA area.
We are proposing to find that the
absence of Stage II vapor recovery
equipment in the BPA area will not
interfere with any applicable
requirement regarding attainment and
RFP, or any other applicable
requirement of the CAA.
2. The DFW Area
The TCEQ estimated that the loss in
benefit from decommissioning Stage II
equipment in the DFW area would be
2.425 tpd in 2012, 1.594 tpd in 2014,
and the estimated losses in benefit
continue to decrease as more non-ORVR
cars are removed from the fleet. The
TCEQ estimates the loss of benefit in
2030 would only be 0.322 tpd. The
estimated loss of 1.594 tpd of VOC
reduction in 2014, which is when we
anticipate decommissioning could
begin, assumes that Stage II is
completely absent in Collin, Dallas,
Denton and Tarrant counties. We
understand there are a limited number
of contractors qualified to perform
decommissioning and owners and
operators with relatively newer Stage II
equipment would prefer to maintain
such equipment through its useful life.
Therefore, we expect decommissioning
will proceed at an orderly and gradual
pace and as such, the actual loss in
projected emission reductions will be
less than the State has estimated for
2014. Modeling provided by TCEQ
indicates very little sensitivity of ozone
levels to small changes in VOC
emissions (i.e., an estimated increase of
up to 0.01 ppb had the
decommissioning been completed in
2012).
In addition and as described in more
detail elsewhere in this action, the
TCEQ acquired 2011 vehicle registration
data showing that by the end of 2012
approximately 78.5% of the vehicles
registered in Collin, Dallas, Denton, and
Tarrant counties were equipped with
ORVR. Using national default fuel
economy values, the TCEQ estimated
that 83.6% of the gasoline dispensed in
these counties in 2012 was to ORVR7 See the docket for 75 FR 64675 and specifically
the TSD and proposed rule; the docket ID is EPA–
R06–OAR–2008–0932.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:26 Dec 27, 2013
Jkt 232001
equipped vehicles. These numbers are
at least five percentage points higher
than the projected penetration of ORVR
in the national vehicle fleet for 2012, as
presented by EPA in the Stage II waiver
(77 FR 28772, 28778). The EPA
determined that at least 75% of ORVR
coverage is substantial enough to be
viewed as ‘‘widespread’’ (77 FR 28772).
The TCEQ does not have to demonstrate
that ORVR is in widespread use in the
DFW area because EPA’s action at 77 FR
28772 provides a nationwide
determination of widespread use
effective May 16, 2012. However, the
results of the TCEQ’s findings are
consistent with the Stage II waiver and
support the revisions to decommission
Stage II equipment in the DFW area.
Finally, Stage II was required for
implementation in only four of the DFW
nonattainment counties and ORVR is
required nationwide. Because ORVR is
more efficient than Stage II and ORVR
is in widespread use, and because the
DFW area ozone levels are more
sensitive to NOX emissions, we would
not expect the loss in benefit from
decommissioning in the four counties to
contribute to future violations of the
ozone standard or interfere with RFP or
other applicable CAA requirements.
We are proposing to find that the
absence of Stage II vapor recovery
equipment in the DFW area will not
interfere with any applicable
requirement regarding attainment and
RFP, or any other applicable
requirement of the CAA.
3. El Paso County
El Paso County has an approved
maintenance plan for the 1997 8-hour
ozone NAAQS, which demonstrates
attainment of the 1997 ozone NAAQS
from 2004 through 2014 (see 74 FR
2387, January 15, 2009). We compared
the loss in benefit from
decommissioning against the VOC
emissions in the approved maintenance
plan for 2014. For 2014, the loss in
benefit is estimated to be 0.224 tpd. In
the approved maintenance plan, the
VOC emissions for 2014 are estimated to
be 44.61 tpd, which are lower than the
base year emissions of 52.44 tpd. The
resultant surplus of 7.83 tpd offsets the
estimated loss in benefit from
decommissioning. The approved
maintenance plan also shows a surplus
in NOX emission reductions through
2014. These numbers indicate that with
decommissioning of Stage II equipment,
emissions of VOC in El Paso County
would continue to decline through
2014. The TCEQ calculated the loss in
benefit through 2030 and the losses get
smaller each year.
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
79343
We are proposing to find that the
absence of Stage II vapor recovery
equipment in El Paso County will not
interfere with any applicable
requirement regarding attainment and
RFP, or any other applicable
requirement of the CAA.
