Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Arizona; Phased Discontinuation of Stage II Vapor Recovery Program, 70689-70694 [2015-28909]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 220 / Monday, November 16, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
effect on one or more Indian tribes, on
the relationship between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes, or on the
distribution of power and
responsibilities between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes. If you
believe this rule has implications for
federalism or Indian tribes, please
contact the person listed in the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section
above.
taking implications under E.O. 12630,
Governmental Actions and Interference
with Constitutionally Protected Property
Rights.
E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531–1538) requires
Federal agencies to assess the effects of
their discretionary regulatory actions. In
particular, the Act addresses actions
that may result in the expenditure by a
State, local, or tribal government, in the
aggregate, or by the private sector of
$100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or
more in any one year. Though this rule
will not result in such expenditure, we
do discuss the effects of this rule
elsewhere in this preamble.
J. Protection of Children
We have analyzed this rule under E.O.
13045, Protection of Children from
Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks. This rule is not an economically
significant rule and does not create an
environmental risk to health or risk to
safety that may disproportionately affect
children.
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
F. Environment
We have analyzed this rule under
Department of Homeland Security
Management Directive 023–01 and
Commandant Instruction M16475.lD,
which guide the Coast Guard in
complying with the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969
(NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321–4370f), and
have concluded this action is one of a
category of actions which do not
individually or cumulatively have a
significant effect on the human
environment. This rule involves the
establishment of a safety zone and is
therefore categorically excluded from
further review under paragraph 34(g) of
Figure 2–1 of the Commandant
Instruction. An environmental analysis
checklist supporting this determination
and a Categorical Exclusion
Determination are available in the
docket where indicated under
ADDRESSES. We seek any comments or
information that may lead to the
discovery of a significant environmental
impact from this rule.
G. Protest Activities
The Coast Guard respects the First
Amendment rights of protesters.
Protesters are asked to contact the
person listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section to
coordinate protest activities so that your
message can be received without
jeopardizing the safety or security of
people, places, or vessels.
H. Taking of Private Property
This rule will not cause a taking of
private property or otherwise have
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:20 Nov 13, 2015
Jkt 238001
I. Civil Justice Reform
This rule meets applicable standards
in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of E.O.
12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize
litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and
reduce burden.
K. Energy Effects
This action is not a ‘‘significant
energy action’’ under E.O. 13211,
Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use.
List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165
Harbors, Marine Safety, Navigation
(water), Reporting and record keeping
requirements, Security measures,
Waterways.
For the reasons discussed in the
preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33
CFR part 165 as follows:
PART 165—REGULATED NAVIGATION
AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS
1. The authority citation for part 165
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191;
33 CFR 1.05–1, 6.04–1, 6.04–6, and 160.5;
Department of Homeland Security Delegation
No. 0170.1.
2. Add § 165.T09–0994 to read as
follows:
■
§ 165.T09–0994 Safety Zone; Unknown
Substance in the Vicinity of Kelley’s Island
Shoal, Lake Erie; Kelley’s Island, OH.
(a) Location. The following area is a
temporary safety zone: Unknown
substance from an unknown vessel in
the vicinity of Kelley’s Island Shoal,
Lake Erie; Kelley’s Island, OH. The
safety zone will encompass all U.S.
navigable waters of Lake Erie within a
1000 foot radius of 41°38′21″ N,
82°29′35″ W. All coordinates are North
American Datum 1983 (NAD 83).
(b) Enforcement period. The safety
zone described in paragraph (a) of this
section will be enforced from 2 p.m. on
October 25, 2015 until 8 p.m. on
November 24, 2015.
(c) Regulations. (1) In accordance with
the general regulations in § 165.23, entry
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
70689
into, transiting, or anchoring within
these safety zone is prohibited unless
authorized by the Captain of the Port,
Sector Detroit (COTP) or his designated
on-scene representative.
(2) The safety zone is closed to all
vessel traffic, except as may be
permitted by the COTP, via the
Command Center, or his designated onscene representative.
(3) The ‘‘on-scene representative’’ of
the COTP is any Coast Guard
commissioned, warrant or petty officer
or a Federal, State, or local law
enforcement officer designated by or
assisting the COTP to act on his behalf.
(4) Vessel operators must contact the
COTP via the Command Center to
obtain permission to enter or operate
within the safety zone. The COTP may
be contacted via VHF Channel 16 or at
313–568–9560. Vessel operators given
permission to enter or operate in the
safety zone must comply with all
directions given to them by the COTP,
via the Sector Command Center or his
on-scene representative.
Dated: October 25, 2015.
Scott B. Lemasters,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the
Port Detroit.
[FR Doc. 2015–29171 Filed 11–13–15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110–04–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R09–OAR–2014–0256; FRL–9936–77–
Region 9]
Approval and Promulgation of
Implementation Plans; Arizona;
Phased Discontinuation of Stage II
Vapor Recovery Program
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is taking final action to
approve a state implementation plan
(SIP) revision from the Arizona
Department of Environmental Quality
related to the removal of ‘‘Stage II’’
vapor recovery equipment at gasoline
dispensing facilities in the PhoenixMesa area. Specifically, the EPA is
approving a SIP revision that eliminates
the requirement to install and operate
such equipment at new gasoline
dispensing facilities, and that provides
for the phased removal of such
equipment at existing gasoline
dispensing facilities from October 2016
through September 2018. The EPA has
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\16NOR1.SGM
16NOR1
70690
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 220 / Monday, November 16, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
previously determined that onboard
refueling vapor recovery is in
widespread use nationally and waived
the stage II vapor recovery requirement.
The EPA is approving this SIP revision
because the resultant short-term
incremental increase in emissions
would not interfere with attainment or
maintenance of the national ambient air
quality standards or any other
requirement of the Clean Air Act and
because it would avoid longer-term
increases in emissions due to the
incompatibilities between onboard
refueling vapor recovery equipment on
motor vehicles and the predominant
type of stage II vapor recovery
equipment installed at existing gasoline
dispensing facilities in the PhoenixMesa area.
DATES: This final rule is effective on
December 16, 2015.
ADDRESSES: The EPA has established
docket number EPA–R09–OAR–2014–
0256 for this action. The index to the
docket is available electronically at
www.regulations.gov and in hard copy
at EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street,
San Francisco, California. 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 in
either location (e.g., Confidential
Business Information). To inspect the
hard copy materials, please schedule an
appointment during normal business
hours with the contact listed in the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Jeffrey Buss, Office of Air Planning, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 9, (415) 947–4152, email:
buss.jeffrey@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Throughout this document, the terms
‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ and ‘‘our’’ refer to the EPA.
Table of Contents
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
I. Background for Final Rule
II. Summary of Proposed Action
III. Public Comments and EPA Responses
IV. Final Action
V. Incorporation by Reference
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. Background for Final Rule
On September 2, 2015 (80 FR 53086),
we proposed this action and provided
for a 30-day comment period. On that
same date, we issued a direct final rule
(80 FR 53001) taking final action
effective November 2, 2015 but
indicated that, if we received adverse
comments by the end of the comment
period, we would publish a withdrawal
of the direct final rule in the Federal
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:20 Nov 13, 2015
Jkt 238001
Register prior to the effective date
informing the public that the direct final
rule will not take effect.
We received timely adverse
comments, and on October 27, 2015 (80
FR 65660), we withdrew the direct final
rule. In today’s action, we provide our
responses to the public comments and
take final action based on the proposal
published on September 2, 2015.
II. Summary of Proposed Action
In our September 2, 2015 proposed
rule (80 FR 53086), we directed
commenters to the direct final rule for
a detailed rationale for the proposed
approval of the SIP revision. As such,
the following paragraphs summarize the
background information and evaluation
included in the direct final rule also
published on September 2, 2015 (80 FR
53001).
