Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Maryland; Removal of Stage II Gasoline Vapor Recovery Program Requirements, 3369-3373 [2019-01882]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 29 / Tuesday, February 12, 2019 / Proposed Rules
direct costs on tribal governments or
preempt tribal law.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Intergovernmental
relations, Incorporation by reference,
Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate
matter, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Volatile organic
compounds.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Dated: December 21, 2018.
Mary S. Walker,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4.
[FR Doc. 2019–01863 Filed 2–11–19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R03–OAR–2018–0730; FRL–9989–
12—Region 3]
Approval and Promulgation of Air
Quality Implementation Plans;
Maryland; Removal of Stage II
Gasoline Vapor Recovery Program
Requirements
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve a
state implementation plan (SIP) revision
submitted by the State of Maryland.
This revision seeks to remove
requirements for gasoline vapor
recovery systems installed on gasoline
dispensers, the purpose of which are to
capture emissions from vehicle
refueling operations (otherwise known
as Stage II vapor recovery). Specifically,
this action would remove from the
approved SIP prior approved Stage II
requirements applicable to new gasoline
dispensing facilities (GDFs) and existing
GDF’s undergoing major modification.
GDF’s will have the choice whether to
install Stage II at new stations or
whether to decommission Stage II at
existing stations already equipped with
Stage II. Owners that elect to retain
existing Stage II equipment can do so,
but in doing must continue to test and
to maintain or replace existing
equipment. Maryland’s SIP revision
includes a demonstration that removal
of Stage II requirements is consistent
with the Clean Air Act (CAA) and meets
all relevant EPA guidance.
DATES: Written comments must be
received on or before March 14, 2019.
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:15 Feb 11, 2019
Jkt 247001
Submit your comments,
identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R03–
OAR–2018–0730 at https://
www.regulations.gov, or via email to
spielberger.susan@epa.gov. For
comments submitted at Regulations.gov,
follow the online instructions for
submitting comments. Once submitted,
comments cannot be edited or removed
from Regulations.gov. For either manner
of submission, EPA may publish any
comment received to its public docket.
Do not submit electronically any
information you consider to be
confidential business information (CBI)
or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Multimedia
submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be
accompanied by a written comment.
The written comment is considered the
official comment and should include
discussion of all points you wish to
make. EPA will generally not consider
comments or comment contents located
outside of the primary submission (i.e.
on the web, cloud, or other file sharing
system). For additional submission
methods, please contact the person
identified in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section. For the
full EPA public comment policy,
information about CBI or multimedia
submissions, and general guidance on
making effective comments, please visit
https://www2.epa.gov/dockets/
commenting-epa-dockets.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Brian Rehn, (215) 814–2176, or by email
at rehn.brian@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Throughout this document whenever
‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or ‘‘our’’ is used, we refer
to EPA. The following outline is
provided to aid in locating information
in this preamble.
ADDRESSES:
I. Background and Purpose
II. Summary of Maryland’s Stage II Vapor
Recovery Program and SIP Revision
III. EPA’s Evaluation of Maryland’s SIP
Revisions
IV. Proposed Action
V. Incorporation by Reference
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. Background and Purpose
On August 25, 2017, the Maryland
Department of the Environment (MDE)
submitted a revision to its SIP. This SIP
submittal consists of Maryland’s revised
Stage II requirement regulations, at
COMAR 26.11.24, Vapor Recovery at
Gasoline Dispensing Facilities, which
have been revised to allow the
decommissioning of existing Stage II
vapor recovery systems and which
allows newly constructed GDFs (or
those undergoing major modifications)
the option not to install Stage II
equipment. The SIP submittal also
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
3369
includes a demonstration that removal
of Stage II vapor recovery systems in
Maryland will not interfere with any
requirement concerning attainment or
reasonable progress of any National
Ambient Air Quality Standard
(NAAQS), or any other applicable
requirement of the CAA. Maryland’s SIP
demonstration is also intended to show
that removal of Stage II requirements is
consistent with all relevant EPA
guidance.
Stage II vapor recovery is an emission
control system that is installed on
gasoline dispensing equipment at GDFs
for the purpose of capturing fuel vapor
that would otherwise be released from
vehicle gas tanks into the atmosphere
during vehicle refueling. Stage II vapor
recovery systems installed on
dispensing equipment capture these
refueling emissions at the dispenser and
route the refueling vapors back to the
GDF’s underground storage tank,
preventing volatile organic compounds
(VOCs) that comprise these vapors from
escaping to the atmosphere.
Beginning in 1998, newly
manufactured gasoline-burning cars and
trucks have been equipped with onboard vapor recovery (ORVR) systems
that utilize carbon canisters installed
directly on the vehicle to capture
refueling vapors in the vehicle to be
later routed to the vehicle’s engine for
combustion during engine operation.
Stage II vapor recovery systems and
ORVR systems were initially both
required by the 1990 amendments to the
CAA. Section 182(b)(3) of the CAA
requires areas classified as moderate
and above ozone nonattainment to
implement Stage II vapor recovery
programs. Also, under CAA section
184(b)(2), states in the Northeast Ozone
Transport Region (OTR) are required to
implement Stage II or comparable
measures. CAA section 202(a)(6)
required EPA to promulgate regulations
for ORVR for light-duty cars and trucks
(passenger vehicles). EPA adopted these
requirements in a final action published
in the April 6, 1994 Federal Register (59
FR 16262 (hereafter referred to as the
ORVR rule). Upon the effective date of
that final rule, moderate ozone
nonattainment areas were no longer
subject to CAA section 182(b)(3) Stage II
vapor recovery requirements. Under the
ORVR rule, new passenger cars built in
model year 1998 and later were required
to be equipped with ORVR systems,
followed by model year 2001 and later
light-duty trucks. ORVR equipment has
been installed on nearly all new
gasoline-powered light-duty cars, light-
E:\FR\FM\12FEP1.SGM
12FEP1
3370
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 29 / Tuesday, February 12, 2019 / Proposed Rules
duty trucks, and heavy-duty vehicles
manufactured since 2006.1
During the phase-in of ORVR controls,
Stage II has provided VOC emission
reductions in ozone nonattainment
areas and in certain areas of the OTR.
Congress recognized that ORVR systems
and Stage II vapor recovery systems
would over time become largely
redundant technologies acting to
capture the same pollutants. Therefore,
Congress provided authority in the 1990
amendments to the CAA for EPA to
allow states to remove Stage II vapor
recovery programs from their SIPs upon
EPA making a finding that ORVR is in
‘‘widespread use.’’ EPA issued a
widespread use finding in a final rule
published in the May 16, 2012 Federal
Register (77 FR 28772), in which EPA
determined that ORVR was in
widespread use on a nationwide basis.