4. The Houston-Galveston-Brazoria Area
The TCEQ estimated that the loss in
benefit from decommissioning Stage II
equipment in the HGB area would be
2.361 tpd in 2012, 1.539 tpd in 2014,
0.667 tpd in 2018, and the estimated
losses in benefit continue to decrease
through 2030, when the TCEQ estimates
the loss of benefit would only be 0.298
tpd. The estimated loss of 1.539 tpd of
VOC reduction in 2014, which is when
we anticipate decommissioning could
begin, assumes that Stage II is
completely absent in the eight HGB area
counties. As stated earlier however, we
expect decommissioning will proceed
gradually and as such, the actual loss in
projected emission reductions will be
less than the State has estimated for
2014. Modeling provided by TCEQ
indicates very little sensitivity of ozone
levels to these small changes in VOC
emissions (i.e., an estimated increase of
up to 0.02 ppb had the
decommissioning been completed in
2012 and an estimated increase of up to
0.01 ppb in 2018).
In addition, the TCEQ acquired 2011
vehicle registration data showing that by
the end of 2012 approximately 77.4% of
the vehicles registered in the eight HGB
counties were equipped with ORVR.
Using national default fuel economy
values, the TCEQ estimated that 82.7%
of the gasoline dispensed in these
counties in 2012 was to ORVR-equipped
vehicles. These numbers are at least five
percentage points higher than the
projected penetration of ORVR in the
national vehicle fleet for 2012 (77 FR
28772, 28778). The results of the
TCEQ’s findings are therefore consistent
with the Stage II waiver and support the
revisions to decommission Stage II
equipment in the HGB area.
We would not expect the loss in
benefit from decommissioning in the
HGB area to contribute to future
violations of the ozone standard or
interfere with RFP or other applicable
CAA requirements.
We are proposing to find that the
absence of Stage II vapor recovery
equipment in the HGA area will not
interfere with any applicable
requirement regarding attainment and
RFP, or any other applicable
requirement of the CAA.
E:\FR\FM\30DEP1.SGM
30DEP1
79344
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 250 / Monday, December 30, 2013 / Proposed Rules
C. The Fraction of ORVR-Equipped
Vehicles Where Stage II is Required in
Texas
The TCEQ reviewed vehicle
registration data to determine what
portion of the on-road vehicles in the 16
counties are equipped with ORVR and
what portion of the gasoline dispensed
in these areas goes into ORVR-equipped
vehicles. For these calculations, the
TCEQ obtained 2011 vehicle registration
data from the Texas Department of
Motor Vehicles for each of the 16
counties. The results indicate that by
the end of 2012 more than 75% of
gasoline was dispensed to ORVRequipped vehicles in each of the four
areas where Stage II is required. In
addition, by the end of 2013 at least
75% of the vehicle population in each
of these four areas is expected to be
ORVR-equipped. We determined that at
least 75% of ORVR coverage (percent of
gasoline that will be dispensed into
ORVR-equipped vehicles) is substantial
enough to constitute widespread use (77
FR 28772). The TCEQ does not have to
demonstrate that ORVR is in
widespread use because EPA’s action at
77 FR 28772 provides a nationwide
determination of widespread use
effective May 16, 2012. However, the
TCEQ’s findings do demonstrate that
ORVR is in widespread use in all four
areas and thus lend support to the
revisions to decommission Stage II
equipment.
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
III. Proposed Action
The EPA is proposing to approve
revisions to the Texas SIP that control
emissions of VOCs and pertain to the
maintenance and removal of Stage II
vapor recovery equipment submitted on
October 31, 2013. We are proposing to
approve revisions to the following
sections within 30 TAC 115: 115.240,
115.241, 115.242, 115.243, 115.244,
115.245, 115.246, 115.247, and 115.249.
The EPA is also proposing to approve
related revisions to the Stage II SIP
narrative that address the maintenance
and removal of Stage II equipment, and
demonstrate that the removal of, or
failure to install Stage II equipment in
the BPA, DFW, and HGB areas, and in
El Paso County, meets section 110(l) of
the Act. The EPA is proposing to
approve these revisions in accordance
with section 110 of the Act and EPA’s
regulations and consistent with EPA
guidance.