Under the Clean Air Act (CAA or
‘‘Act’’), the EPA has promulgated
national ambient air quality standards
(NAAQS or ‘‘standards’’) for certain
pervasive air pollutants. The NAAQS
are concentration levels the attainment
and maintenance of which EPA has
determined to be requisite to protect
public health (i.e., the ‘‘primary’’
NAAQS) and welfare (i.e., the
‘‘secondary’’ NAAQS). Under the CAA,
states are required to develop and
submit plans, referred to as state
implementation plans (SIPs) to
implement, maintain, and enforce the
NAAQS.1
Ozone is one of the air pollutants for
which the EPA has established
NAAQS.2 The original NAAQS for
ozone was 0.12 parts per million (ppm),
1-hour average (‘‘1-hour ozone
standard’’).3 In 1997, we revised the
ozone NAAQS, setting it at 0.08 ppm
averaged over an 8-hour timeframe
(referred to herein as the ‘‘1997 8-hour
ozone standard’’) (62 FR 33856, July 18,
1997), and in 2008, we lowered the 8hour ozone standard to 0.075 ppm
(‘‘2008 8-hour ozone standard’’) (73 FR
16436, March 27, 2008). The 1-hour
1 Under Arizona law, the Arizona Department of
Environmental Quality (ADEQ) is responsible for
adopting and submitting the Arizona SIP and SIP
revisions. Within the Maricopa County portion of
the Phoenix-Mesa area, the Maricopa Association of
Governments (MAG) is responsible for developing
regional ozone air quality plans.
2 Ground-level ozone is an oxidant that is formed
from photochemical reactions in the atmosphere
between volatile organic compounds (VOC) and
oxides of nitrogen (NOX) in the presence of
sunlight. These two pollutants, referred to as ozone
precursors, are emitted by many types of pollution
sources including on-road motor vehicles (cars,
trucks, and buses), nonroad vehicles and engines,
power plants and industrial facilities, and smaller
area sources such as lawn and garden equipment
and paints.
3 See 44 FR 8202 (February 8, 1979).
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
ozone standard and the 1997 8-hour
ozone standard have now been revoked.
See 69 FR 23951 (April 30, 2004) and
80 FR 12264 (March 6, 2015). Since
publication of the direct final rule, the
EPA has lowered the ozone standard
further, to a level of 0.070 ppm, eighthour average (‘‘2015 8-hour ozone
standard’’). 80 FR 65292 (October 26,
2015).
Under the CAA, the EPA is also
responsible for designating areas of the
country as attainment, nonattainment,
or unclassifiable for the various
NAAQS. We classified the ‘‘Phoenix
metropolitan area,’’ defined by the
Maricopa Association of Governments’
(MAGs’) urban planning area boundary
(but later revised to exclude the Gila
River Indian Community, as a
‘‘Moderate,’’ and later ‘‘Serious,’’
nonattainment area for the 1-hour ozone
standard. We have designated a larger
geographic area, referred to as the
‘‘Phoenix-Mesa’’ area,4 as a ‘‘Marginal’’
nonattainment area for the 1997 8-hour
ozone standard and 2008 8-hour ozone
standard. While we have redesignated
the Phoenix metropolitan area, and the
Phoenix-Mesa area as ‘‘attainment,’’ for
the 1-hour and 1997 8-hour ozone
standards, respectively, the PhoenixMesa area remains ‘‘Marginal’’
nonattainment for the 2008 ozone
standard. More recently, we proposed to
reclassify the Phoenix-Mesa area as
‘‘Moderate’’ ozone nonattainment for
the 2008 8-hour ozone standard based
on ambient data showing that the area
did not attain the standard by the
applicable attainment date (i.e., July 20,
2015) for such areas. 80 FR 51992
(August 27, 2015). The EPA has not yet
issued area designations for the 2015 8hour ozone standard.
States with ‘‘nonattainment’’ areas are
required to submit revisions to their
SIPs that include a control strategy
necessary to demonstrate how the area
will attain the NAAQS. As ‘‘Moderate,’’
and later ‘‘Serious,’’ nonattainment for
the 1-hour ozone standard, the State of
Arizona was required under CAA
section 182(b)(3) to submit a SIP
revision that requires the use of ‘‘Stage
II’’ vapor recovery systems at gasoline
dispensing facilities (GDFs) located
within the Phoenix metropolitan area.5
4 The Phoenix-Mesa 1997 8-hour ozone
nonattainment area covers a much larger portion of
Maricopa County than the Phoenix metropolitan 1hour ozone area and also includes the Apache
Junction portion of Pinal County. The precise
boundaries of the Phoenix-Mesa 1997 8-hour ozone
nonattainment area and the Phoenix metropolitan
1-hour ozone nonattainment are found in 40 CFR
81.303.
5 Gasoline dispensing pump vapor control
devices, commonly referred to as ‘‘Stage II’’ vapor
recovery, are systems that control VOC vapor
E:\FR\FM\16NOR1.SGM
16NOR1
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 220 / Monday, November 16, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
In response to this requirement, the
State of Arizona promulgated and
submitted certain statutes and
regulations that require use of Stage II
vapor recovery systems in the Phoenix
metropolitan area, and later extended
the requirements to a larger geographic
area referred to as ‘‘Area A.’’ 6 The EPA
approved the state’s Stage-II-related
statutes and regulations as a revision to
the Arizona SIP. See 59 FR 54521
(November 1, 1994) and 77 FR 35279
(June 13, 2012).
The 1990 amended CAA anticipates
that, over time, Stage II vapor recovery
requirements at GDFs would be
replaced by ‘‘onboard refueling vapor
recovery’’ (ORVR) systems that the EPA
was to establish for new motor vehicles
under CAA section 202(a)(6). ORVR
consists of an activated carbon canister
installed in a motor vehicle. The carbon
canister captures gasoline vapors during
refueling. There the vapors are captured
by the activated carbon in the canister.
When the engine is started, the vapors
are drawn off of the activated carbon
and into the engine where they are
burned as fuel. In 1994, the EPA
promulgated its ORVR standards,7 with
a minimum 95% vapor capture
efficiency, which fully applied to all
new light duty vehicles by 2000. The
ORVR requirements were phased in to
apply to heavier classes of vehicles as
well—reaching full effect for all new
vehicles with a gross vehicle weight
rating of up to 10,000 pounds by 2006.
Recognizing that, over time, the
number of vehicles with ORVR as a
percentage of the overall motor vehicle
fleet would increase with the turnover
of older models not equipped with
ORVR with newer models equipped
with ORVR, CAA section 202(a)(6)
permits the EPA to promulgate a
determination that ORVR is in
‘‘widespread use’’ throughout the motor
vehicle fleet and to revise or waive
Stage II vapor recovery requirements for
Serious, Severe and Extreme ozone
nonattainment areas. The EPA made the
determination that ORVR systems are in
‘‘widespread use’’ in the nation’s motor
vehicle fleet in 2012. 77 FR 28772, May
releases during the refueling of motor vehicles. This
process takes the vapors normally emitted directly
into the atmosphere when pumping gas and
recycles them back into the underground fuel
storage tank, preventing them from polluting the
air.
6 ‘‘Area A’’ is defined in Arizona Revised Statutes
(ARS) section 49–541, and it includes all of the
Phoenix metropolitan 1-hour ozone nonattainment
area plus additional areas in Maricopa County to
the north, east, and west, as well as small portions
of Yavapai County and Pinal County. Area A
roughly approximates the boundaries of the
Phoenix-Mesa area designated by the EPA for the
1997 8-hour ozone standard.
7 See 59 FR 16262 (April 6, 1994).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:20 Nov 13, 2015
Jkt 238001
16, 2012; and 40 CFR 51.126. In the
wake of the EPA’s ‘‘widespread use’’
determination, states, such as Arizona,
that were required to implement Stage
II vapor recovery programs under CAA
section 182(b)(3) are now permitted to
remove the requirement from their SIPs
under certain circumstances.
On August 7, 2012, the EPA released
its ‘‘Guidance on Removing Stage II
Gasoline Vapor Control Programs from
State Implementation Plans and
Assessing Comparable Measures’’ 8
(‘‘Stage II Guidance’’) to aid in the
development of SIP revisions to remove
Stage II controls from GDFs. The EPA’s
Stage II Guidance projects that, by 2015,
over 84% of all the gasoline dispensed
in the nation will be dispensed to
ORVR-equipped motor vehicles.9 As
such, Stage II and ORVR have become
largely redundant technologies, and
Stage II control systems are achieving an
ever-declining emissions benefit as
more ORVR-equipped vehicle continue
to enter the on-road motor vehicle fleet.