EPA estimated that as of the end of
2016, more than 88 percent of gasoline
refueling nationwide would occur with
ORVR-equipped vehicles.2 Thus, Stage
II vapor recovery programs have become
largely redundant control systems (for
ORVR-equipped vehicles) and as a
result, Stage II vapor recovery systems
achieve ever declining emissions
benefits as more ORVR-equipped
vehicles continue to enter the on-road
motor vehicle fleet.3 In areas where
certain types of vacuum-assist Stage II
vapor recovery systems are used, the
interaction between ORVR systems and
certain configurations of Stage II vapor
recovery systems results in the
reduction of overall control system
efficiency in capturing VOC refueling
emissions compared to what would
otherwise be achieved by ORVR or Stage
II acting in the absence of the other. In
its May 16, 2012 widespread use
rulemaking, EPA also exercised its
authority under CAA section 202(a)(6)
to waive certain federal statutory
requirements for Stage II vapor recovery
systems at GDFs, which among other
things, exempted all new ozone
nonattainment areas classified serious
or above from the requirement to adopt
Stage II vapor recovery programs.
Finally, EPA’s May 16, 2012 rulemaking
also noted that any state currently
implementing Stage II vapor recovery
program may submit SIP revisions that
1 EPA Guidance on Removing Stage II Gasoline
Vapor Control Programs from State Implementation
Plans and Assessing Comparable Measures, August
7, 2012, Table A–1.
2 EPA Guidance on Removing Stage II Gasoline
Vapor Control Programs from State Implementation
Plans and Assessing Comparable Measures, Table
A–1, August 7, 2012.
3 EPA Guidance on Removing Stage II Gasoline
Vapor Control Programs from State Implementation
Plans and Assessing Comparable Measures, p.1.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:15 Feb 11, 2019
Jkt 247001
would allow for the phase-out of Stage
II vapor recovery systems.
II. Summary of Maryland’s Stage II
Vapor Recovery Program and SIP
Revisions
The Maryland portion of the
Philadelphia-Wilmington-Trenton, PA–
NJ–DE–MD metropolitan area (hereafter
referred to as the Maryland portion of
the Philadelphia area or the
Philadelphia area) and the Baltimore,
MD metropolitan area were designated
by the CAA as severe nonattainment for
the 1979 1-hour ozone NAAQS.4 At the
same time, the Maryland portion of the
Washington, DC–MD–VA metropolitan
area (hereafter referred to as the
Maryland portion of the Washington
area, or the Washington area) was
designated as serious nonattainment
under the 1-hour ozone NAAQS. As a
result, Maryland adopted Stage II vapor
recovery regulations (COMAR 26.11.24)
for the Maryland portion of the
Washington area, the Maryland portion
of the Philadelphia area, and for the
Baltimore, MD area on January 18, 1993
(Maryland Register, February 5, 1993,
Vol. 20, Issue 3). Maryland submitted a
revision to EPA on January 18, 1993 to
request the addition of Maryland Stage
II requirements to the Maryland SIP,
which EPA approved in a final action
published in the June 9, 1994 Federal
Register (59 FR 29730). Maryland
submitted a revised version of this
regulation to EPA as a SIP revision on
May 23, 2002, which EPA approved in
a final action published in the May 7,
2003 Federal Register (68 FR 24363).
Maryland further amended its Stage II
regulation on January 26, 2005, and EPA
approved that revised rule as a revision
to the Maryland SIP in a final rule
published in the May 8, 2006 Federal
Register (71 FR 26688).
Maryland was also required to adopt
Stage II, or comparable measures, on a
statewide basis under the Stage II OTR
provisions of CAA section 184(b)(2).
Maryland submitted a comparable
measures demonstration to satisfy the
Stage II comparability requirement to
EPA on November 5, 1997. EPA
approved Maryland’s November 1997
Stage II comparability SIP in a final rule
published in the December 9, 1998
Federal Register (63 FR 67780).
Maryland’s OTR Stage II comparability
demonstration relied on five area source
VOC control rules as comparable
measures to Stage II.
On August 25, 2017, Maryland
submitted a SIP revision to EPA
consisting of revised Stage II
requirements (COMAR26.11.24)
4 40
PO 00000
CFR 81–321, effective November 15, 1990.
Frm 00027
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
adopted by MDE on November 2, 2015
(state effective November 23, 2015),
along with a demonstration of the
emission impacts of removal of the
Stage II requirements on affected
Maryland areas. The revised rule
removes the requirements for new Stage
II vapor recovery systems in Maryland
Stage II areas, while allowing GDFs with
installed Stage II systems the option to
decommission their equipment or to
retain it. Maryland’s revised Stage II
vapor recovery requirements rule
incorporates by reference requirements
and procedures for stations opting to
decommission Stage II vapor recovery
equipment, based on Section 14 of the
Petroleum Equipment Institute’s
Recommended Practices for Installation
and Testing of Vapor Recovery Systems
at Vehicle-Fueling Sites, 2009 edition,
PEI/RP300–09.
Under Maryland’s revised rule, GDFs
opting to continue to operate Stage II
vapor recovery equipment, as well as
those opting to decommission Stage II
vapor recovery equipment, are subject to
continued testing requirements (at
specified intervals) and recordkeeping
and reporting requirements related to
testing. Maryland’s revised rule
incorporates by reference several test
methods applicable to GDFs that opt to
decommission or to continue to operate
Stage II vapor recovery systems (Leak
Rate and Cracking Pressure of Pressure/
Vacuum Valves, TP–201.1E, California
EPA Air Resources Board) and
(Determination of Vapor Piping
Connections to Underground Gasoline
Storage Tanks (Tie-Tank Test), TP–
201.3C, California EPA Air Resources
Board). For GDFs opting to continue
Stage II operation (in addition to prior
Stage II test requirements), new tests are
added to include a periodic leak rate
and cracking pressure test (per TP–
201.1E), as well as a tie tank test (per
TP–201.3C). GDFs opting to
decommission will be subject only to
the newly added periodic leak rate and
cracking pressure test (TP–201.1E) and
the tie tank test (TP–201.3C). Copies of
test results must be forwarded to MDE
within 30 days of the test.