IV. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
Under the Clean Air Act, the
Administrator is required to approve a
SIP submission that complies with the
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:26 Dec 27, 2013
Jkt 232001
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 proposes to approve
state law as meeting federal
requirements and does not 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 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 (Public Law 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 rule does not have
tribal implications as specified by
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249,
November 9, 2000), because the SIP 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.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations,
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Volatile organic
compounds.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Dated: December 16, 2013.
Ron Curry,
Regional Administrator, Region 6.
[FR Doc. 2013–31107 Filed 12–27–13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R10–OAR–2010–1071, FRL–9904–68–
Region 10]
Approval and Promulgation of
Implementation Plans; State of
Washington; Regional Haze State
Implementation Plan; Federal
Implementation Plan for Best Available
Retrofit Technology for Alcoa
Wenatchee
Environmental Protection
Agency.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is proposing to partially
disapprove a Washington Regional Haze
State Implementation Plan (RH SIP)
element submitted by the State of
Washington (the State) on December 22,
2010, that exempted Alcoa’s Wenatchee
Works aluminum smelting facility
(Alcoa Wenatchee facility or Wenatchee
facility), located near Wenatchee,
Washington, from the Clean Air Act’s
Best Available Retrofit Technology
(BART) requirements. On December 26,
2012, the EPA proposed to approve,
along with proposed action on other SIP
elements, the State’s determination that
the Alcoa Wenatchee facility is exempt
from BART requirements. The EPA
received adverse comments regarding
the dispersion modeling used for this
determination. After further review, the
EPA now proposes to disapprove the
State’s determination that the facility is
not subject to BART and proposes to
find that the Wenatchee facility is
subject to BART. The EPA is also
proposing a BART determination for the
facility through a Federal
Implementation Plan (FIP). This Federal
Register document also announces the
availability of new information
regarding Alcoa’s ability to afford
limestone slurry forced oxidation
(LSFO) sulfur dioxide (SO2) control
technology at the Intalco Aluminum
Corporation facility in Ferndale,
Washington (Intalco). Also available for
public review is new air quality
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\30DEP1.SGM
30DEP1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 250 (Monday, December 30, 2013)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 79340-79344]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-31107]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R06-OAR-2013-0439; FRL-9904-87-Region-6]
Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Texas; Stage II Vapor Recovery Program and Control of Air Pollution
From Volatile Organic Compounds
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve revisions to the Texas State Implementation Plan (SIP)
submitted by the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ). The
EPA is proposing to approve revisions to regulations that control
emissions of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) at gasoline dispensing
facilities (GDFs) in Texas. The revisions address the maintenance and
removal of Stage II vapor recovery equipment at GDFs. The EPA is also
proposing to approve related revisions to the Stage II SIP narrative
that pertain to the maintenance and removal of Stage II vapor recovery
equipment and demonstrate that the absence of Stage II equipment in the
Beaumont-Port Arthur (BPA), Dallas-Fort Worth (DFW) and Houston-
Galveston Brazoria (HGB) areas, and in El Paso County would not
interfere with attainment of the national ambient air quality standards
(NAAQS) for ozone, reasonable further progress (RFP) or any other
requirement of the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act). The EPA is proposing to
approve these revisions pursuant to section 110 of the Act and the
EPA's regulations and consistent with the EPA's guidance.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before January 29, 2014.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R06-
OAR-2013-0439, by one of the following methods:
www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line instructions.
E-Mail: Ms. Carrie Paige at paige.carrie@epa.gov.
Mail: Mr. Guy Donaldson, Chief, Air Planning Section (6PD-
L), Environmental Protection Agency, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200,
Dallas, Texas 75202-2733.
Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R06-OAR-
2013-0439. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at
https://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information the
disclosure of which is restricted by statute. Do not submit information
through https://www.regulations.gov or email, if you believe that it is
CBI or otherwise protected from disclosure. The https://www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access'' system, which
means that 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 https://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 along with any disk or CD-ROM
submitted. 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 and any form of encryption and should be free of any
defects or viruses. For additional information about EPA's public
docket, visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at https://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.
Docket: The index to the docket for this action is available
electronically at www.regulations.gov and in hard copy
[[Page 79341]]
at EPA Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 700, Dallas, Texas. While all
documents in the docket are listed in the index, some information may
be publicly available only at the hard copy location (e.g., copyrighted
material), and some may not be publicly available at either location
(e.g., CBI). To inspect the hard copy materials, please schedule an
appointment with the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT paragraph below or Mr. Bill Deese at 214-665-7253.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Carrie Paige, Air Planning Section
(6PD-L); telephone (214) 665-6521; email address paige.carrie@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, ``we,'' ``us,''
and ``our'' means EPA.