In addition, the EPA’s Stage II Guidance
recognizes that, in areas where certain
types of vacuum-assist Stage II control
systems are used, the limited
compatibility between ORVR and some
configurations of this Stage II hardware
may ultimately result in an area-wide
emissions disbenefit. The disbenefit can
result when the Stage II controls pull air
into the underground tank instead of
gasoline vapors when both vacuumassist Stage II controls and ORVR are
active during refueling. This increases
the pressure in the underground tank
and can cause venting of excess
emissions into the air. The PhoenixMesa ozone nonattainment area is an
area where the vast majority of Stage II
systems that have been installed use
vacuum assist technologies.10
In light of EPA’s national
‘‘widespread use’’ determination
allowing states to revise their SIPs to
remove Stage II vapor recovery
requirements and the potential for a
disbenefit from continuation of the
Stage II vapor recovery program, MAG
developed emissions estimates based on
information from the EPA’s Stage II
guidance and based on Phoenix-areaspecific motor vehicle fleet data to
determine the impact of continuation of
the program and the impact of the
8 ‘‘Guidance on Removing Stage II Gasoline Vapor
Control Programs from State Implementation Plans
and Assessing Comparable Measures,’’ EPA Office
of Air Quality Planning and Standards, August 7,
2012.
9 See Table A–1 of the Stage II Guidance.
10 Table A–6 of the EPA’s Stage II Guidance cites
the percentages of State/Area GDF using vacuum
assist Stage II technology. The listed percentage for
the Phoenix-Mesa area is 85%.
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
70691
phased removal of Stage II vapor
recovery in the Phoenix-Mesa area. The
emissions estimates demonstrated that
the emissions reduction benefit from the
Stage II vapor recovery program would
continue to provide marginal but
diminishing emissions reductions
through 2017 and that the disbenefit
from continuation of the Stage II vapor
recovery program would begin in 2018
and increase in the years thereafter. See
table 1 on page 53005 of the direct final
rule.
In response to these findings, the
Arizona Legislature adopted changes in
the specific statutory provisions
establishing the Stage II vapor recovery
program to eliminate the requirement to
install Stage II equipment at new GDFs
and to provide for a phased
decommissioning process to remove
Stage II equipment at existing GDFs
beginning in October 2016 and ending
in September 2018.11
Subsequent to legislative action, on
September 2, 2014, ADEQ submitted a
SIP revision, titled ‘‘MAG State
Implementation Plan Revision for the
Removal of Stage II Vapor Recovery
Controls in the Maricopa Eight-Hour
Ozone Nonattainment Area’’ (‘‘Stage II
Vapor Recovery SIP Revision’’ or ‘‘SIP
Revision’’), including the statutory
revisions and related emissions impact
documentation.
After review of the SIP Revision, on
September 2, 2015 (80 FR 53086), the
EPA proposed approval based on the
following conclusions:
• ADEQ has met the procedural
requirements for SIP revisions under
section 110(l);
• Pursuant to the EPA’s
determination of ‘‘widespread use’’ (of
ORVR systems in the motor vehicle
fleet), states are allowed to rescind Stage
II vapor recovery control requirements
in their SIPs if doing so is consistent
with the general SIP revision
requirements of CAA section 110(l) and
section 193;
• CAA section 193 does not apply to
this particular SIP revision because the
Stage II vapor recovery controls were
not in effect prior to the 1990 CAA
Amendments;
• MAG’s year-by-year estimates of
areawide VOC emissions with and
11 Effective for State law purposes upon the
Governor’s signature (i.e., on April 22, 2014), House
Bill (HB) 2128 (in relevant part) amends Arizona
Revised Statutes (ARS) sections 41–2131
(‘‘Definitions’’), 41–2132 (‘‘Stage I vapor recovery
systems’’), 41–2133 (‘‘Compliance schedules’’), and
adds new section 41–2135 (‘‘Stage II vapor recovery
systems’’). The new section ARS 41–2135 retains
the existing Stage II control requirements for
existing GDFs and establishes a phased
decommissioning process to remove Stage II
controls beginning October 1, 2016 and ending
September 30, 2018.
E:\FR\FM\16NOR1.SGM
16NOR1
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
70692
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 220 / Monday, November 16, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
without the SIP Revision reflect
reasonable methods and assumptions,
and provide a reasonable basis upon
which to evaluate the ozone impacts of
the SIP Revision;
• MAG’s emissions estimates
conclude that the temporary emissions
increases due to the SIP Revision
(relative to the scenario in which Stage
II requirements remain fully
implemented) will occur during years
2014 through 2017 and will range from
0.015 metric tons per day (mtpd) to
0.031 mtpd, and that beginning in 2018
and increasing in magnitude thereafter,
the SIP Revision will result in fewer
VOC emissions than would otherwise
have occurred if Stage II requirements
were to remain fully implemented in the
Phoenix-Mesa area (due to the
incompatibility of ORVR-equipped
vehicles and vacuum-assist Stage II
technologies);
• The temporary increases in VOC
emissions during years 2014 through
2017 due to the SIP Revision would
represent an approximate 0.002 percent
to 0.005 percent increase in the overall
VOC emissions inventory in the
Phoenix-Mesa area; 12 and
• The SIP Revision would not
interfere with reasonable further
progress or attainment of the ozone
NAAQS for the purposes of CAA section
110(l) because: (1) The increases in VOC
emissions from 2014 through 2017
would have negligible impacts on ozone
concentrations in the area; (2) the
schedule for the phase-out of Stage II
controls under the SIP Revision will
maintain most of the emissions
reductions benefits associated with
Stage II control through 2017; (3) the
scheduled phase-out will reduce the
emissions increase (due to ORVR and
Stage II incompatibilities) that would
otherwise be expected in 2018 but
would not entirely avoid an emissions
increase in that year because some
existing GDFs will not yet have removed
Stage II controls by the beginning of the
2018 ozone season; and (4) the phaseout of Stage II controls by the end of the
2018 ozone season will support longerterm regional efforts to attain or
maintain the ozone standards in the
Phoenix-Mesa area.
For further information about the SIP
Revision and our corresponding
evaluation, please see the direct final
rule (80 FR 53001, September 2, 2015).
12 The EPA-approved MAG Eight-Hour Ozone
Maintenance Plan anticipates VOC emissions
between 653.9 mtpd (June ozone episode, 2005) and
659.0 mtpd (June ozone episode, 2015) during the
relevant period. See our proposed approval of the
maintenance plan and redesignation request at 79
FR 16734, at 16744 (March 26, 2014).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:20 Nov 13, 2015
Jkt 238001
III. Public Comments and EPA
Responses
In response to September 2, 2015
proposed rule, we received four
comments. In the following paragraphs,
we provide our responses to these
comments.
Comment #1: While supportive of our
proposed action, a commenter suggests
that the EPA eliminate the Arizona
vehicle inspection and maintenance
(VEI) program as well.
Response #1: The State of Arizona’s
VEI program is an approved element of
the Arizona SIP. A state may submit
revisions to its SIP, but such revisions
do not become effective until the EPA
approves them under section 110(k) of
the CAA. No VEI SIP revision submittal
is pending at this time. If the State of
Arizona were to submit a revision to the
SIP-approved VEI program, or rescission
of the program, the EPA is authorized to
approve such a revision only if such
revision were consistent with all CAA
requirements such as section 110(l),
which prohibits the EPA from
approving a SIP revision if the revision
would interfere with any applicable
requirement concerning reasonable
further progress towards, and
attainment of, the NAAQS.
Comment #2: A commenter was not
opposed to the removal of Stage II vapor
recovery equipment at GDFs so long as
the fuel pump dispensing nozzle is
properly covered to capture vapors
during refueling.
Response #2: We disagree that such
covers are necessary to capture vapors
during refueling with ORVR-equipped
motor vehicles. While Stage II vapor
recovery systems rely upon a rubber
boot around the nozzle to create a seal
between the nozzle and the vehicle,
ORVR prevents vapors from escaping
during refueling by employing a seal in
the fill pipe. In most instances, these
seals are created by the incoming
gasoline backing slightly near the
bottom of the fill pipe. When the engine
is started, the vapors are purged from
the activated carbon canister and into
the engine where they are burned as
fuel. See 77 FR 28772 at 28774 (May 16,
2012). Because ORVR uses a seal within
the fill pipe of the vehicle, a rubber boot
or cover is not required to prevent
vapors from escaping during refueling.
Comment #3: A commenter objects to
our proposal, and asks the EPA to
reconsider its proposed approval of the
SIP revision, contending that the
revision will cause adverse effects
particularly in the summer months. This
commenter also questions whether there
would be any benefit from the revision
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
and asks the EPA to identify to whom
the revision applies.
Response #3: We recognize that the
Stage II vapor recovery controls have
provided significant reductions of VOC
emissions in the Phoenix-Mesa area
since they were implemented in the
mid-1990s. These controls have done so
by taking the vapors normally emitted
directly into the atmosphere when
pumping gas and recycling them back
into the underground fuel storage tank,
preventing them from polluting the air.