The August 25, 2017 SIP revision also
includes a demonstration supporting the
discontinuation of the Maryland Stage II
vapor recovery program. This
demonstration, discussed in greater
detail below, consists of an analysis that
after the year 2016, the overall
emissions benefits associated with the
Stage II program (operated in
conjunction with ORVR) are
overwhelmed by an emissions
disbenefit caused by an ORVR
incompatibility with certain vacuumassist type Stage II equipment. MDE’s
E:\FR\FM\12FEP1.SGM
12FEP1
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 29 / Tuesday, February 12, 2019 / Proposed Rules
analysis shows that continued operation
of the Stage II vapor recovery program
beyond 2016 actually increases VOC
emissions due to the incompatibility
between certain Stage II and ORVR
equipment, coupled with the increasing
prevalence of ORVR-equipped vehicles.
While Maryland is not requiring every
Stage II-equipped GDF to decommission
their equipment, it is assumed a
majority of existing stations will do so
upon the removal of state and federal
Stage II mandates. Even if all stations do
no decommission their equipment (or
delay doing so), overall emission
benefits will be improved by the shift to
primarily ORVR use in current Stage II
subject areas.
III. EPA’s Evaluation of Maryland’s SIP
Revision
EPA has reviewed Maryland’s revised
COMAR 26.11.24, Vapor Recovery at
Gasoline Dispensing Facilities, and
accompanying SIP narrative, and has
concluded that Maryland’s August 25,
2017 SIP revision is consistent with
EPA’s widespread use rule (77 FR
28772, May 16, 2012) and with EPA’s
‘‘Guidance on Removing Stage II
Gasoline Vapor Control Programs from
State Implementation Plan and
Assessing Comparable Measures’’ (EPA–
457/B–12–001; August 7, 2012),
hereafter referred to as EPA’s Stage II
Removal Guidance.
Maryland’s August 25, 2017 SIP
revision includes a demonstration
supporting the discontinuation of the
Maryland Stage II vapor recovery
program, in compliance with the
requirements of the CAA sections 110(l)
requirement that revision of the SIP will
not interfere with attainment of or
reasonable further progress towards
3371
attainment of any NAAQS or any other
applicable CAA requirement. This
demonstration was prepared by MDE
based on relevant equations provided in
EPA’s Stage II Removal Guidance. From
this analysis, Maryland determined that
by 2016 the emissions benefits from the
Stage II vapor recovery program (in
conjunction with ORVR) will be
overwhelmed by the emission
disbenefits stemming from an
incompatibility between certain Stage II
vacuum-assist based systems and ORVR.
Beyond 2016, the continuation of Stage
II vapor recovery requirements would
increase emissions in the Maryland
portions of all analyzed areas, as
summarized in Table 1. Based on this
analysis, Maryland elected to allow
decommissioning of Stage II vapor
recovery systems beginning in October
2016.
TABLE 1—STAGE II VOC REDUCTIONS FOR MARYLAND OZONE NONATTAINMENT COUNTIES/AREAS
[In metric tons per day]
County
Anne Arundel ...............
Baltimore ......................
Calvert ..........................
Carroll ...........................
Cecil .............................
Charles .........................
Frederick ......................
Harford .........................
Howard .........................
Montgomery .................
Prince George’s ...........
Baltimore City ...............
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
0.07
0.09
0.01
0.02
0.04
0.02
0.05
0.03
0.04
0.11
0.13
0.03
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.00
0.02
0.01
0.02
0.01
0.00
0.03
0.04
0.00
¥0.03
¥0.05
¥0.00
¥0.01
0.01
0.00
¥0.01
¥0.01
¥0.02
¥0.03
¥0.04
¥0.03
¥0.07
¥0.09
¥0.01
¥0.02
0.00
¥0.01
¥0.03
¥0.03
¥0.05
¥0.08
¥0.09
¥0.05
¥0.09
¥0.13
¥0.01
¥0.02
¥0.01
¥0.02
¥0.04
¥0.04
¥0.06
¥0.12
¥0.13
¥0.06
¥0.11
¥0.15
¥0.01
¥0.03
¥0.01
¥0.03
¥0.05
¥0.05
¥0.08
¥0.15
¥0.16
¥0.07
¥0.12
¥0.17
¥0.02
¥0.03
¥0.02
¥0.03
¥0.06
¥0.05
¥0.08
¥0.17
¥0.18
¥0.08
0.28
0.04
¥0.15
¥0.30
¥0.41
¥0.48
¥0.54
Baltimore Area
Total ..................
Maryland Portion of
Washington Area
Total ..................
Maryland Portion of
Philadelphia
Area Total ..........
0.33
0.10
¥0.08
¥0.22
¥0.33
¥0.40
¥0.46
0.04
0.02
0.01
0.00
¥0.01
¥0.01
¥0.02
Stage II Area
Total ...........
0.65
0.17
¥0.22
¥0.52
¥0.74
¥0.90
¥1.01
In evaluating whether a given SIP
revision would interfere with
attainment of a NAAQS, EPA generally
considers whether the SIP revision will
allow for an increase in actual emission
into the air over what is allowed under
the existing EPA-approved SIP. EPA has
not required that states produce a new
complete attainment demonstration for
every SIP revision, provided that the
status quo air quality is preserved. See
e.g., Kentucky Resources Council, Inc. v.
EPA, 467 F.3d 986 (6th Cir. 2006).5 EPA
believes that a planned Stage II
decommissioning that is shown not to
result in an increase in areawide VOC
emissions would be consistent with the
conditions of CAA section 110(l), and
would not jeopardize attainment or
maintenance of an area that formerly
relied upon Stage II emission reductions
in the approved SIP. Maryland has
demonstrated that Stage II vapor
recovery will no longer provide
emission reductions when compared to
ORVR without Stage II vapor recovery
5 EPA Guidance on Removing Stage II Gasoline
Vapor Control Programs from State Implementation
Plans and Assessing Comparable Measures, August
7, 2012, Section 2.2.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:15 Feb 11, 2019
Jkt 247001
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
in all Maryland ozone nonattainment
areas. Since 2016, Stage II vapor
recovery (operated in conjunction with
ORVR) has been shown by Maryland to
result in increased VOC emissions in
Maryland’s three ozone nonattainment
areas—due to incompatibilities between
certain types of Stage II equipment and
vehicle ORVR systems. Therefore, EPA
believes discontinuance of Stage II in
Maryland’s three ozone nonattainment
areas will not interfere with those areas’
ability to attain or maintain the NAAQS,
or to provide reasonable further progress
in meeting the NAAQS.
E:\FR\FM\12FEP1.SGM
12FEP1
3372
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 29 / Tuesday, February 12, 2019 / Proposed Rules
States in the OTR defined by the CAA
remain obligated under CAA section
184(b)(2) to implement (on a statewide
basis) either a Stage II vapor recovery
program, or other measures capable of
achieving emission reductions
‘‘comparable to those achievable’’ by
Stage II vapor recovery. EPA issued
guidance on this OTR comparability
demonstration in 1995 and later
updated that guidance as part of its
August 2012 Stage II Removal
Guidance—in light of the decreasing
role of Stage II as a means of controlling
refueling emissions and the increasing
prominence of ORVR-equipped
vehicles.
