Air Plan Conditional Approval; Arizona; Maricopa County, 49699-49704 [2019-20425]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 184 / Monday, September 23, 2019 / Proposed Rules
As explained, the majority proposes
to permanently exclude a class of
employees from statutory coverage, in
contravention of the law’s language and
its policies. There is no reason to revisit
the Columbia decision, now on the
books for over three years, particularly
in the absence of any empirical
evidence that any educational interests
have been harmed in any way. To the
contrary, student employees have
already succeeded in bargaining with
their universities for better working
conditions, the very interests that
spurred their organizing movement—
just as the National Labor Relations Act
encourages. Because the proposed rule
has no plausible foundation, I must
dissent.
VI. Regulatory Procedures
Regulatory Flexibility Act
jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980
(‘‘RFA’’), 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., requires
agencies promulgating proposed rules to
prepare an initial regulatory flexibility
analysis and to develop alternatives,
wherever possible, when drafting
regulations that will have a significant
impact on a substantial number of small
entities. The focus of the RFA is to
ensure that agencies ‘‘review rules to
assess and take appropriate account of
the potential impact on small
businesses, small governmental
jurisdictions, and small organizations,
as provided by the [RFA].’’ E.O. 13272,
Sec. 1, 67 FR 53461 (‘‘Proper
Consideration of Small Entities in
Agency Rulemaking’’). An agency is not
required to prepare an initial regulatory
flexibility analysis for a proposed rule if
the Agency head certifies that the rule
will not, if promulgated, have a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities. 5
U.S.C. 605(b).
The Board concludes that the
proposed rule will not affect a
substantial number of small entities. In
any event, the Board further concludes
that the proposed rule will not have a
significant economic impact on such
small entities. Accordingly, the Agency
Chairman has certified to the Chief
Counsel for Advocacy of the Small
Business Administration (‘‘SBA’’) that
the proposed amendments will not have
a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
The NLRB is an agency within the
meaning of the Paperwork Reduction
Act (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3502(1) and (5).
This Act creates rules for agencies when
they solicit a ‘‘collection of
information.’’ 44 U.S.C. 3507. The PRA
17:13 Sep 20, 2019
List of Subjects in 29 CFR Part 103
Colleges and universities, Health
facilities, Joint-employer standard,
Labor management relations, Military
personnel, Music, Sports.
For the reasons set forth in the
preamble, the Board proposes to amend
29 CFR part 103 to read as follows.
PART 103—OTHER RULES
1. The authority citation for part 103
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 29 U.S.C. 156, in accordance
with the procedure set forth in 5 U.S.C. 553.
Paperwork Reduction Act
VerDate Sep<11>2014
defines ‘‘collection of information’’ as
‘‘the obtaining, causing to be obtained,
soliciting, or requiring the disclosure to
third parties or the public, of facts or
opinions by or for an agency, regardless
of form or format.’’ 44 U.S.C. 3502(3)(A).
The PRA only applies when such
collections are ‘‘conducted or sponsored
by those agencies.’’ 5 CFR 1320.4(a).
The proposed rule does not involve a
collection of information within the
meaning of the PRA. Outside of
administrative proceedings (discussed
below), the proposed rule does not
require any entity to disclose
information to the NLRB, other
government agencies, third parties, or
the public.
The only circumstance in which the
proposed rule could be construed to
involve disclosures of information to the
Agency, third parties, or the public is
during the course of Board
administrative proceedings. However,
the PRA provides that collections of
information related to ‘‘an
administrative action or investigation
involving an agency against specific
individuals or entities’’ are exempt from
coverage. 44 U.S.C. 3518(c)(1)(B)(ii). A
representation proceeding under
Section 9 of the NLRA as well as an
investigation into an unfair labor
practice under Section 10 of the NLRA
are administrative actions covered by
this exemption. The Board’s decisions
in these proceedings are binding on and
thereby alter the legal rights of the
parties to the proceedings and thus are
sufficiently ‘‘against’’ the specific
parties to trigger this exemption.