However, as discussed in more detail in
the direct final rule at 80 FR 53002 and
52003 (September 2, 2015), the 1990
amended CAA anticipated that, over
time, Stage II vapor recovery
requirements at gasoline stations would
be replaced by ORVR systems installed
on motor vehicles, and authorized the
EPA to revise or waive Stage II vapor
recovery requirements for ozone
nonattainment areas, including such
areas as the Phoenix-Mesa area, once the
EPA determines that ORVR is in
‘‘widespread use’’ throughout the motor
vehicle fleet. The EPA published its
‘‘widespread use’’ determination in
2012 at 77 FR 28772 (May 16, 2012),
and as a result, the Stage II vapor
recovery controls are no longer required
in ozone nonattainment areas.
Moreover, as described further in our
direct final rule at 53004, with certain
types of vacuum-assist Stage II control
systems, the limited compatibility
between ORVR and some configurations
of this Stage II hardware may ultimately
result in an area-wide emissions
disbenefit. This is because the Stage II
controls pull air into the underground
tank instead of gasoline vapors when
both vacuum-assist Stage II control and
ORVR are active during refueling,
increasing the pressure in the
underground tank and causing venting
of excess emission into the air. The
Phoenix-Mesa ozone nonattainament
area is an area where the vast majority
of Stage II systems that have been
installed use vacuum assist
technologies, and MAG has estimated
that 2018 is the first year in which the
disbenefit from implementation of Stage
II controls would occur if Stage II
control requirements were to remain in
place given the motor vehicle fleet in
the Phoenix-Mesa area. The disbenefit
(i.e., the increase in emissions if Stage
II control were to be retained) grows
quickly after that year as shown in table
1 of our direct final rule at 53005.
Thus, from the perspective of
summertime ozone conditions in the
Phoenix-Mesa area, the issue is not
whether to remove the Stage II vapor
recovery equipment but when and how.
The state has submitted a SIP revision
E:\FR\FM\16NOR1.SGM
16NOR1
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 220 / Monday, November 16, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
that eliminates the requirement for
installation of Stage II vapor recovery
equipment at new GDFs, and that
establishes a phased decommissioning
process to remove Stage II controls at
existing GDFs over a two-year period
beginning October 1, 2016 and ending
September 30, 2018. As explained on
page 53003 of the direct final rule, the
two-year period for decommissioning is
based on the expectation of the Arizona
Department of Weights and Measures of
the time necessary to safely
decommission Stage II controls at the
over 1,000 existing GDFs in the
Phoenix-Mesa area. Decommissioning is
expected to be spread evenly over each
of the 24 months from October 2016
through September 2018 and to occur
for existing GDFs during the month
when the annual scheduled Stage II
control test would have occurred.
We believe that the two-year
decommissioning process established by
the state minimizes the temporary
adverse effect of increased VOC
emissions (i.e., from foregone emissions
reductions from elimination of the Stage
II requirement at new GDFs and the
phase-out of Stage II equipment at
existing GDFs) while avoiding the
longer-term adverse impact due to the
disbenefit associated with retaining the
Stage II vapor recovery controls. As
noted on page 53005 of the direct final
rule, the temporary adverse effect
during years 2014 through 2017 would
represent an approximate 0.002 percent
to 0.005 percent increase in the overall
VOC emission inventory in the PhoenixMesa area. Based on the small
magnitude of this impact, its temporary
nature, and the avoidance of the longterm disbenefit, we have concluded that
the SIP revision would not interfere
with attainment or maintenance of the
ozone NAAQS in the Phoenix-Mesa
area.
Comment #4: A commenter objects to
our proposal, stating that it does not
take into account those individuals who
are chemically sensitive to vapors and
would be harmed if the SIP revision
were to be approved. This commenter
also noted that there are communities
where most of the drivers operate older
vehicles and that those living in such
areas would be at higher risk than those
in areas where the vehicle models are
newer, and suggested that the EPA defer
the approval of the Stage II vapor
recovery phase-out for a couple of years
to allow for a greater percentage of
ORVR-equipped vehicles to replace the
older vehicles without ORVR.
Response #4: The commenter is
correct that, in reviewing the Stage II
SIP Revision, the EPA did not take into
account the particular sensitivities of
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:20 Nov 13, 2015
Jkt 238001
individuals to gasoline vapors or the
percentage of ORVR-equipped vehicles
refueling at individual GDFs in the
Phoenix-Mesa area. Our role in a
reviewing SIP revision is to approve
state choices, provided that they meet
the criteria of the CAA. None of the
applicable CAA criteria calls for
evaluating the sensitivities of
individuals to gasoline vapors nor do
the criteria require a GDF-specific ORVR
evaluation.
Rather, as described on pages 53004
and 53004 of the direct final rule, we
evaluated the SIP revision for
compliance with CAA section 110(l),
which prohibits the EPA from
approving a SIP revision if that revision
would interfere with any applicable
requirement concerning reasonable
further progress towards, or attainment
of, any of the NAAQS, or any applicable
requirement of the CAA. In this
instance, because the Stage II SIP
revision would affect VOC emissions,
and because VOC is a precursor to
ozone, we focused on ozone NAAQS
impacts. Ozone is a regional pollutant
and thus our evaluation of the SIP
revision is appropriately based on areawide VOC emissions estimates and
considers those emissions in the context
of regional, not local, ozone
concentrations.
Lastly, deferral by the EPA of action
on the Stage II SIP revision is not
appropriate because CAA section
110(k)(2) establishes a deadline of at
most 18 months from the date a SIP
revision is submitted for the EPA to take
final action. Moreover, we have
concluded that the two-year
decommissioning process established by
the state would minimize the temporary
adverse impact on regional VOC
emissions while avoiding the longer
term disbenefit associated with
implementation of Stage II vapor
recovery controls at GDFs in the
Phoenix-Mesa area. Deferral by the state
of the two-year decommissioning
process would be less advantageous
from a regional ozone perspective
because it would only serve to lengthen
the period in which the area would
experience the disbenefit from Stage II
vapor recovery due to the increasing
percentage of motor vehicles with ORVR
and accompanying incompatibilities
with the Stage II vapor recovery
equipment.
IV. Final Action
Under CAA section 110(k) and for the
reasons set forth in our September 2,
2015 direct final rule and summarized
above, the EPA is taking final action to
approve the Stage II Vapor Recovery SIP
Revision submitted by ADEQ on
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
70693
September 2, 2014 to provide for the
phased removal of ‘‘Stage II’’ vapor
recovery equipment at GDFs in the
Phoenix-Mesa area. Specifically, the
EPA is approving a SIP revision that
eliminates the requirement to install
and operate such equipment at new
GDFs, and that provides for the phased
removal of such equipment at existing
GDFs from October 2016 through
September 2018.
The EPA is approving this SIP
revision because Stage II vapor recovery
controls are no longer a SIP requirement
under CAA section 182(b)(3) due to
EPA’s ‘‘widespread use determination’’
for ORVR. Additionally, we are
approving this SIP revision because the
temporary incremental increase in VOC
emissions from 2014 through 2017
would not interfere with reasonable
further progress toward, or attainment
of, any of the NAAQS, and because this
SIP revision avoids the longer-term VOC
emissions increases associated with
continued implementation of Stage II
controls in the Phoenix-Mesa area. As
part of this final action, the EPA is
approving the specific statutory
provisions that provide for the phaseout of Stage II controls in Area A, i.e.,
sections 5 through 8, and 10 through 12
of House Bill 2128, amending ARS
sections 41–2131, 41–2132, 41–2133
and adding section 41–2135.13
V. Incorporation by Reference
In this rule, the EPA is finalizing
regulatory text that includes
incorporation by reference. In
accordance with requirements of 1 CFR
51.5, the EPA is finalizing the
incorporation by reference of certain
sections of House Bill 2128 amending
various sections of the Arizona Revised
Statutes related to stage II vapor
recovery systems in Area A, effective
April 22, 2014, as described in the
amendments to 40 CFR part 52 set forth
below. The EPA has made, and will
continue to make, these documents
generally available electronically
through www.regulations.gov and/or in
hard copy at the appropriate EPA office
(see the ADDRESSES section of this
preamble for more information).