Maryland submitted a comparable
measures SIP revision to EPA on
November 5, 1997 demonstrating that
control measures already implemented
in those counties in Maryland not
subject to Stage II vapor recovery under
CAA section 182(b)(3) achieved
comparable emission reductions to
Stage II vapor recovery. Maryland’s
chosen Stage II comparable measures
included non-point, or area source,
controls on: Cold and vapor degreasing
operations, lithographic printing, screen
printing, expandable polystyrene
operations, and vehicle refinishing. To
address areas in Maryland subject to
Stage II or a comparable measure (as a
result of the CAA section 184
requirements specific to OTR states),
EPA approved Maryland’s November
1997 Stage II comparability SIP for
attainment and marginal ozone
nonattainment counties in a final action
published in the December 9, 1998
Federal Register (63 FR 67780).
Maryland is not required to further
demonstrate Stage II comparability for
those counties as that action remains in
effect.
However, Maryland is required to
newly demonstrate Stage II
comparability for the Philadelphia,
Baltimore, and Washington areas—
where Stage II vapor recovery was
previously mandated by CAA section
182(b)(3) prior to EPA’s issuance of its
ORVR ‘‘widespread use’’ determination.
The 110(l) demonstration in Maryland’s
August 25, 2017 SIP revision shows that
Stage II no longer yields VOC emissions
benefits in these three nonattainment
areas after 2016, when operated in
conjunction with ORVR. Therefore,
since Stage II provides no additional
benefits beyond ORVR (and results in
increases in VOC emissions beyond
2016) in these three nonattainment
areas, EPA believes that removal of
Stage II after 2016 satisfies the Stage II
comparability requirement of section
184 for these three ozone nonattainment
areas.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:15 Feb 11, 2019
Jkt 247001
In addition to the CAA section 182
and 184 requirements applicable to
Stage II vapor recovery, CAA section
193 prohibits modification of any
control requirement in effect before
enactment of the CAA of 1990 (i.e.,
November 15, 1990) in a current
nonattainment area—unless
modification ‘‘ensures equivalent or
greater emission reductions.’’ Therefore,
a Stage II vapor recovery control
program implemented under a SIP prior
to November 1990 may not be removed
from the SIP until another requirement
is shown to achieve equal or greater
emissions reductions than Stage II vapor
recovery. Maryland did not have a Stage
II program prior to November 15, 1990,
so Stage II was not a part of the
Maryland SIP prior to that date.
Therefore, this ‘‘general savings clause’’
requirement of CAA section 193 does
not apply to Maryland or to this action.
IV. Proposed Action
EPA is proposing to approve
Maryland’s August 25, 2017 SIP
revision for statewide removal of Stage
II vapor recovery requirements.
Specifically, EPA is proposing to
approve Maryland’s revised COMAR
26.11.24, Vapor Recovery at Gasoline
Dispensing Facilities, and incorporate it
into the Maryland SIP. EPA is proposing
to approve this SIP revision because it
meets all applicable requirements of the
Clean Air Act and relevant EPA
guidance and because approval of this
SIP revision will not interfere with
attainment or maintenance of the ozone
NAAQS.
EPA is soliciting public comments on
the issues discussed in this notice or
other relevant matters. These comments
will be considered before taking final
action.
V. Incorporation by Reference
In this proposed rule, EPA proposes
to include in our subsequent final EPA
rule regulatory text that includes
incorporation by reference. In
accordance with requirements of 1 CFR
51.5, EPA is proposing to incorporate by
reference the State of Maryland’s
revised COMAR 26.11.24 Vapor
Recovery at Gasoline Dispensing
Facilities (effective date November 23,
2015), which includes amendments to
Regulations .01, .01–1, .02, .03, .03–1,
.04, and .07 and the addition of
Regulation .03–1. EPA has made, and
will continue to make, these materials
generally available through https://
www.regulations.gov and at the EPA
Region III Office (please contact the
person identified in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section of this
preamble for more information).
PO 00000
Frm 00029
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
VI. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
Under the CAA, the Administrator is
required to approve a SIP submission
that complies with the provisions of the
CAA and applicable federal regulations.
42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions,
EPA’s role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of
the CAA. Accordingly, this action
merely approves state law as meeting
federal requirements and does not
impose additional requirements beyond
those imposed by state law. For that
reason, this proposed action:
• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory
action’’ subject to review by the Office
of Management and Budget under
Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735,
October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821,
January 21, 2011);
• Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82
FR 9339, February 2, 2017) regulatory
action because SIP approvals are
exempted under Executive Order 12866.
• 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 proposed rule to
remove Maryland Stage II vapor
recovery requirements does not have
tribal implications as specified by
E:\FR\FM\12FEP1.SGM
12FEP1
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 29 / Tuesday, February 12, 2019 / Proposed Rules
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 28, 2018.
Cecil Rodrigues,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region III.
[FR Doc. 2019–01882 Filed 2–11–19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R08–OAR–2018–0353: FRL–9988–
98—Region 8]
Clean Data Determination; Provo, Utah
2006 Fine Particulate Matter Standards
Nonattainment Area
Environmental Protection
Agency.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is proposing to make a
clean data determination (CDD) for the
2006 24-hour fine particulate matter
(PM2.5) Provo, Utah (UT) nonattainment
area (NAA). The proposed
determination is based upon qualityassured, quality-controlled, and
certified ambient air monitoring data for
the period 2015–2017, available in the
EPA’s Air Quality System (AQS)
database, showing the area has
monitored attainment of the 2006 24hour PM2.5 National Ambient Air
Quality Standards (NAAQS). Based on
our proposed determination that the
Provo, UT NAA is currently attaining
the 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS, the EPA is
also proposing to determine that the
obligation for Utah to make submissions
to meet certain Clean Air Act (CAA or
the Act) requirements related to
attainment of the NAAQS for this area
is not applicable for as long as the area
continues to attain the NAAQS.
DATES: Comments must be received on
or before March 14, 2019.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R08–
OAR–2018–0353 at https://
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:15 Feb 11, 2019
Jkt 247001
www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments.