For the foregoing reasons, the
proposed rule does not contain
information collection requirements that
require approval by the Office of
Management and Budget under the
PRA.
Jkt 247001
■
2. Revise § 103.1 to read as follows:
§ 103.1
Colleges and universities.
(a) The Board will assert its
jurisdiction in any proceeding arising
under Sections 8, 9, and 10 of the Act
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
49699
involving any private nonprofit college
or university which has a gross annual
revenue from all sources (excluding
only contributions which, because of
limitation by the grantor, are not
available for use for operating expenses)
of not less than $1 million.
(b) Students who perform any
services, including, but not limited to,
teaching or research assistance, at a
private college or university in
connection with their undergraduate or
graduate studies are not employees
within the meaning of Section 2(3) of
the Act.
Dated: September 18, 2019.
Roxanne Rothschild,
Executive Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019–20510 Filed 9–20–19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7545–01–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R09–OAR–2019–0493; FRL–9999–98–
Region 9]
Air Plan Conditional Approval;
Arizona; Maricopa County
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is proposing to
conditionally approve revisions to the
Maricopa County Air Quality
Department (MCAQD or the County)
portion of the Arizona State
Implementation Plan (SIP). These
revisions concern emissions of volatile
organic compounds (VOCs) from
organic liquid and gasoline storage and
transfer operations. We are proposing to
conditionally approve local rules to
regulate these emission sources under
the Clean Air Act (CAA or the Act) and
conditionally approve the County’s
demonstration regarding Reasonably
Available Control Technology (RACT)
requirements for the 2008 8-hour ozone
National Ambient Air Quality Standards
(NAAQS) in the Phoenix-Mesa ozone
nonattainment area, with respect to
petroleum liquid storage and gasoline
transfer and transport. We are taking
comments on this proposal and plan to
follow with a final action.
DATES: Any comments must arrive by
October 23, 2019.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R09–
OAR–2019–0493 at https://
www.regulations.gov. For comments
submitted at Regulations.gov, follow the
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\23SEP1.SGM
23SEP1
49700
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 184 / Monday, September 23, 2019 / Proposed Rules
online instructions for submitting
comments. Once submitted, comments
cannot be edited or removed from
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 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. 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, please
contact the person identified in the FOR
section.
For 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:
Rebecca Newhouse, EPA Region IX, 75
Hawthorne St., San Francisco, CA
94105, (415) 972–3004,
newhouse.rebecca@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Throughout this document, ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us’’
and ‘‘our’’ refer to the EPA.
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
Table of Contents
I. The State’s Submittal
A. What did the State submit?
B. Are there earlier versions of the
submitted documents in the SIP?
C. What is the purpose of the submitted
documents?
II. The EPA’s Evaluation and Action
A. How is the EPA evaluating the
submitted documents?
B. Do the submitted documents meet the
evaluation criteria?
C. What are the deficiencies?
D. What are the commitments to remedy
the deficiencies?
E. The EPA’s Recommendations To Further
Improve the Submitted Rules
F. Public Comment and Proposed Action
III. Incorporation by Reference
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. The State’s Submittal
A. What did the State submit?
Table 1 lists the documents addressed
by this proposal with the dates that they
were adopted by the local air agency
and submitted by the Arizona
Department of Environmental Quality
(ADEQ or the State).
TABLE 1—SUBMITTED DOCUMENTS
Local agency
Document
MCAQD ........
Analysis of Reasonably Available Control Technology for the 2008 8-Hour Ozone National
Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) State Implementation Plan (RACT SIP).
Rule 350: Storage and Transfer of Organic Liquids (Non-Gasoline) at an Organic Liquid Distribution Facility.
Rule 351: Storage and Loading of Gasoline at Bulk Gasoline Plants and Bulk Gasoline Terminals.