Table of Contents
I. Background
II. EPA's Evaluation of the Revisions
III. Proposed Action
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. Background
A. What is a SIP?
A SIP is a set of air pollution regulations, control strategies,
other means or techniques, and technical analyses developed by the
state, to ensure that the state meets the NAAQS. It is required by
section 110 and other provisions of the CAA. A SIP protects air quality
primarily by addressing air pollution at its point of origin. A SIP can
be extensive, containing state regulations or other enforceable
documents, and supporting information such as emissions inventories,
monitoring networks, and modeling demonstrations. When a state makes
changes to the regulations and control strategies in its SIP, such
revisions must be submitted to EPA for approval and incorporation into
the federally-enforceable SIP.
B. What is Stage II Vapor Recovery?
When an automobile or other vehicle is brought into a gas station
to be refueled, the empty portion of the gas tank on the vehicle
contains gasoline vapors, which belong to a class of compounds known as
VOCs. When liquid gasoline is pumped into the partially empty gas tank
the vapors are forced out of the tank as the tank fills with liquid
gasoline. Where air pollution control technology is not used, these
vapors are emitted into the air. In the atmosphere, these VOCs can, in
the presence of sunlight, react with nitrogen oxides (NOX)
and VOCs from other sources to form ozone. The Stage II system consists
of special nozzles and coaxial hoses at each gas pump that capture
vapors from the vehicle's fuel tank and route them to underground or
aboveground storage tank(s) during the refueling process.
The 1990 CAA Amendments require owners or operators of GDFs in
serious, severe or extreme ozone nonattainment areas to install and
operate a system for recovery of gas vapor from the fueling of
vehicles. This requirement only applies to facilities that sell more
than a specified number of gallons per month and is set forth in
section 182(b)(3)(A)-(C) and section 324(a)-(c) of the CAA. States were
required to adopt rules for this requirement no later than two years
after the enactment of the 1990 CAA Amendments. As a consequence of
these provisions, GDF owners or operators in moderate or worse
nonattainment areas have installed these vapor control systems, known
as ``Stage II controls.'' \1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Stage I vapor recovery systems are installed on the
transport tanker trucks that deliver gasoline to the service
stations. Stage I systems direct vapors from the underground storage
tank at the service station back into the tanker truck as the
underground tank is filled with liquid gasoline from the tanker
truck.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The first Stage II SIP for Texas was submitted by the State to EPA
on September 30, 1992. The SIP required owners and operators of GDFs to
install and operate Stage II vapor recovery equipment in the four Texas
ozone nonattainment areas classified as moderate or worse. The EPA
approved these rules on April 15, 1994 (59 FR 17940). The four areas
where Stage II is required are comprised of 16 counties: Beaumont-Port
Arthur (BPA), including Hardin, Jefferson and Orange counties; Dallas-
Fort Worth (DFW), including Collin, Dallas, Denton and Tarrant
counties; El Paso County; and Houston-Galveston-Brazoria (HGB),
including Brazoria, Chambers, Fort Bend, Galveston, Harris, Liberty,
Montgomery, and Waller counties. In this rulemaking, where we refer to
all 16 of these counties, we will note such as ``the 16 counties.'' For
additional information on Stage II, including the history of Stage II
in Texas, please see the technical support document (TSD) in the docket
for this action.