Once submitted, comments cannot be
edited or removed from
www.regulations.gov. The EPA may
publish any comment received to its
public docket. Do not submit
electronically any information you
consider to be Confidential Business
Information (CBI) or other information
the disclosure of which is restricted by
statute. Multimedia submissions (audio,
video, etc.) must be accompanied by a
written comment. The written comment
is considered the official comment and
should include discussion of all points
you wish to make. The EPA will
generally not consider comments or
comment contents located outside of the
primary submission (i.e., on the web,
cloud, or other file sharing system). For
additional submission methods, the full
EPA public comment policy,
information about CBI or multimedia
submissions, and general guidance on
making effective comments, please visit
https://www.epa.gov/dockets/
commenting-epa-dockets.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Crystal Ostigaard, Air Program, U.S.
EPA, Region 8, Mailcode 8P–AR, 1595
Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado
80202–1129, (303) 312–6602,
ostigaard.crystal@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Throughout this document, wherever
‘‘we’’, ‘‘us’’ or ‘‘our’’ is used, it is
intended to refer to the EPA.
I. Background
On October 17, 2006 (71 FR 61144),
the EPA revised the level of the 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS, lowering the primary
and secondary standards from the 1997
standard of 65 micrograms per cubic
meter (mg/m3) to 35 mg/m3. The EPA
retained the form of the 1997 24-hour
standard, that is, the 98th percentile of
the annual 24-hour concentrations at
each population-oriented monitor
within an area, averaged over 3 years.
See 71 FR 61164–5 (October 17, 2006).
On November 13, 2009 (74 FR 58688),
the EPA designated a number of areas as
nonattainment for the 24-hour PM2.5
NAAQS of 35 mg/m3, including the
Provo, UT NAA. The EPA originally
designated these areas under the general
provisions of CAA title I, part D, subpart
1 (‘‘subpart 1’’), under which attainment
plans must provide for the attainment of
a specific NAAQS (in this case, the 2006
PM2.5 standards) as expeditiously as
practicable, but no later than 5 years
from the date the areas were designated
nonattainment.
Subsequently, on January 4, 2013, the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of
PO 00000
Frm 00030
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
3373
Columbia Circuit held in NRDC v. EPA 1
that the EPA should have implemented
the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 standard based
on both the general NAA requirements
in subpart 1 and the PM-specific
requirements of CAA title I, part D,
subpart 4 (‘‘subpart 4’’). In response to
the Court’s decision in NRDC v. EPA, on
June 2, 2014 (79 FR 31566), the EPA
finalized the ‘‘Identification of
Nonattainment Classification and
Deadlines for Submission of State
Implementation Plan (SIP) Provisions
for the 1997 Fine Particulate (PM2.5)
NAAQS and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS.’’ This
rule classified the areas that were
designated in 2009 as nonattainment to
Moderate and set the attainment SIP
submittal due date for those areas at
December 31, 2014. After the court’s
decision and the EPA’s June 2, 2014
rule, on December 16, 2014 the Utah
Division of Air Quality (UDAQ)
withdrew all prior Provo, UT PM2.5 SIP
submissions and submitted a new SIP to
address both the general requirements of
subpart 1 and the PM-specific
requirements of subpart 4 for Moderate
areas.
On August 24, 2016, the EPA
finalized the Fine Particulate Matter
National Ambient Air Quality
Standards: State Implementation Plan
Requirements (‘‘PM2.5 SIP Requirements
Rule’’), 81 FR 58010, which addressed
the January 4, 2013, court ruling. The
final PM2.5 SIP Requirements Rule
provides the EPA’s interpretation of the
requirements applicable to PM2.5 NAAs
and explains how air agencies can meet
the statutory SIP requirements that
apply under subparts 1 and 4 to areas
designated nonattainment for any PM2.5
NAAQS.
The EPA has previously acted on
portions of Utah’s Moderate area
attainment plan for the Provo, UT NAA.
Specifically, we approved certain area
source rules and related reasonably
available control measure (RACM)
analyses on February 25, 2016 (81 FR
9343), October 19, 2016 (81 FR 71988)
and September 14, 2017 (82 FR 43205).
We have not disapproved any portions
of the plan; as a result, the clocks for
sanctions under 179(a) and for a Federal
Implementation Plan (FIP) under 110(c)
are not in effect for the Provo, UT NAA.
Finally, on May 10, 2017 (82 FR
21711), the EPA determined that the
Provo, UT NAA failed to attain the 2006
24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS by the Moderate
attainment date of December 31, 2015.
With this determination, the Provo, UT
NAA was reclassified as a ‘‘Serious’’
area for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS,
with a new attainment date of December
1 706
E:\FR\FM\12FEP1.SGM
F.3d 428 (D.C. Cir. 2013).
12FEP1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 29 (Tuesday, February 12, 2019)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 3369-3373]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2019-01882]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R03-OAR-2018-0730; FRL-9989-12--Region 3]
Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Maryland; Removal of Stage II Gasoline Vapor Recovery Program
Requirements
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve a state implementation plan (SIP) revision submitted by the
State of Maryland. This revision seeks to remove requirements for
gasoline vapor recovery systems installed on gasoline dispensers, the
purpose of which are to capture emissions from vehicle refueling
operations (otherwise known as Stage II vapor recovery). Specifically,
this action would remove from the approved SIP prior approved Stage II
requirements applicable to new gasoline dispensing facilities (GDFs)
and existing GDF's undergoing major modification. GDF's will have the
choice whether to install Stage II at new stations or whether to
decommission Stage II at existing stations already equipped with Stage
II. Owners that elect to retain existing Stage II equipment can do so,
but in doing must continue to test and to maintain or replace existing
equipment. Maryland's SIP revision includes a demonstration that
removal of Stage II requirements is consistent with the Clean Air Act
(CAA) and meets all relevant EPA guidance.
DATES: Written comments must be received on or before March 14, 2019.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R03-
OAR-2018-0730 at https://www.regulations.gov, or via email to
spielberger.susan@epa.gov. For comments submitted at Regulations.gov,
follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted,
comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. For either
manner of submission, EPA may publish any comment received to its
public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you
consider to be confidential business information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia
submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written
comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and
should include discussion of all points you wish to make. EPA will
generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of
the primary submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or other file sharing
system). For additional submission methods, please contact the person
identified in the For Further Information Contact section. For the full
EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia
submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please
visit https://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Brian Rehn, (215) 814-2176, or by
email at rehn.brian@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Throughout this document whenever ``we,'' ``us,'' or ``our'' is
used, we refer to EPA. The following outline is provided to aid in
locating information in this preamble.