Rule 352: Gasoline Cargo Tank Testing and Use ........................................................................
Rule 353: Storage and Loading of Gasoline at Gasoline Dispensing Facilities ...........................
MCAQD ........
MCAQD ........
MCAQD ........
MCAQD ........
On December 22, 2017, the submittal
containing the documents listed in
Table 1 was deemed by operation of law
to meet the completeness criteria in 40
CFR part 51 Appendix V, which must be
met before formal EPA review.
In addition to these SIP submittals,
the County and the ADEQ transmitted
Revised
letters to the EPA 2 3 committing to
adopt and submit specific enforceable
measures within a year of our final
action that would remedy the
deficiencies identified in this notice and
further described in the associated
Submitted
1 06/16/2017
06/22/2017
11/02/2016
06/22/2017
11/02/2016
06/22/2017
11/02/2016
11/02/2016
06/22/2017
06/22/2017
technical support documents (TSDs) for
this action.
The County’s submittal states that
Rules 350, 351, 352 and 353 were
submitted to regulate sources associated
with the Control Techniques Guidelines
(CTGs) shown in Table 2:
TABLE 2—RULES AND ASSOCIATED CTGS 4
County rule
Associated CTGs
Rule 350 ..........................................
Control of Volatile Organic Emissions from Storage of Petroleum Liquids in Fixed-Roof Tanks (EPA–450/
2–77–036).
Control of Volatile Organic Emissions from Petroleum Liquid Storage in External Floating Roof Tanks
(EPA–450/2–78–047).
Control of Volatile Organic Emissions from Storage of Petroleum Liquids in Fixed-Roof Tanks (EPA–450/
2–77–036).
Control of Volatile Organic Emissions from Petroleum Liquid Storage in External Floating Roof Tanks
(EPA–450/2–78–047).
Control of Hydrocarbons from Tank Truck Gasoline Loading Terminals (EPA–450/2–77–026).
Control of Volatile Organic Emissions from Bulk Gasoline Plants (EPA–450/2–77–035).
Control of Volatile Organic Compound Leaks from Gasoline Tank Trucks and Vapor Collection Systems
(EPA–450/2–78–051).
Design Criteria for Stage I Vapor Control Systems—Gasoline Service Stations (EPA–450/R–75–102).
Rule 351 ..........................................
Rule 352 ..........................................
jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
Rule 353 ..........................................
1 This document is dated December 5, 2016. It
was adopted by the County on June 16, 2017.
2 Letter dated January 28, 2019, from Philip A.
McNeely, Director, MCAQD, to Misael Cabrera,
Director, ADEQ.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:13 Sep 20, 2019
Jkt 247001
3 Letter dated February 25, 2019, from Misael
Cabrera, Director, ADEQ, to Michael Stoker,
Regional Administrator, EPA, Region IX.
4 See RACT SIP, Appendix C: CTG RACT
Spreadsheet.
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\23SEP1.SGM
23SEP1
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 184 / Monday, September 23, 2019 / Proposed Rules
jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
B. Are there earlier versions of the
submitted documents in the SIP?
We approved earlier versions of the
rules listed in Table 1 into the SIP on
September 5, 1995 (Rules 350 and 352)
(60 FR 46024), February 9, 1998 (Rule
351) (63 FR 6489), and on February 1,
1996 (Rule 353) (61 FR 3578). There is
no previously approved version of the
RACT SIP for the 2008 8-hour ozone
standard in the MCAQD portion of the
Arizona SIP. The ADEQ previously
submitted the documents in Table 1 in
a SIP revision on December 19, 2016,
along with the County’s RACT SIP.
However, this submittal did not include
documentation that showed the entirety
of the County’s SIP revision had met the
public notice requirements required for
completeness under 40 CFR part 51
Appendix V. The County’s June 22,
2017 submittal was provided in
response to this feedback, and the State
withdrew the December 19, 2016
submittal on May 17, 2019.5
C. What is the purpose of the submitted
documents?