C. What is Onboard Refueling Vapor Recovery (ORVR)?
In addition to Stage II controls, the 1990 CAA Amendments required
another method of controlling vehicle refueling emissions. Section
202(a)(6) of the Act requires an onboard system of capturing vehicle
refueling emissions, referred to as an ORVR system. The ORVR system
captures fuel vapors from the vehicle gas tank during refueling. The
gas tank and fill pipe are designed so that when refueling the vehicle,
fuel vapors in the gas tank travel into a special canister, which
adsorbs the vapor. When the engine is in operation, it draws the
gasoline vapors into the engine to be used as fuel. In fact, the per-
vehicle vapor recovery efficiency of ORVR exceeds that of Stage II. The
EPA began the phase-in of ORVR by requiring that 40 percent of
passenger cars manufactured in model year 1998 be equipped with ORVR,
increasing to 100 percent by model year 2000. The phase-in of ORVR
included other vehicle types and ORVR has been a required control on
nearly all new gasoline-powered highway vehicles since 2006.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ For more detailed information on the phase-in of ORVR,
please see the discussion in EPA's proposed rule for the Widespread
Use for Onboard Refueling Vapor Recovery and Stage II Waiver,
published on July 15, 2011 (76 FR 41731).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Each year, non-ORVR vehicles continue to be replaced with ORVR
vehicles. Stage II and ORVR emission control systems are redundant, and
on May 16, 2012, the EPA determined that emission reductions from ORVR
are essentially equal to and will soon surpass the emission reductions
achieved by Stage II alone (see 77 FR 28772). In the May 16, 2012
action, we found that ORVR vehicles are in ``widespread use'' and
waived the Stage II requirement in order to ensure that refueling vapor
control regulations are beneficial without being unnecessarily
burdensome to American business. Effective May 16, 2012, a state
previously required to implement a Stage II program may take
appropriate action to remove the program from its SIP (77 FR 28772,
codified at 40 CFR 51.126).
D. What did the State submit?
On October 31, 2013, the TCEQ submitted revisions to Title 30 of
the Texas Administrative Code, Chapter 115 (denoted 30 TAC 115 or
Chapter 115) and corresponding revisions to the Texas Stage II SIP.
Chapter 115 addresses control of air pollution from VOCs. The revisions
to Chapter 115 specify that new GDFs would not be required to install
Stage II equipment and provide removal (also defined as
decommissioning) procedures that existing GDFs in the 16 counties must
complete by August 31, 2018. The GDFs electing to retain Stage II
equipment for some time until August 31, 2018, would be required to
maintain such equipment pursuant to the rules in the approved SIP. The
revisions to the Stage II SIP narrative describe the removal of Stage
[[Page 79342]]
II equipment at GDFs and require maintenance of the Stage II equipment
until decommissioning occurs. The revisions to the SIP narrative also
include a demonstration that the removal of, or failure to install,
Stage II equipment in the 16 counties is consistent with section 110(l)
of the Act. Section 110(l) precludes the Administrator from approving a
SIP revision if it would interfere with applicable CAA requirements,
including attainment and maintenance of the ozone NAAQS.
In addition to the October 31, 2013 submittal, there are two
submittals that address revisions to the State's Stage II rules and
related SIP, dated November 14, 2002 and June 27, 2007, on which EPA
has not taken action.
The revisions in the November 14, 2002 submittal addressed the
Stage II rules at 30 TAC 115 (Division 4) and the Stage II SIP
narrative. The EPA approved the revisions to Chapter 115 (see 70 FR
15769, March 29, 2005) but evidently overlooked the SIP narrative. EPA
is not taking action on the 2002 Stage II SIP narrative because it is
superseded by the October 31, 2013 submittal.
The revisions submitted on June 27, 2007, revise Chapter 115 to add
exemption language for fleets having 95% or more vehicles with ORVR.
EPA is not taking action on the June 27, 2007 revisions because they
would be superseded by the revisions in the October 31, 2013 submittal.
In addition, in the TCEQ's submittal dated October 31, 2013, the TCEQ
adopted the withdrawal of the June 27, 2007 submittal from the EPA.
II. EPA's Evaluation of the Revisions
A. Revisions to 30 TAC 115 and the Stage II SIP Narrative
The TCEQ submitted revisions to 30 TAC 115 sections 240-247 and
249. The revised language details the requirements for decommissioning
equipment and the requirements for operating the Stage II equipment
until it is decommissioned. We have reviewed the revisions and believe
the revisions are consistent with 77 FR 28772 and 40 CFR 51.126, EPA's
Guidance on Removing Stage II Gasoline Vapor Control Programs from
State Implementation Plans and Assessing Comparable Measures \3\ (EPA's
Guidance on Removing Stage II), and the recommended installation and
decommissioning procedures published by the Petroleum Equipment
Institute (PEI RP300-93).\4\ For a line-by-line evaluation of these
revisions, please see the TSD. We are proposing approval of the
revisions to sections 115.240-115.247 and 115.249.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ EPA document number EPA-457/B-12-001, dated August 7, 2012
and available electronically at www.epa.gov/glo/pdfs/20120807guidance.pdf. This guidance is also in the docket for
today's action.