13 Approval of these statutory provisions as
revisions to the Arizona SIP supersedes the
following existing SIP provisions in the Arizona
SIP: ARS section 41–2131, as approved at 77 FR
35279 (June 13, 2012); ARS section 41–2132, as
approved at 77 FR 35279 (June 13, 2012); and ARS
section 41–2133, as approved at 77 FR 35279 (June
13, 2012). As noted previously, ‘‘Area A’’ is roughly
the same geographic area as the Phoenix-Mesa 8hour ozone nonattainment area.
E:\FR\FM\16NOR1.SGM
16NOR1
70694
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 220 / Monday, November 16, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
VI. 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 Clean Air Act.
Accordingly, this action merely
approves 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 (Pub. L. 104–4);
• does not have Federalism
implications as specified in Executive
Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10,
1999);
• is not an economically significant
regulatory action based on health or
safety risks subject to Executive Order
13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• is not a significant regulatory action
subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR
28355, May 22, 2001);
• is not subject to requirements of
Section 12(d) of the National
Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because
application of those requirements would
be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act;
and
• does not provide the EPA with the
discretionary authority to address, as
appropriate, disproportionate human
health or environmental effects, using
practicable and legally permissible
methods, under Executive Order 12898
(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, the SIP is not approved
to apply on any Indian reservation land
or in any other area where the EPA or
an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a
tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of
Indian country, this rule does not have
tribal implications as specified by
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:20 Nov 13, 2015
Jkt 238001
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249,
November 9, 2000), nor will it impose
substantial direct costs on tribal
governments or preempt tribal law.
The Congressional Review Act, 5
U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small
Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides
that before a rule may take effect, the
agency promulgating the rule must
submit a rule report, which includes a
copy of the rule, to each House of the
Congress and to the Comptroller General
of the United States. The EPA will
submit a report containing this action
and other required information to the
U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller
General of the United States prior to
publication of the rule in the Federal
Register. A major rule cannot take effect
until 60 days after it is published in the
Federal Register. This action is not a
‘‘major rule’’ as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
Under section 307(b)(1) of the 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 January 15, 2016.
Filing a petition for reconsideration by
the Administrator of this final rule does
not affect the finality of this action for
the purposes of judicial review nor does
it extend the time within which a
petition for judicial review may be filed,
and shall not postpone the effectiveness
of such rule or action. This action may
not be challenged later in proceedings to
enforce its requirements (see section
307(b)(2)).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations,
Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Volatile organic
compounds.
Dated: October 28, 2015.
Jared Blumenfeld,
Regional Administrator, Region IX.
Chapter I, title 40 of the Code of
Federal Regulations is amended as
follows:
PART 52—APPROVAL AND
PROMULGATION OF
IMPLEMENTATION PLANS
1. The authority citation for part 52
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Subpart D—Arizona
2. Section 52.120 is amended by
adding paragraph (c)(171) to read as
follows:
■
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
§ 52.120
Identification of plan.
*
*
*
*
*
(c) * * *
(171) The following plan was
submitted on September 2, 2014 by the
Governor’s designee.
(i) Incorporation by reference.
(A) Arizona Department of
Environmental Quality.
(1) House Bill 2128, effective April 22,
2014, excluding sections 1 through 4,
and 9 (including the text that appears in
all capital letters and excluding the text
that appears in strikethrough).
(ii) Additional materials.
(A) Arizona Department of
Environmental Quality.
(1) MAG 2014 State Implementation
Plan Revision for the Removal of Stage
II Vapor Recovery Controls in the
Maricopa Eight-Hour Ozone
Nonattainment Area (August 2014),
adopted by the Regional Council of the
Maricopa Association of Governments
on August 27, 2014, excluding appendix
A, exhibit 2 (‘‘Arizona Revised Statutes
Listed in Table 1–1’’).
*
*
*
*
*
[FR Doc. 2015–28909 Filed 11–13–15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 62
[EPA–R05–OAR–2015–0701; FRL–9936–96–
Region 5]
Air Plan Approval; Michigan; Sewage
Sludge Incinerators State Plan and
Small Municipal Waste Combustors
Negative Declaration for Designated
Facilities and Pollutants
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Direct final rule.
AGENCY:
The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is approving Michigan’s
State Plan to control air pollutants from
‘‘Sewage Sludge Incinerators’’ (SSI). The
Michigan Department of Environmental
Quality (MDEQ) submitted the State
Plan on September 21, 2015. The State
Plan is consistent with the Emission
Guidelines (EGs) promulgated by EPA
on March 21, 2011. This approval
means that EPA finds that the State Plan
meets applicable Clean Air Act (Act)
requirements for subject SSI units. Once
effective, this approval also makes the
State Plan Federally enforceable. EPA is
also notifying the public that we have
received from Michigan a negative
declaration for Small Municipal Waste
Combustors (SMWC). The MDEQ
submitted its negative declaration on
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\16NOR1.SGM
16NOR1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 220 (Monday, November 16, 2015)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 70689-70694]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-28909]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R09-OAR-2014-0256; FRL-9936-77-Region 9]
Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Arizona;
Phased Discontinuation of Stage II Vapor Recovery Program
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking final
action to approve a state implementation plan (SIP) revision from the
Arizona Department of Environmental Quality related to the removal of
``Stage II'' vapor recovery equipment at gasoline dispensing facilities
in the Phoenix-Mesa area. Specifically, the EPA is approving a SIP
revision that eliminates the requirement to install and operate such
equipment at new gasoline dispensing facilities, and that provides for
the phased removal of such equipment at existing gasoline dispensing
facilities from October 2016 through September 2018. The EPA has
[[Page 70690]]
previously determined that onboard refueling vapor recovery is in
widespread use nationally and waived the stage II vapor recovery
requirement. The EPA is approving this SIP revision because the
resultant short-term incremental increase in emissions would not
interfere with attainment or maintenance of the national ambient air
quality standards or any other requirement of the Clean Air Act and
because it would avoid longer-term increases in emissions due to the
incompatibilities between onboard refueling vapor recovery equipment on
motor vehicles and the predominant type of stage II vapor recovery
equipment installed at existing gasoline dispensing facilities in the
Phoenix-Mesa area.
DATES: This final rule is effective on December 16, 2015.
ADDRESSES: The EPA has established docket number EPA-R09-OAR-2014-0256
for this action. The index to the docket is available electronically at
www.regulations.gov and in hard copy at EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne
Street, San Francisco, California. 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 in either location (e.g., Confidential
Business Information). To inspect the hard copy materials, please
schedule an appointment during normal business hours with the contact
listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeffrey Buss, Office of Air Planning,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9, (415) 947-4152, email:
buss.jeffrey@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, the terms ``we,''
``us,'' and ``our'' refer to the EPA.
Table of Contents
I. Background for Final Rule
II. Summary of Proposed Action
III. Public Comments and EPA Responses
IV. Final Action
V. Incorporation by Reference
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. Background for Final Rule
On September 2, 2015 (80 FR 53086), we proposed this action and
provided for a 30-day comment period. On that same date, we issued a
direct final rule (80 FR 53001) taking final action effective November
2, 2015 but indicated that, if we received adverse comments by the end
of the comment period, we would publish a withdrawal of the direct
final rule in the Federal Register prior to the effective date
informing the public that the direct final rule will not take effect.
We received timely adverse comments, and on October 27, 2015 (80 FR
65660), we withdrew the direct final rule. In today's action, we
provide our responses to the public comments and take final action
based on the proposal published on September 2, 2015.
II. Summary of Proposed Action
In our September 2, 2015 proposed rule (80 FR 53086), we directed
commenters to the direct final rule for a detailed rationale for the
proposed approval of the SIP revision. As such, the following
paragraphs summarize the background information and evaluation included
in the direct final rule also published on September 2, 2015 (80 FR
53001).