I. Background and Purpose
II. Summary of Maryland's Stage II Vapor Recovery Program and SIP
Revision
III. EPA's Evaluation of Maryland's SIP Revisions
IV. Proposed Action
V. Incorporation by Reference
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. Background and Purpose
On August 25, 2017, the Maryland Department of the Environment
(MDE) submitted a revision to its SIP. This SIP submittal consists of
Maryland's revised Stage II requirement regulations, at COMAR 26.11.24,
Vapor Recovery at Gasoline Dispensing Facilities, which have been
revised to allow the decommissioning of existing Stage II vapor
recovery systems and which allows newly constructed GDFs (or those
undergoing major modifications) the option not to install Stage II
equipment. The SIP submittal also includes a demonstration that removal
of Stage II vapor recovery systems in Maryland will not interfere with
any requirement concerning attainment or reasonable progress of any
National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS), or any other applicable
requirement of the CAA. Maryland's SIP demonstration is also intended
to show that removal of Stage II requirements is consistent with all
relevant EPA guidance.
Stage II vapor recovery is an emission control system that is
installed on gasoline dispensing equipment at GDFs for the purpose of
capturing fuel vapor that would otherwise be released from vehicle gas
tanks into the atmosphere during vehicle refueling. Stage II vapor
recovery systems installed on dispensing equipment capture these
refueling emissions at the dispenser and route the refueling vapors
back to the GDF's underground storage tank, preventing volatile organic
compounds (VOCs) that comprise these vapors from escaping to the
atmosphere.
Beginning in 1998, newly manufactured gasoline-burning cars and
trucks have been equipped with on-board vapor recovery (ORVR) systems
that utilize carbon canisters installed directly on the vehicle to
capture refueling vapors in the vehicle to be later routed to the
vehicle's engine for combustion during engine operation.
Stage II vapor recovery systems and ORVR systems were initially
both required by the 1990 amendments to the CAA. Section 182(b)(3) of
the CAA requires areas classified as moderate and above ozone
nonattainment to implement Stage II vapor recovery programs. Also,
under CAA section 184(b)(2), states in the Northeast Ozone Transport
Region (OTR) are required to implement Stage II or comparable measures.
CAA section 202(a)(6) required EPA to promulgate regulations for ORVR
for light-duty cars and trucks (passenger vehicles). EPA adopted these
requirements in a final action published in the April 6, 1994 Federal
Register (59 FR 16262 (hereafter referred to as the ORVR rule). Upon
the effective date of that final rule, moderate ozone nonattainment
areas were no longer subject to CAA section 182(b)(3) Stage II vapor
recovery requirements. Under the ORVR rule, new passenger cars built in
model year 1998 and later were required to be equipped with ORVR
systems, followed by model year 2001 and later light-duty trucks. ORVR
equipment has been installed on nearly all new gasoline-powered light-
duty cars, light-
[[Page 3370]]
duty trucks, and heavy-duty vehicles manufactured since 2006.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ EPA Guidance on Removing Stage II Gasoline Vapor Control
Programs from State Implementation Plans and Assessing Comparable
Measures, August 7, 2012, Table A-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
During the phase-in of ORVR controls, Stage II has provided VOC
emission reductions in ozone nonattainment areas and in certain areas
of the OTR. Congress recognized that ORVR systems and Stage II vapor
recovery systems would over time become largely redundant technologies
acting to capture the same pollutants. Therefore, Congress provided
authority in the 1990 amendments to the CAA for EPA to allow states to
remove Stage II vapor recovery programs from their SIPs upon EPA making
a finding that ORVR is in ``widespread use.'' EPA issued a widespread
use finding in a final rule published in the May 16, 2012 Federal
Register (77 FR 28772), in which EPA determined that ORVR was in
widespread use on a nationwide basis. EPA estimated that as of the end
of 2016, more than 88 percent of gasoline refueling nationwide would
occur with ORVR-equipped vehicles.\2\ Thus, Stage II vapor recovery
programs have become largely redundant control systems (for ORVR-
equipped vehicles) and as a result, Stage II vapor recovery systems
achieve ever declining emissions benefits as more ORVR-equipped
vehicles continue to enter the on-road motor vehicle fleet.\3\ In areas
where certain types of vacuum-assist Stage II vapor recovery systems
are used, the interaction between ORVR systems and certain
configurations of Stage II vapor recovery systems results in the
reduction of overall control system efficiency in capturing VOC
refueling emissions compared to what would otherwise be achieved by
ORVR or Stage II acting in the absence of the other. In its May 16,
2012 widespread use rulemaking, EPA also exercised its authority under
CAA section 202(a)(6) to waive certain federal statutory requirements
for Stage II vapor recovery systems at GDFs, which among other things,
exempted all new ozone nonattainment areas classified serious or above
from the requirement to adopt Stage II vapor recovery programs.
Finally, EPA's May 16, 2012 rulemaking also noted that any state
currently implementing Stage II vapor recovery program may submit SIP
revisions that would allow for the phase-out of Stage II vapor recovery
systems.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ EPA Guidance on Removing Stage II Gasoline Vapor Control
Programs from State Implementation Plans and Assessing Comparable
Measures, Table A-1, August 7, 2012.
\3\ EPA Guidance on Removing Stage II Gasoline Vapor Control
Programs from State Implementation Plans and Assessing Comparable
Measures, p.1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. Summary of Maryland's Stage II Vapor Recovery Program and SIP
Revisions
The Maryland portion of the Philadelphia-Wilmington-Trenton, PA-NJ-
DE-MD metropolitan area (hereafter referred to as the Maryland portion
of the Philadelphia area or the Philadelphia area) and the Baltimore,
MD metropolitan area were designated by the CAA as severe nonattainment
for the 1979 1-hour ozone NAAQS.\4\ At the same time, the Maryland
portion of the Washington, DC-MD-VA metropolitan area (hereafter
referred to as the Maryland portion of the Washington area, or the
Washington area) was designated as serious nonattainment under the 1-
hour ozone NAAQS. As a result, Maryland adopted Stage II vapor recovery
regulations (COMAR 26.11.24) for the Maryland portion of the Washington
area, the Maryland portion of the Philadelphia area, and for the
Baltimore, MD area on January 18, 1993 (Maryland Register, February 5,
1993, Vol. 20, Issue 3). Maryland submitted a revision to EPA on
January 18, 1993 to request the addition of Maryland Stage II
requirements to the Maryland SIP, which EPA approved in a final action
published in the June 9, 1994 Federal Register (59 FR 29730). Maryland
submitted a revised version of this regulation to EPA as a SIP revision
on May 23, 2002, which EPA approved in a final action published in the
May 7, 2003 Federal Register (68 FR 24363). Maryland further amended
its Stage II regulation on January 26, 2005, and EPA approved that
revised rule as a revision to the Maryland SIP in a final rule
published in the May 8, 2006 Federal Register (71 FR 26688).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ 40 CFR 81-321, effective November 15, 1990.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maryland was also required to adopt Stage II, or comparable
measures, on a statewide basis under the Stage II OTR provisions of CAA
section 184(b)(2). Maryland submitted a comparable measures
demonstration to satisfy the Stage II comparability requirement to EPA
on November 5, 1997. EPA approved Maryland's November 1997 Stage II
comparability SIP in a final rule published in the December 9, 1998
Federal Register (63 FR 67780). Maryland's OTR Stage II comparability
demonstration relied on five area source VOC control rules as
comparable measures to Stage II.