\4\ The EPA regulations do not require the use of a particular
issue of code. The PEI and several states have recommended practices
or specific requirements for decommissioning Stage II systems. The
PEI guidance referred to as PEI RP300-93 was developed by industry
experts with a focus on regulatory compliance and safety. The EPA's
Guidance on Removing Stage II is included in the docket for this
rulemaking. The PEI document is protected by copyright and is
available at www.pei.org/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The TCEQ is also revising the Stage II SIP narrative, which
provides an accounting and description of the Stage II program
components. The appendix also explains why the revisions to allow
decommissioning of Stage II equipment meet the requirements of the
Clean Air Act, Section 110(l). These revisions are consistent with the
EPA's Stage II Waiver at 77 FR 28772 and 40 CFR 51.126, the EPA's
Guidance on Removing Stage II, and the PEI RP300-93.
B. Section 110(l) Analysis
Our primary consideration for determining the approvability of the
TCEQ's revisions to remove Stage II vapor control requirements from the
SIP and provide for decommissioning of all Stage II equipment by August
31, 2018 in the BPA, DFW and HGB areas and El Paso County is whether
these revisions comply with section 110(l) of the Act. Section 110(l)
of the Act provides that the EPA cannot approve a SIP revision if that
revision interferes with any applicable requirement regarding
attainment, reasonable further progress (RFP) or any requirement
established in the CAA. The EPA can, however, approve a SIP revision
that removes or modifies control measures in the SIP once the State
makes a ``noninterference'' demonstration that such removal or
modification will not interfere with attainment of the NAAQS, RFP or
any other CAA requirement. As such, Texas must make a demonstration of
noninterference in the 16 counties in order to remove the Stage II
requirements from its SIP.
The TCEQ estimated the impacts on air quality from decommissioning
Stage II in Texas by using the equations in the EPA's Guidance on
Removing Stage II. The TCEQ assumed there would not be any Stage II
equipment in place and calculated emissions based on the national
average for replacement of older vehicles with newer, ORVR-equipped
models (fleet turnover). We note that the State is not requiring or
expecting decommissioning to occur at all GDFs in the 16 counties in
the first year following approval of the SIP revision, but assumed an
absence of Stage II equipment as a worst-case scenario. The TCEQ
compared the estimated impacts against future emission inventories
already established in RFP and maintenance plans for these 16 counties.
For each area, the calculations show that there would be increases in
VOC emissions from Stage II decommissioning and we refer to these
increases as a ``loss in benefit.'' Our evaluation of each of the four
areas is provided below. For more detail regarding each area, please
see the TSD.
1. The Beaumont-Port Arthur Area
The BPA area was redesignated as attainment for the 1997 8-hour
ozone standard on October 20, 2010, (75 FR 64675). The approved
maintenance plan for the redesignated area (see 78 FR 7672, February 4,
2013) \5\ demonstrates attainment of the 1997 ozone NAAQS through 2021.
We compared the loss in benefit from decommissioning against the VOC
emissions approved in the BPA maintenance plan (78 FR 7672) for 2014
and 2021. For each of the future years 2014, 2017 and 2021, the loss in
benefit is estimated to be 0.166 tpd, 0.109 tpd and 0.059 tpd
respectively. In the approved maintenance plan, the VOC emissions for
the future years 2014, 2017 and 2021 are greater than the base year
(2005) emissions, thus these future years show a shortfall in emissions
reductions. Adding the loss in benefit from decommissioning, the
shortfall from 2005 to 2021 increases to an estimated 12.24 tpd or
5.8%. However, the approved maintenance plan provides a drop in
NOX emissions for the years 2014, 2017 and 2021 and the
decrease from 2005 to 2021 is 7.3%, which offsets the 5.8% shortfall in
VOC emissions reductions. These numbers indicate that with
decommissioning of Stage II equipment, emissions in the BPA area would
continue to decline. Furthermore, the TCEQ calculated the loss in
benefit through 2030 and the losses shrink each year.\6\ The dwindling
of loss in VOC benefits is expected over time, as non-ORVR vehicles
continue to be replaced with ORVR vehicles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ The action at 78 FR 7672 approved the replacement of the BPA
motor vehicle emission budgets with new budgets based on the
MOVES2010a emissions model.