Emissions of VOCs contribute to the
production of ground-level ozone, smog
and particulate matter, which harm
human health and the environment.
Section 110(a) of the CAA requires
states to submit regulations that control
VOC emissions. Section 182(b)(2)
requires that SIPs for ozone
nonattainment areas classified as
Moderate or above implement RACT for
any source covered by a CTG document
and for any major sources of VOCs. The
MCAQD is subject to this requirement
as it regulates a portion of the PhoenixMesa ozone nonattainment area, which
is classified as Moderate for the 2008 8hr ozone NAAQS (40 CFR 81.303).
Section III.D of the preamble to the
EPA’s final rule to implement the 2008
ozone 8-hour ozone NAAQS (80 FR
12264, March 6, 2015) discusses RACT
requirements. It states in part that RACT
SIPs must contain adopted RACT
regulations, certifications where
appropriate that existing provisions are
RACT, and/or negative declarations that
there are no sources in the
nonattainment areas covered by a
specific CTG category. The County’s
RACT SIP provides MCAQD’s analyses
of its compliance with the CAA section
182 RACT requirements for the 2008 8hour ozone NAAQS. As a result of this
analysis, the County revised and
submitted the rules listed in Table 1 to
establish RACT-level controls for VOC
emissions from the petroleum liquid
5 Letter dated May 17, 2019, from Timothy S.
Franquist, Director, Air Quality Division, ADEQ, to
Michael Stoker, Regional Administrator, Region IX.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:13 Sep 20, 2019
Jkt 247001
storage and gasoline transfer and
transport CTG source categories shown
in Table 2.
The EPA’s TSDs have more
information about the submitted rules
and RACT SIP.
II. The EPA’s Evaluation and Action
A. How is the EPA evaluating the
submitted documents?
Rules in the SIP must be enforceable
(see CAA section 110(a)(2)), must not
interfere with applicable requirements
concerning attainment and reasonable
further progress or other CAA
requirements (see CAA section 110(l)),
and must not modify certain SIP control
requirements in nonattainment areas
without ensuring equivalent or greater
emissions reductions (see CAA section
193).
Generally, SIP rules must require
RACT for each category of sources
covered by a CTG document as well as
each major source of VOCs in ozone
nonattainment areas classified as
Moderate or above (see CAA section
182(b)(2)). The MCAQD regulates a
portion of the Phoenix-Mesa ozone
nonattainment area, which is classified
as Moderate for the 2008 8-hr ozone
NAAQS 40 CFR 81.303. Therefore, these
rules must implement RACT.
The County’s RACT SIP explains that
Rules 350, 351, 352, and 353 were
revised and submitted in order to meet
the RACT requirement for the source
categories listed in Table 2.
Accordingly, our evaluation of whether
these rules establish RACT levels of
control also constitutes our evaluation
of the approvability of the MCAQD
RACT SIP, with respect to those CTG
source categories.
Guidance and policy documents that
we used to evaluate enforceability,
revision/relaxation and rule stringency
requirements for the applicable criteria
pollutants include the following:
1. ‘‘State Implementation Plans;
General Preamble for the
Implementation of Title I of the Clean
Air Act Amendments of 1990,’’ 57 FR
13498 (April 16, 1992); 57 FR 18070
(April 28, 1992).
2. ‘‘Issues Relating to VOC Regulation
Cutpoints, Deficiencies, and
Deviations,’’ EPA, May 25, 1988 (the
Bluebook, revised January 11, 1990).
3. ‘‘Guidance Document for Correcting
Common VOC & Other Rule
Deficiencies,’’ EPA Region 9, August 21,
2001 (the Little Bluebook).
4. ‘‘Control of Volatile Organic
Emissions from Storage of Petroleum
Liquids in Fixed-Roof Tanks,’’ EPA–
450/2–77–036, December 1977.