Under the Clean Air Act (CAA or ``Act''), the EPA has promulgated
national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS or ``standards'') for
certain pervasive air pollutants. The NAAQS are concentration levels
the attainment and maintenance of which EPA has determined to be
requisite to protect public health (i.e., the ``primary'' NAAQS) and
welfare (i.e., the ``secondary'' NAAQS). Under the CAA, states are
required to develop and submit plans, referred to as state
implementation plans (SIPs) to implement, maintain, and enforce the
NAAQS.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Under Arizona law, the Arizona Department of Environmental
Quality (ADEQ) is responsible for adopting and submitting the
Arizona SIP and SIP revisions. Within the Maricopa County portion of
the Phoenix-Mesa area, the Maricopa Association of Governments (MAG)
is responsible for developing regional ozone air quality plans.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ozone is one of the air pollutants for which the EPA has
established NAAQS.\2\ The original NAAQS for ozone was 0.12 parts per
million (ppm), 1-hour average (``1-hour ozone standard'').\3\ In 1997,
we revised the ozone NAAQS, setting it at 0.08 ppm averaged over an 8-
hour timeframe (referred to herein as the ``1997 8-hour ozone
standard'') (62 FR 33856, July 18, 1997), and in 2008, we lowered the
8-hour ozone standard to 0.075 ppm (``2008 8-hour ozone standard'') (73
FR 16436, March 27, 2008). The 1-hour ozone standard and the 1997 8-
hour ozone standard have now been revoked. See 69 FR 23951 (April 30,
2004) and 80 FR 12264 (March 6, 2015). Since publication of the direct
final rule, the EPA has lowered the ozone standard further, to a level
of 0.070 ppm, eight-hour average (``2015 8-hour ozone standard''). 80
FR 65292 (October 26, 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Ground-level ozone is an oxidant that is formed from
photochemical reactions in the atmosphere between volatile organic
compounds (VOC) and oxides of nitrogen (NOX) in the
presence of sunlight. These two pollutants, referred to as ozone
precursors, are emitted by many types of pollution sources including
on-road motor vehicles (cars, trucks, and buses), nonroad vehicles
and engines, power plants and industrial facilities, and smaller
area sources such as lawn and garden equipment and paints.
\3\ See 44 FR 8202 (February 8, 1979).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Under the CAA, the EPA is also responsible for designating areas of
the country as attainment, nonattainment, or unclassifiable for the
various NAAQS. We classified the ``Phoenix metropolitan area,'' defined
by the Maricopa Association of Governments' (MAGs') urban planning area
boundary (but later revised to exclude the Gila River Indian Community,
as a ``Moderate,'' and later ``Serious,'' nonattainment area for the 1-
hour ozone standard. We have designated a larger geographic area,
referred to as the ``Phoenix-Mesa'' area,\4\ as a ``Marginal''
nonattainment area for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard and 2008 8-hour
ozone standard. While we have redesignated the Phoenix metropolitan
area, and the Phoenix-Mesa area as ``attainment,'' for the 1-hour and
1997 8-hour ozone standards, respectively, the Phoenix-Mesa area
remains ``Marginal'' nonattainment for the 2008 ozone standard. More
recently, we proposed to reclassify the Phoenix-Mesa area as
``Moderate'' ozone nonattainment for the 2008 8-hour ozone standard
based on ambient data showing that the area did not attain the standard
by the applicable attainment date (i.e., July 20, 2015) for such areas.
80 FR 51992 (August 27, 2015). The EPA has not yet issued area
designations for the 2015 8-hour ozone standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ The Phoenix-Mesa 1997 8-hour ozone nonattainment area covers
a much larger portion of Maricopa County than the Phoenix
metropolitan 1-hour ozone area and also includes the Apache Junction
portion of Pinal County. The precise boundaries of the Phoenix-Mesa
1997 8-hour ozone nonattainment area and the Phoenix metropolitan 1-
hour ozone nonattainment are found in 40 CFR 81.303.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
States with ``nonattainment'' areas are required to submit
revisions to their SIPs that include a control strategy necessary to
demonstrate how the area will attain the NAAQS. As ``Moderate,'' and
later ``Serious,'' nonattainment for the 1-hour ozone standard, the
State of Arizona was required under CAA section 182(b)(3) to submit a
SIP revision that requires the use of ``Stage II'' vapor recovery
systems at gasoline dispensing facilities (GDFs) located within the
Phoenix metropolitan area.\5\
[[Page 70691]]
In response to this requirement, the State of Arizona promulgated and
submitted certain statutes and regulations that require use of Stage II
vapor recovery systems in the Phoenix metropolitan area, and later
extended the requirements to a larger geographic area referred to as
``Area A.'' \6\ The EPA approved the state's Stage-II-related statutes
and regulations as a revision to the Arizona SIP. See 59 FR 54521
(November 1, 1994) and 77 FR 35279 (June 13, 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Gasoline dispensing pump vapor control devices, commonly
referred to as ``Stage II'' vapor recovery, are systems that control
VOC vapor releases during the refueling of motor vehicles. This
process takes the vapors normally emitted directly into the
atmosphere when pumping gas and recycles them back into the
underground fuel storage tank, preventing them from polluting the
air.
\6\ ``Area A'' is defined in Arizona Revised Statutes (ARS)
section 49-541, and it includes all of the Phoenix metropolitan 1-
hour ozone nonattainment area plus additional areas in Maricopa
County to the north, east, and west, as well as small portions of
Yavapai County and Pinal County. Area A roughly approximates the
boundaries of the Phoenix-Mesa area designated by the EPA for the
1997 8-hour ozone standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The 1990 amended CAA anticipates that, over time, Stage II vapor
recovery requirements at GDFs would be replaced by ``onboard refueling
vapor recovery'' (ORVR) systems that the EPA was to establish for new
motor vehicles under CAA section 202(a)(6). ORVR consists of an
activated carbon canister installed in a motor vehicle. The carbon
canister captures gasoline vapors during refueling. There the vapors
are captured by the activated carbon in the canister. When the engine
is started, the vapors are drawn off of the activated carbon and into
the engine where they are burned as fuel. In 1994, the EPA promulgated
its ORVR standards,\7\ with a minimum 95% vapor capture efficiency,
which fully applied to all new light duty vehicles by 2000. The ORVR
requirements were phased in to apply to heavier classes of vehicles as
well--reaching full effect for all new vehicles with a gross vehicle
weight rating of up to 10,000 pounds by 2006.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ See 59 FR 16262 (April 6, 1994).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Recognizing that, over time, the number of vehicles with ORVR as a
percentage of the overall motor vehicle fleet would increase with the
turnover of older models not equipped with ORVR with newer models
equipped with ORVR, CAA section 202(a)(6) permits the EPA to promulgate
a determination that ORVR is in ``widespread use'' throughout the motor
vehicle fleet and to revise or waive Stage II vapor recovery
requirements for Serious, Severe and Extreme ozone nonattainment areas.
The EPA made the determination that ORVR systems are in ``widespread
use'' in the nation's motor vehicle fleet in 2012. 77 FR 28772, May 16,
2012; and 40 CFR 51.126. In the wake of the EPA's ``widespread use''
determination, states, such as Arizona, that were required to implement
Stage II vapor recovery programs under CAA section 182(b)(3) are now
permitted to remove the requirement from their SIPs under certain
circumstances.
On August 7, 2012, the EPA released its ``Guidance on Removing
Stage II Gasoline Vapor Control Programs from State Implementation
Plans and Assessing Comparable Measures'' \8\ (``Stage II Guidance'')
to aid in the development of SIP revisions to remove Stage II controls
from GDFs. The EPA's Stage II Guidance projects that, by 2015, over 84%
of all the gasoline dispensed in the nation will be dispensed to ORVR-
equipped motor vehicles.\9\ As such, Stage II and ORVR have become
largely redundant technologies, and Stage II control systems are
achieving an ever-declining emissions benefit as more ORVR-equipped
vehicle continue to enter the on-road motor vehicle fleet. In addition,
the EPA's Stage II Guidance recognizes that, in areas where certain
types of vacuum-assist Stage II control systems are used, the limited
compatibility between ORVR and some configurations of this Stage II
hardware may ultimately result in an area-wide emissions disbenefit.
The disbenefit can result when the Stage II controls pull air into the
underground tank instead of gasoline vapors when both vacuum-assist
Stage II controls and ORVR are active during refueling. This increases
the pressure in the underground tank and can cause venting of excess
emissions into the air. The Phoenix-Mesa ozone nonattainment area is an
area where the vast majority of Stage II systems that have been
installed use vacuum assist technologies.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ ``Guidance on Removing Stage II Gasoline Vapor Control
Programs from State Implementation Plans and Assessing Comparable
Measures,'' EPA Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, August
7, 2012.
\9\ See Table A-1 of the Stage II Guidance.
\10\ Table A-6 of the EPA's Stage II Guidance cites the
percentages of State/Area GDF using vacuum assist Stage II
technology. The listed percentage for the Phoenix-Mesa area is 85%.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In light of EPA's national ``widespread use'' determination
allowing states to revise their SIPs to remove Stage II vapor recovery
requirements and the potential for a disbenefit from continuation of
the Stage II vapor recovery program, MAG developed emissions estimates
based on information from the EPA's Stage II guidance and based on
Phoenix-area-specific motor vehicle fleet data to determine the impact
of continuation of the program and the impact of the phased removal of
Stage II vapor recovery in the Phoenix-Mesa area. The emissions
estimates demonstrated that the emissions reduction benefit from the
Stage II vapor recovery program would continue to provide marginal but
diminishing emissions reductions through 2017 and that the disbenefit
from continuation of the Stage II vapor recovery program would begin in
2018 and increase in the years thereafter. See table 1 on page 53005 of
the direct final rule.