\6\ See Table 12-1 in the TCEQ proposal dated April 23, 2013, in
the docket for this rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, the photochemical modeling analysis in the approved
maintenance plan (75 FR 64675) showed that the formation of ozone in
the BPA area is more sensitive to NOX
[[Page 79343]]
emissions than to VOC emissions. Specifically, the modeling showed that
to decrease the ozone design value in the BPA area, reducing
NOX emissions is 3.76 times as effective as reducing VOC
emissions.\7\ Based on this analysis and with the surplus of
NOX emissions reductions projected through 2021, we would
not expect the loss in benefit from Stage II decommissioning to
contribute to future violations of the ozone standard in the BPA area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ See the docket for 75 FR 64675 and specifically the TSD and
proposed rule; the docket ID is EPA-R06-OAR-2008-0932.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We are proposing to find that the absence of Stage II vapor
recovery equipment in the BPA area will not interfere with any
applicable requirement regarding attainment and RFP, or any other
applicable requirement of the CAA.
2. The DFW Area
The TCEQ estimated that the loss in benefit from decommissioning
Stage II equipment in the DFW area would be 2.425 tpd in 2012, 1.594
tpd in 2014, and the estimated losses in benefit continue to decrease
as more non-ORVR cars are removed from the fleet. The TCEQ estimates
the loss of benefit in 2030 would only be 0.322 tpd. The estimated loss
of 1.594 tpd of VOC reduction in 2014, which is when we anticipate
decommissioning could begin, assumes that Stage II is completely absent
in Collin, Dallas, Denton and Tarrant counties. We understand there are
a limited number of contractors qualified to perform decommissioning
and owners and operators with relatively newer Stage II equipment would
prefer to maintain such equipment through its useful life. Therefore,
we expect decommissioning will proceed at an orderly and gradual pace
and as such, the actual loss in projected emission reductions will be
less than the State has estimated for 2014. Modeling provided by TCEQ
indicates very little sensitivity of ozone levels to small changes in
VOC emissions (i.e., an estimated increase of up to 0.01 ppb had the
decommissioning been completed in 2012).
In addition and as described in more detail elsewhere in this
action, the TCEQ acquired 2011 vehicle registration data showing that
by the end of 2012 approximately 78.5% of the vehicles registered in
Collin, Dallas, Denton, and Tarrant counties were equipped with ORVR.
Using national default fuel economy values, the TCEQ estimated that
83.6% of the gasoline dispensed in these counties in 2012 was to ORVR-
equipped vehicles. These numbers are at least five percentage points
higher than the projected penetration of ORVR in the national vehicle
fleet for 2012, as presented by EPA in the Stage II waiver (77 FR
28772, 28778). The EPA determined that at least 75% of ORVR coverage is
substantial enough to be viewed as ``widespread'' (77 FR 28772). The
TCEQ does not have to demonstrate that ORVR is in widespread use in the
DFW area because EPA's action at 77 FR 28772 provides a nationwide
determination of widespread use effective May 16, 2012. However, the
results of the TCEQ's findings are consistent with the Stage II waiver
and support the revisions to decommission Stage II equipment in the DFW
area.
Finally, Stage II was required for implementation in only four of
the DFW nonattainment counties and ORVR is required nationwide. Because
ORVR is more efficient than Stage II and ORVR is in widespread use, and
because the DFW area ozone levels are more sensitive to NOX
emissions, we would not expect the loss in benefit from decommissioning
in the four counties to contribute to future violations of the ozone
standard or interfere with RFP or other applicable CAA requirements.
We are proposing to find that the absence of Stage II vapor
recovery equipment in the DFW area will not interfere with any
applicable requirement regarding attainment and RFP, or any other
applicable requirement of the CAA.
3. El Paso County
El Paso County has an approved maintenance plan for the 1997 8-hour
ozone NAAQS, which demonstrates attainment of the 1997 ozone NAAQS from
2004 through 2014 (see 74 FR 2387, January 15, 2009). We compared the
loss in benefit from decommissioning against the VOC emissions in the
approved maintenance plan for 2014. For 2014, the loss in benefit is
estimated to be 0.224 tpd. In the approved maintenance plan, the VOC
emissions for 2014 are estimated to be 44.61 tpd, which are lower than
the base year emissions of 52.44 tpd. The resultant surplus of 7.83 tpd
offsets the estimated loss in benefit from decommissioning. The
approved maintenance plan also shows a surplus in NOX
emission reductions through 2014. These numbers indicate that with
decommissioning of Stage II equipment, emissions of VOC in El Paso
County would continue to decline through 2014. The TCEQ calculated the
loss in benefit through 2030 and the losses get smaller each year.