5. ‘‘Control of Volatile Organic
Emissions from Petroleum Liquid
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
49701
Storage in External Floating Roof
Tanks,’’ EPA–450/2–78–047, December
1978.
6. ‘‘Control of Volatile Organic
Emissions from Bulk Gasoline Plants,’’
EPA–450/2–77–035, December 1977.
7. ‘‘Control of Hydrocarbons from
Tank Truck Gasoline Loading
Terminals,’’ EPA–450/2–77–026,
October 1977.
8. ‘‘Control of Volatile Organic
Compound Leaks from Gasoline Tank
Trucks and Vapor Collection Systems,’’
EPA–450/2–78–051, December 1978.
9. ‘‘Design Criteria for Stage I Vapor
Control Systems-Gasoline Service
Stations,’’ EPA–450/R–75–102,
November 1975.
10. ‘‘Alternative Control Techniques
Document: Volatile Organic Liquid
Storage in Floating and Fixed Roof
Tanks,’’ EPA–453/R–94–001, January
1994.
B. Do the submitted documents meet the
evaluation criteria?
Rules 350, 351, 352, and 353 apply to
sources of VOC emissions from organic
liquid storage and gasoline transfer and
storage operations in the Phoenix-Mesa
area. The four rules are generally more
stringent than the applicable CTGs, have
requirements for organic liquid and
gasoline storage and transfer that are
generally consistent with other local air
district rules for these source categories,
and are largely consistent with the
applicable CAA requirements. However,
as identified below, the rules contain
deficiencies that preclude full approval.
In a letter dated January 28, 2019 (the
‘‘commitment letter’’), the County
identified certain rule deficiencies and
committed to revise those provisions in
accordance with EPA guidance, and
submit the revised rules within eleven
months of a conditional approval.6 On
February 25, 2019, the ADEQ provided
its own commitment to submit the
County’s revised rules to the EPA
within one month after the County’s
action and request for SIP revision.7
Because the commitments by the
County and ADEQ would remedy the
identified rule deficiencies, we propose
to conditionally approve Rules 350, 351,
352, and 353, and the RACT SIP with
respect to the VOC source categories
covered by Rules 350, 351, 352, 353 (as
provided in Table 2). Summaries of the
specific rule deficiencies and the
County’s commitments to address those
6 Letter dated January 28, 2019, from Philip A.
McNeely, Director, MCAQD, to Misael Cabrera,
Director, ADEQ.
7 Letter dated February 25, 2019, from Misael
Cabrera, Director, ADEQ, to Michael Stoker, Region
Administrator, EPA, Region IX.
E:\FR\FM\23SEP1.SGM
23SEP1
49702
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 184 / Monday, September 23, 2019 / Proposed Rules
deficiencies are included in the
following sections.
Our TSDs for Rules 350, 351, 352, and
353 provide further details on our
evaluation for these proposed
conditional approvals.
C. What are the deficiencies?
jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
The following provisions of Rules
350, 351, 352, and 353 do not fully
satisfy the requirements of section 110
and part D of title I of the Act and
prevent full approval of the SIP
revision.
1. Rule 350 Deficiencies 8
(a) Rule 350 includes exemptions
from rule requirements for fuel
consumed or dispensed at the facility
directly to users, hazardous waste,
which is undefined, and wastewater and
ballast water, none of which are
exempted from the applicable CTGs.
(b) The rule lacks an emissions limit
for bulk terminals transferring organic
liquid. The SIP-approved version
requires an emissions limit of 0.08 lbs
VOCs/1000 gallons transferred.9
(c) The rule contains inappropriate
use of director’s discretion with respect
to the opening of hatches or seals on
cargo tanks.* †
(d) Several sections do not clearly
state rule prohibitions, and instead
require owners and operators with
particular types of tanks to put some
amount of liquid into tanks that meet
certain requirements. Section 301.3, in
particular, appears to be missing the
word ‘‘not’’ in a way that impacts the
effectiveness of the requirement.*
(e) The rule exempts roofs from the
requirement that they always be floating
on liquid when the tank is being filled,
instead of only while filling after the
tank has been emptied completely.*
(f) The rule is not clear regarding
which external floating roof tanks are
exempt from the rule’s requirements.*
(g) The rule does not clearly specify
vapor control requirements for internal
floating roof tanks.