On August 25, 2017, Maryland submitted a SIP revision to EPA
consisting of revised Stage II requirements (COMAR26.11.24) adopted by
MDE on November 2, 2015 (state effective November 23, 2015), along with
a demonstration of the emission impacts of removal of the Stage II
requirements on affected Maryland areas. The revised rule removes the
requirements for new Stage II vapor recovery systems in Maryland Stage
II areas, while allowing GDFs with installed Stage II systems the
option to decommission their equipment or to retain it. Maryland's
revised Stage II vapor recovery requirements rule incorporates by
reference requirements and procedures for stations opting to
decommission Stage II vapor recovery equipment, based on Section 14 of
the Petroleum Equipment Institute's Recommended Practices for
Installation and Testing of Vapor Recovery Systems at Vehicle-Fueling
Sites, 2009 edition, PEI/RP300-09.
Under Maryland's revised rule, GDFs opting to continue to operate
Stage II vapor recovery equipment, as well as those opting to
decommission Stage II vapor recovery equipment, are subject to
continued testing requirements (at specified intervals) and
recordkeeping and reporting requirements related to testing. Maryland's
revised rule incorporates by reference several test methods applicable
to GDFs that opt to decommission or to continue to operate Stage II
vapor recovery systems (Leak Rate and Cracking Pressure of Pressure/
Vacuum Valves, TP-201.1E, California EPA Air Resources Board) and
(Determination of Vapor Piping Connections to Underground Gasoline
Storage Tanks (Tie-Tank Test), TP-201.3C, California EPA Air Resources
Board). For GDFs opting to continue Stage II operation (in addition to
prior Stage II test requirements), new tests are added to include a
periodic leak rate and cracking pressure test (per TP-201.1E), as well
as a tie tank test (per TP-201.3C). GDFs opting to decommission will be
subject only to the newly added periodic leak rate and cracking
pressure test (TP-201.1E) and the tie tank test (TP-201.3C). Copies of
test results must be forwarded to MDE within 30 days of the test.
The August 25, 2017 SIP revision also includes a demonstration
supporting the discontinuation of the Maryland Stage II vapor recovery
program. This demonstration, discussed in greater detail below,
consists of an analysis that after the year 2016, the overall emissions
benefits associated with the Stage II program (operated in conjunction
with ORVR) are overwhelmed by an emissions disbenefit caused by an ORVR
incompatibility with certain vacuum-assist type Stage II equipment.
MDE's
[[Page 3371]]
analysis shows that continued operation of the Stage II vapor recovery
program beyond 2016 actually increases VOC emissions due to the
incompatibility between certain Stage II and ORVR equipment, coupled
with the increasing prevalence of ORVR-equipped vehicles. While
Maryland is not requiring every Stage II-equipped GDF to decommission
their equipment, it is assumed a majority of existing stations will do
so upon the removal of state and federal Stage II mandates. Even if all
stations do no decommission their equipment (or delay doing so),
overall emission benefits will be improved by the shift to primarily
ORVR use in current Stage II subject areas.
III. EPA's Evaluation of Maryland's SIP Revision
EPA has reviewed Maryland's revised COMAR 26.11.24, Vapor Recovery
at Gasoline Dispensing Facilities, and accompanying SIP narrative, and
has concluded that Maryland's August 25, 2017 SIP revision is
consistent with EPA's widespread use rule (77 FR 28772, May 16, 2012)
and with EPA's ``Guidance on Removing Stage II Gasoline Vapor Control
Programs from State Implementation Plan and Assessing Comparable
Measures'' (EPA-457/B-12-001; August 7, 2012), hereafter referred to as
EPA's Stage II Removal Guidance.
Maryland's August 25, 2017 SIP revision includes a demonstration
supporting the discontinuation of the Maryland Stage II vapor recovery
program, in compliance with the requirements of the CAA sections 110(l)
requirement that revision of the SIP will not interfere with attainment
of or reasonable further progress towards attainment of any NAAQS or
any other applicable CAA requirement. This demonstration was prepared
by MDE based on relevant equations provided in EPA's Stage II Removal
Guidance. From this analysis, Maryland determined that by 2016 the
emissions benefits from the Stage II vapor recovery program (in
conjunction with ORVR) will be overwhelmed by the emission disbenefits
stemming from an incompatibility between certain Stage II vacuum-assist
based systems and ORVR. Beyond 2016, the continuation of Stage II vapor
recovery requirements would increase emissions in the Maryland portions
of all analyzed areas, as summarized in Table 1. Based on this
analysis, Maryland elected to allow decommissioning of Stage II vapor
recovery systems beginning in October 2016.
Table 1--Stage II VOC Reductions for Maryland Ozone Nonattainment Counties/Areas
[In metric tons per day]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
County 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anne Arundel............................ 0.07 0.01 -0.03 -0.07 -0.09 -0.11 -0.12
Baltimore............................... 0.09 0.01 -0.05 -0.09 -0.13 -0.15 -0.17
Calvert................................. 0.01 0.01 -0.00 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.02
Carroll................................. 0.02 0.00 -0.01 -0.02 -0.02 -0.03 -0.03
Cecil................................... 0.04 0.02 0.01 0.00 -0.01 -0.01 -0.02
Charles................................. 0.02 0.01 0.00 -0.01 -0.02 -0.03 -0.03
Frederick............................... 0.05 0.02 -0.01 -0.03 -0.04 -0.05 -0.06
Harford................................. 0.03 0.01 -0.01 -0.03 -0.04 -0.05 -0.05
Howard.................................. 0.04 0.00 -0.02 -0.05 -0.06 -0.08 -0.08
Montgomery.............................. 0.11 0.03 -0.03 -0.08 -0.12 -0.15 -0.17
Prince George's......................... 0.13 0.04 -0.04 -0.09 -0.13 -0.16 -0.18
Baltimore City.......................... 0.03 0.00 -0.03 -0.05 -0.06 -0.07 -0.08
rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr
Baltimore Area Total................ 0.28 0.04 -0.15 -0.30 -0.41 -0.48 -0.54
Maryland Portion of Washington Area 0.33 0.10 -0.08 -0.22 -0.33 -0.40 -0.46
Total..............................