We are proposing to find that the absence of Stage II vapor
recovery equipment in El Paso County will not interfere with any
applicable requirement regarding attainment and RFP, or any other
applicable requirement of the CAA.
4. The Houston-Galveston-Brazoria Area
The TCEQ estimated that the loss in benefit from decommissioning
Stage II equipment in the HGB area would be 2.361 tpd in 2012, 1.539
tpd in 2014, 0.667 tpd in 2018, and the estimated losses in benefit
continue to decrease through 2030, when the TCEQ estimates the loss of
benefit would only be 0.298 tpd. The estimated loss of 1.539 tpd of VOC
reduction in 2014, which is when we anticipate decommissioning could
begin, assumes that Stage II is completely absent in the eight HGB area
counties. As stated earlier however, we expect decommissioning will
proceed gradually and as such, the actual loss in projected emission
reductions will be less than the State has estimated for 2014. Modeling
provided by TCEQ indicates very little sensitivity of ozone levels to
these small changes in VOC emissions (i.e., an estimated increase of up
to 0.02 ppb had the decommissioning been completed in 2012 and an
estimated increase of up to 0.01 ppb in 2018).
In addition, the TCEQ acquired 2011 vehicle registration data
showing that by the end of 2012 approximately 77.4% of the vehicles
registered in the eight HGB counties were equipped with ORVR. Using
national default fuel economy values, the TCEQ estimated that 82.7% of
the gasoline dispensed in these counties in 2012 was to ORVR-equipped
vehicles. These numbers are at least five percentage points higher than
the projected penetration of ORVR in the national vehicle fleet for
2012 (77 FR 28772, 28778). The results of the TCEQ's findings are
therefore consistent with the Stage II waiver and support the revisions
to decommission Stage II equipment in the HGB area.
We would not expect the loss in benefit from decommissioning in the
HGB area to contribute to future violations of the ozone standard or
interfere with RFP or other applicable CAA requirements.
We are proposing to find that the absence of Stage II vapor
recovery equipment in the HGA area will not interfere with any
applicable requirement regarding attainment and RFP, or any other
applicable requirement of the CAA.
[[Page 79344]]
C. The Fraction of ORVR-Equipped Vehicles Where Stage II is Required in
Texas
The TCEQ reviewed vehicle registration data to determine what
portion of the on-road vehicles in the 16 counties are equipped with
ORVR and what portion of the gasoline dispensed in these areas goes
into ORVR-equipped vehicles. For these calculations, the TCEQ obtained
2011 vehicle registration data from the Texas Department of Motor
Vehicles for each of the 16 counties. The results indicate that by the
end of 2012 more than 75% of gasoline was dispensed to ORVR-equipped
vehicles in each of the four areas where Stage II is required. In
addition, by the end of 2013 at least 75% of the vehicle population in
each of these four areas is expected to be ORVR-equipped. We determined
that at least 75% of ORVR coverage (percent of gasoline that will be
dispensed into ORVR-equipped vehicles) is substantial enough to
constitute widespread use (77 FR 28772). The TCEQ does not have to
demonstrate that ORVR is in widespread use because EPA's action at 77
FR 28772 provides a nationwide determination of widespread use
effective May 16, 2012. However, the TCEQ's findings do demonstrate
that ORVR is in widespread use in all four areas and thus lend support
to the revisions to decommission Stage II equipment.
III. Proposed Action
The EPA is proposing to approve revisions to the Texas SIP that
control emissions of VOCs and pertain to the maintenance and removal of
Stage II vapor recovery equipment submitted on October 31, 2013. We are
proposing to approve revisions to the following sections within 30 TAC
115: 115.240, 115.241, 115.242, 115.243, 115.244, 115.245, 115.246,
115.247, and 115.249. The EPA is also proposing to approve related
revisions to the Stage II SIP narrative that address the maintenance
and removal of Stage II equipment, and demonstrate that the removal of,
or failure to install Stage II equipment in the BPA, DFW, and HGB
areas, and in El Paso County, meets section 110(l) of the Act. The EPA
is proposing to approve these revisions in accordance with section 110
of the Act and EPA's regulations and consistent with EPA guidance.
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a
SIP submission 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 proposes to approve state law as meeting federal
requirements and does not 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 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 (Public Law 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 rule does not have tribal implications as specified
by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the
SIP 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.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Ozone, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Dated: December 16, 2013.
Ron Curry,
Regional Administrator, Region 6.
[FR Doc. 2013-31107 Filed 12-27-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P