In response to these findings, the Arizona Legislature adopted
changes in the specific statutory provisions establishing the Stage II
vapor recovery program to eliminate the requirement to install Stage II
equipment at new GDFs and to provide for a phased decommissioning
process to remove Stage II equipment at existing GDFs beginning in
October 2016 and ending in September 2018.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ Effective for State law purposes upon the Governor's
signature (i.e., on April 22, 2014), House Bill (HB) 2128 (in
relevant part) amends Arizona Revised Statutes (ARS) sections 41-
2131 (``Definitions''), 41-2132 (``Stage I vapor recovery
systems''), 41-2133 (``Compliance schedules''), and adds new section
41-2135 (``Stage II vapor recovery systems''). The new section ARS
41-2135 retains the existing Stage II control requirements for
existing GDFs and establishes a phased decommissioning process to
remove Stage II controls beginning October 1, 2016 and ending
September 30, 2018.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subsequent to legislative action, on September 2, 2014, ADEQ
submitted a SIP revision, titled ``MAG State Implementation Plan
Revision for the Removal of Stage II Vapor Recovery Controls in the
Maricopa Eight-Hour Ozone Nonattainment Area'' (``Stage II Vapor
Recovery SIP Revision'' or ``SIP Revision''), including the statutory
revisions and related emissions impact documentation.
After review of the SIP Revision, on September 2, 2015 (80 FR
53086), the EPA proposed approval based on the following conclusions:
ADEQ has met the procedural requirements for SIP revisions
under section 110(l);
Pursuant to the EPA's determination of ``widespread use''
(of ORVR systems in the motor vehicle fleet), states are allowed to
rescind Stage II vapor recovery control requirements in their SIPs if
doing so is consistent with the general SIP revision requirements of
CAA section 110(l) and section 193;
CAA section 193 does not apply to this particular SIP
revision because the Stage II vapor recovery controls were not in
effect prior to the 1990 CAA Amendments;
MAG's year-by-year estimates of areawide VOC emissions
with and
[[Page 70692]]
without the SIP Revision reflect reasonable methods and assumptions,
and provide a reasonable basis upon which to evaluate the ozone impacts
of the SIP Revision;
MAG's emissions estimates conclude that the temporary
emissions increases due to the SIP Revision (relative to the scenario
in which Stage II requirements remain fully implemented) will occur
during years 2014 through 2017 and will range from 0.015 metric tons
per day (mtpd) to 0.031 mtpd, and that beginning in 2018 and increasing
in magnitude thereafter, the SIP Revision will result in fewer VOC
emissions than would otherwise have occurred if Stage II requirements
were to remain fully implemented in the Phoenix-Mesa area (due to the
incompatibility of ORVR-equipped vehicles and vacuum-assist Stage II
technologies);
The temporary increases in VOC emissions during years 2014
through 2017 due to the SIP Revision would represent an approximate
0.002 percent to 0.005 percent increase in the overall VOC emissions
inventory in the Phoenix-Mesa area; \12\ and
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ The EPA-approved MAG Eight-Hour Ozone Maintenance Plan
anticipates VOC emissions between 653.9 mtpd (June ozone episode,
2005) and 659.0 mtpd (June ozone episode, 2015) during the relevant
period. See our proposed approval of the maintenance plan and
redesignation request at 79 FR 16734, at 16744 (March 26, 2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The SIP Revision would not interfere with reasonable
further progress or attainment of the ozone NAAQS for the purposes of
CAA section 110(l) because: (1) The increases in VOC emissions from
2014 through 2017 would have negligible impacts on ozone concentrations
in the area; (2) the schedule for the phase-out of Stage II controls
under the SIP Revision will maintain most of the emissions reductions
benefits associated with Stage II control through 2017; (3) the
scheduled phase-out will reduce the emissions increase (due to ORVR and
Stage II incompatibilities) that would otherwise be expected in 2018
but would not entirely avoid an emissions increase in that year because
some existing GDFs will not yet have removed Stage II controls by the
beginning of the 2018 ozone season; and (4) the phase-out of Stage II
controls by the end of the 2018 ozone season will support longer-term
regional efforts to attain or maintain the ozone standards in the
Phoenix-Mesa area.
For further information about the SIP Revision and our
corresponding evaluation, please see the direct final rule (80 FR
53001, September 2, 2015).
III. Public Comments and EPA Responses
In response to September 2, 2015 proposed rule, we received four
comments. In the following paragraphs, we provide our responses to
these comments.
Comment #1: While supportive of our proposed action, a commenter
suggests that the EPA eliminate the Arizona vehicle inspection and
maintenance (VEI) program as well.
Response #1: The State of Arizona's VEI program is an approved
element of the Arizona SIP. A state may submit revisions to its SIP,
but such revisions do not become effective until the EPA approves them
under section 110(k) of the CAA. No VEI SIP revision submittal is
pending at this time. If the State of Arizona were to submit a revision
to the SIP-approved VEI program, or rescission of the program, the EPA
is authorized to approve such a revision only if such revision were
consistent with all CAA requirements such as section 110(l), which
prohibits the EPA from approving a SIP revision if the revision would
interfere with any applicable requirement concerning reasonable further
progress towards, and attainment of, the NAAQS.
Comment #2: A commenter was not opposed to the removal of Stage II
vapor recovery equipment at GDFs so long as the fuel pump dispensing
nozzle is properly covered to capture vapors during refueling.
Response #2: We disagree that such covers are necessary to capture
vapors during refueling with ORVR-equipped motor vehicles. While Stage
II vapor recovery systems rely upon a rubber boot around the nozzle to
create a seal between the nozzle and the vehicle, ORVR prevents vapors
from escaping during refueling by employing a seal in the fill pipe. In
most instances, these seals are created by the incoming gasoline
backing slightly near the bottom of the fill pipe. When the engine is
started, the vapors are purged from the activated carbon canister and
into the engine where they are burned as fuel. See 77 FR 28772 at 28774
(May 16, 2012). Because ORVR uses a seal within the fill pipe of the
vehicle, a rubber boot or cover is not required to prevent vapors from
escaping during refueling.
Comment #3: A commenter objects to our proposal, and asks the EPA
to reconsider its proposed approval of the SIP revision, contending
that the revision will cause adverse effects particularly in the summer
months. This commenter also questions whether there would be any
benefit from the revision and asks the EPA to identify to whom the
revision applies.
Response #3: We recognize that the Stage II vapor recovery controls
have provided significant reductions of VOC emissions in the Phoenix-
Mesa area since they were implemented in the mid-1990s. These controls
have done so by taking the vapors normally emitted directly into the
atmosphere when pumping gas and recycling them back into the
underground fuel storage tank, preventing them from polluting the air.
However, as discussed in more detail in the direct final rule at 80 FR
53002 and 52003 (September 2, 2015), the 1990 amended CAA anticipated
that, over time, Stage II vapor recovery requirements at gasoline
stations would be replaced by ORVR systems installed on motor vehicles,
and authorized the EPA to revise or waive Stage II vapor recovery
requirements for ozone nonattainment areas, including such areas as the
Phoenix-Mesa area, once the EPA determines that ORVR is in ``widespread
use'' throughout the motor vehicle fleet. The EPA published its
``widespread use'' determination in 2012 at 77 FR 28772 (May 16, 2012),
and as a result, the Stage II vapor recovery controls are no longer
required in ozone nonattainment areas.
Moreover, as described further in our direct final rule at 53004,
with certain types of vacuum-assist Stage II control systems, the
limited compatibility between ORVR and some configurations of this
Stage II hardware may ultimately result in an area-wide emissions
disbenefit. This is because the Stage II controls pull air into the
underground tank instead of gasoline vapors when both vacuum-assist
Stage II control and ORVR are active during refueling, increasing the
pressure in the underground tank and causing venting of excess emission
into the air. The Phoenix-Mesa ozone nonattainament area is an area
where the vast majority of Stage II systems that have been installed
use vacuum assist technologies, and MAG has estimated that 2018 is the
first year in which the disbenefit from implementation of Stage II
controls would occur if Stage II control requirements were to remain in
place given the motor vehicle fleet in the Phoenix-Mesa area. The
disbenefit (i.e., the increase in emissions if Stage II control were to
be retained) grows quickly after that year as shown in table 1 of our
direct final rule at 53005.