Maryland Portion of Philadelphia 0.04 0.02 0.01 0.00 -0.01 -0.01 -0.02
Area Total.........................
rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr
Stage II Area Total............. 0.65 0.17 -0.22 -0.52 -0.74 -0.90 -1.01
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In evaluating whether a given SIP revision would interfere with
attainment of a NAAQS, EPA generally considers whether the SIP revision
will allow for an increase in actual emission into the air over what is
allowed under the existing EPA-approved SIP. EPA has not required that
states produce a new complete attainment demonstration for every SIP
revision, provided that the status quo air quality is preserved. See
e.g., Kentucky Resources Council, Inc. v. EPA, 467 F.3d 986 (6th Cir.
2006).\5\ EPA believes that a planned Stage II decommissioning that is
shown not to result in an increase in areawide VOC emissions would be
consistent with the conditions of CAA section 110(l), and would not
jeopardize attainment or maintenance of an area that formerly relied
upon Stage II emission reductions in the approved SIP. Maryland has
demonstrated that Stage II vapor recovery will no longer provide
emission reductions when compared to ORVR without Stage II vapor
recovery in all Maryland ozone nonattainment areas. Since 2016, Stage
II vapor recovery (operated in conjunction with ORVR) has been shown by
Maryland to result in increased VOC emissions in Maryland's three ozone
nonattainment areas--due to incompatibilities between certain types of
Stage II equipment and vehicle ORVR systems. Therefore, EPA believes
discontinuance of Stage II in Maryland's three ozone nonattainment
areas will not interfere with those areas' ability to attain or
maintain the NAAQS, or to provide reasonable further progress in
meeting the NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ EPA Guidance on Removing Stage II Gasoline Vapor Control
Programs from State Implementation Plans and Assessing Comparable
Measures, August 7, 2012, Section 2.2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 3372]]
States in the OTR defined by the CAA remain obligated under CAA
section 184(b)(2) to implement (on a statewide basis) either a Stage II
vapor recovery program, or other measures capable of achieving emission
reductions ``comparable to those achievable'' by Stage II vapor
recovery. EPA issued guidance on this OTR comparability demonstration
in 1995 and later updated that guidance as part of its August 2012
Stage II Removal Guidance--in light of the decreasing role of Stage II
as a means of controlling refueling emissions and the increasing
prominence of ORVR-equipped vehicles.
Maryland submitted a comparable measures SIP revision to EPA on
November 5, 1997 demonstrating that control measures already
implemented in those counties in Maryland not subject to Stage II vapor
recovery under CAA section 182(b)(3) achieved comparable emission
reductions to Stage II vapor recovery. Maryland's chosen Stage II
comparable measures included non-point, or area source, controls on:
Cold and vapor degreasing operations, lithographic printing, screen
printing, expandable polystyrene operations, and vehicle refinishing.
To address areas in Maryland subject to Stage II or a comparable
measure (as a result of the CAA section 184 requirements specific to
OTR states), EPA approved Maryland's November 1997 Stage II
comparability SIP for attainment and marginal ozone nonattainment
counties in a final action published in the December 9, 1998 Federal
Register (63 FR 67780). Maryland is not required to further demonstrate
Stage II comparability for those counties as that action remains in
effect.
However, Maryland is required to newly demonstrate Stage II
comparability for the Philadelphia, Baltimore, and Washington areas--
where Stage II vapor recovery was previously mandated by CAA section
182(b)(3) prior to EPA's issuance of its ORVR ``widespread use''
determination. The 110(l) demonstration in Maryland's August 25, 2017
SIP revision shows that Stage II no longer yields VOC emissions
benefits in these three nonattainment areas after 2016, when operated
in conjunction with ORVR. Therefore, since Stage II provides no
additional benefits beyond ORVR (and results in increases in VOC
emissions beyond 2016) in these three nonattainment areas, EPA believes
that removal of Stage II after 2016 satisfies the Stage II
comparability requirement of section 184 for these three ozone
nonattainment areas.
In addition to the CAA section 182 and 184 requirements applicable
to Stage II vapor recovery, CAA section 193 prohibits modification of
any control requirement in effect before enactment of the CAA of 1990
(i.e., November 15, 1990) in a current nonattainment area--unless
modification ``ensures equivalent or greater emission reductions.''
Therefore, a Stage II vapor recovery control program implemented under
a SIP prior to November 1990 may not be removed from the SIP until
another requirement is shown to achieve equal or greater emissions
reductions than Stage II vapor recovery. Maryland did not have a Stage
II program prior to November 15, 1990, so Stage II was not a part of
the Maryland SIP prior to that date. Therefore, this ``general savings
clause'' requirement of CAA section 193 does not apply to Maryland or
to this action.
IV. Proposed Action
EPA is proposing to approve Maryland's August 25, 2017 SIP revision
for statewide removal of Stage II vapor recovery requirements.
Specifically, EPA is proposing to approve Maryland's revised COMAR
26.11.24, Vapor Recovery at Gasoline Dispensing Facilities, and
incorporate it into the Maryland SIP. EPA is proposing to approve this
SIP revision because it meets all applicable requirements of the Clean
Air Act and relevant EPA guidance and because approval of this SIP
revision will not interfere with attainment or maintenance of the ozone
NAAQS.
EPA is soliciting public comments on the issues discussed in this
notice or other relevant matters. These comments will be considered
before taking final action.
V. Incorporation by Reference
In this proposed rule, EPA proposes to include in our subsequent
final EPA rule regulatory text that includes incorporation by
reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, EPA is
proposing to incorporate by reference the State of Maryland's revised
COMAR 26.11.24 Vapor Recovery at Gasoline Dispensing Facilities
(effective date November 23, 2015), which includes amendments to
Regulations .01, .01-1, .02, .03, .03-1, .04, and .07 and the addition
of Regulation .03-1. EPA has made, and will continue to make, these
materials generally available through https://www.regulations.gov and at
the EPA Region III Office (please contact the person identified in the
For Further Information Contact section of this preamble for more
information).
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable
federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this
action merely approves state law as meeting federal requirements and
does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state
law. For that reason, this proposed action:
Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21,
2011);
Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2,
2017) regulatory action because SIP approvals are exempted under
Executive Order 12866.
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 proposed rule to remove Maryland Stage II vapor
recovery requirements does not have tribal implications as specified by
[[Page 3373]]
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 28, 2018.
Cecil Rodrigues,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region III.
[FR Doc. 2019-01882 Filed 2-11-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P