Thus, from the perspective of summertime ozone conditions in the
Phoenix-Mesa area, the issue is not whether to remove the Stage II
vapor recovery equipment but when and how. The state has submitted a
SIP revision
[[Page 70693]]
that eliminates the requirement for installation of Stage II vapor
recovery equipment at new GDFs, and that establishes a phased
decommissioning process to remove Stage II controls at existing GDFs
over a two-year period beginning October 1, 2016 and ending September
30, 2018. As explained on page 53003 of the direct final rule, the two-
year period for decommissioning is based on the expectation of the
Arizona Department of Weights and Measures of the time necessary to
safely decommission Stage II controls at the over 1,000 existing GDFs
in the Phoenix-Mesa area. Decommissioning is expected to be spread
evenly over each of the 24 months from October 2016 through September
2018 and to occur for existing GDFs during the month when the annual
scheduled Stage II control test would have occurred.
We believe that the two-year decommissioning process established by
the state minimizes the temporary adverse effect of increased VOC
emissions (i.e., from foregone emissions reductions from elimination of
the Stage II requirement at new GDFs and the phase-out of Stage II
equipment at existing GDFs) while avoiding the longer-term adverse
impact due to the disbenefit associated with retaining the Stage II
vapor recovery controls. As noted on page 53005 of the direct final
rule, the temporary adverse effect during years 2014 through 2017 would
represent an approximate 0.002 percent to 0.005 percent increase in the
overall VOC emission inventory in the Phoenix-Mesa area. Based on the
small magnitude of this impact, its temporary nature, and the avoidance
of the long-term disbenefit, we have concluded that the SIP revision
would not interfere with attainment or maintenance of the ozone NAAQS
in the Phoenix-Mesa area.
Comment #4: A commenter objects to our proposal, stating that it
does not take into account those individuals who are chemically
sensitive to vapors and would be harmed if the SIP revision were to be
approved. This commenter also noted that there are communities where
most of the drivers operate older vehicles and that those living in
such areas would be at higher risk than those in areas where the
vehicle models are newer, and suggested that the EPA defer the approval
of the Stage II vapor recovery phase-out for a couple of years to allow
for a greater percentage of ORVR-equipped vehicles to replace the older
vehicles without ORVR.
Response #4: The commenter is correct that, in reviewing the Stage
II SIP Revision, the EPA did not take into account the particular
sensitivities of individuals to gasoline vapors or the percentage of
ORVR-equipped vehicles refueling at individual GDFs in the Phoenix-Mesa
area. Our role in a reviewing SIP revision is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. None of the applicable
CAA criteria calls for evaluating the sensitivities of individuals to
gasoline vapors nor do the criteria require a GDF-specific ORVR
evaluation.
Rather, as described on pages 53004 and 53004 of the direct final
rule, we evaluated the SIP revision for compliance with CAA section
110(l), which prohibits the EPA from approving a SIP revision if that
revision would interfere with any applicable requirement concerning
reasonable further progress towards, or attainment of, any of the
NAAQS, or any applicable requirement of the CAA. In this instance,
because the Stage II SIP revision would affect VOC emissions, and
because VOC is a precursor to ozone, we focused on ozone NAAQS impacts.
Ozone is a regional pollutant and thus our evaluation of the SIP
revision is appropriately based on area-wide VOC emissions estimates
and considers those emissions in the context of regional, not local,
ozone concentrations.
Lastly, deferral by the EPA of action on the Stage II SIP revision
is not appropriate because CAA section 110(k)(2) establishes a deadline
of at most 18 months from the date a SIP revision is submitted for the
EPA to take final action. Moreover, we have concluded that the two-year
decommissioning process established by the state would minimize the
temporary adverse impact on regional VOC emissions while avoiding the
longer term disbenefit associated with implementation of Stage II vapor
recovery controls at GDFs in the Phoenix-Mesa area. Deferral by the
state of the two-year decommissioning process would be less
advantageous from a regional ozone perspective because it would only
serve to lengthen the period in which the area would experience the
disbenefit from Stage II vapor recovery due to the increasing
percentage of motor vehicles with ORVR and accompanying
incompatibilities with the Stage II vapor recovery equipment.
IV. Final Action
Under CAA section 110(k) and for the reasons set forth in our
September 2, 2015 direct final rule and summarized above, the EPA is
taking final action to approve the Stage II Vapor Recovery SIP Revision
submitted by ADEQ on September 2, 2014 to provide for the phased
removal of ``Stage II'' vapor recovery equipment at GDFs in the
Phoenix-Mesa area. Specifically, the EPA is approving a SIP revision
that eliminates the requirement to install and operate such equipment
at new GDFs, and that provides for the phased removal of such equipment
at existing GDFs from October 2016 through September 2018.
The EPA is approving this SIP revision because Stage II vapor
recovery controls are no longer a SIP requirement under CAA section
182(b)(3) due to EPA's ``widespread use determination'' for ORVR.
Additionally, we are approving this SIP revision because the temporary
incremental increase in VOC emissions from 2014 through 2017 would not
interfere with reasonable further progress toward, or attainment of,
any of the NAAQS, and because this SIP revision avoids the longer-term
VOC emissions increases associated with continued implementation of
Stage II controls in the Phoenix-Mesa area. As part of this final
action, the EPA is approving the specific statutory provisions that
provide for the phase-out of Stage II controls in Area A, i.e.,
sections 5 through 8, and 10 through 12 of House Bill 2128, amending
ARS sections 41-2131, 41-2132, 41-2133 and adding section 41-2135.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ Approval of these statutory provisions as revisions to the
Arizona SIP supersedes the following existing SIP provisions in the
Arizona SIP: ARS section 41-2131, as approved at 77 FR 35279 (June
13, 2012); ARS section 41-2132, as approved at 77 FR 35279 (June 13,
2012); and ARS section 41-2133, as approved at 77 FR 35279 (June 13,
2012). As noted previously, ``Area A'' is roughly the same
geographic area as the Phoenix-Mesa 8-hour ozone nonattainment area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
V. Incorporation by Reference
In this rule, the EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes
incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR
51.5, the EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of certain
sections of House Bill 2128 amending various sections of the Arizona
Revised Statutes related to stage II vapor recovery systems in Area A,
effective April 22, 2014, as described in the amendments to 40 CFR part
52 set forth below. The EPA has made, and will continue to make, these
documents generally available electronically through
www.regulations.gov and/or in hard copy at the appropriate EPA office
(see the ADDRESSES section of this preamble for more information).
[[Page 70694]]
VI. 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 Clean Air Act.
Accordingly, this action merely approves 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 (Pub. L. 104-4);
does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the Clean Air Act; and
does not provide the EPA with the discretionary authority
to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or
environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible
methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian
reservation land or in any other area where the EPA or an Indian tribe
has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of
Indian country, this rule does not have tribal implications as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), nor
will it impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or
preempt tribal law.
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. The EPA will submit a report containing this action and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
Under section 307(b)(1) of the 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 January 15, 2016. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule
does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of
judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for
judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness
of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in
proceedings to enforce its requirements (see section 307(b)(2)).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Ozone, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.
Dated: October 28, 2015.
Jared Blumenfeld,
Regional Administrator, Region IX.
Chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended
as follows:
PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS
0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Subpart D--Arizona
0
2. Section 52.120 is amended by adding paragraph (c)(171) to read as
follows:
Sec. 52.120 Identification of plan.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(171) The following plan was submitted on September 2, 2014 by the
Governor's designee.
(i) Incorporation by reference.
(A) Arizona Department of Environmental Quality.
(1) House Bill 2128, effective April 22, 2014, excluding sections 1
through 4, and 9 (including the text that appears in all capital
letters and excluding the text that appears in strikethrough).
(ii) Additional materials.
(A) Arizona Department of Environmental Quality.
(1) MAG 2014 State Implementation Plan Revision for the Removal of
Stage II Vapor Recovery Controls in the Maricopa Eight-Hour Ozone
Nonattainment Area (August 2014), adopted by the Regional Council of
the Maricopa Association of Governments on August 27, 2014, excluding
appendix A, exhibit 2 (``Arizona Revised Statutes Listed in Table 1-
1'').
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2015-28909 Filed 11-13-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