(h) The rule contains an overly broad
provision, allowing the opening of
hatches, vent valves, or vapor sealing
devices for vacuum relief when organic
liquid is transferred from the cargo tank
or railcar into a storage tank.*
2. Rule 351 Deficiencies 10
(a) The rule allows the use of a less
stringent compliance option than the
8 Rule deficiencies throughout this section
marked with an asterisk (*) also apply to Rule 351;
those marked with a dagger (†) also apply to Rule
352.
9 The 0.08 lbs VOC/1000 gallons limit is included
in SIP-approved Rule 351, which contains transfer
requirements for organic liquid and gasoline.
10 For additional Rule 351 deficiencies, please see
Rule 350 deficiencies (c)–(f) and (h).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:13 Sep 20, 2019
Jkt 247001
SIP-approved rule for controlling VOC
vapors from gasoline storage.11
(b) Rule 351 requirements for gasoline
transfers at bulk plants are not as strict
as requirements that have been
demonstrated to be reasonably available
in other air districts, as there is no
emissions limit or vapor recovery
efficiency requirement when vapor
balance systems are used.
(c) The rule exempts the loading of
aviation gasoline at airports from the
rule’s gasoline transfer requirements,
which is not exempted from applicable
CTGs or other analogous SIP-approved
district rules.12
3. Rule 352 Deficiencies 13
(a) The rule exempts cargo tanks with
gasoline loads that originated outside of
Arizona, and gasoline loads delivered
outside Maricopa County, from the
rule’s gasoline cargo tank vapor
tightness requirements. Exemptions
from vapor tightness requirements based
on where the cargo tank is initially
filled or where it ultimately delivers
gasoline are not provided for in the
applicable CTG.
(b) The rule provides inappropriate
discretion to unspecified agencies to
certify cargo tanks vapor tight.
(c) The rule allows gasoline cargo tank
vapor tightness tests to remain valid for
up to two years, whereas the CTG and
rules from other air districts require
more frequent testing.
(d) The rule allows inappropriate
discretion for the opening of cargo tank
hatches during loading.
(e) No test method is specified for
determining compliance with the
provision requiring a 90% reduction in
VOC emissions by weight when purging
cargo tank vapors.
(f) The rule does not clearly prohibit
purging of gasoline vapors from cargo
tanks, including during switch loading,
and may relax purging provisions as
compared to the SIP-approved rule.
4. Rule 353 Deficiencies 14
(a) The rule exempts an owner or
operator from certain rule requirements
if the gasoline dispensing facility (GDF)
is unattended or there is only one owner
or operator present. As there may be one
attendant at a GDF in many instances
for a variety of reasons, this exemption
is overly broad and presents
enforceability challenges.
11 The vapor loss control requirement is included
in SIP-approved Rule 350, which contains storage
requirements for organic liquid and gasoline.
12 This deficiency also applies to Rule 352 and
Rule 353.
13 For additional Rule 352 deficiencies, please see
Rule 350 deficiency (c), and Rule 351 deficiency (c).
14 For an additional Rule 353 deficiency, please
see Rule 351 deficiency (c).
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
D. What are the commitments to remedy
the deficiencies?
The County’s commitment letter
includes specific and enforceable
commitments, outlined below, to
address the above deficiencies for Rules
350, 351, 352, and 353.
1. Rule 350 Commitments 15
(a) Removing the exemptions for fuel
consumed or dispensed at the facility
directly to users, hazardous waste,
wastewater, and ballast water, to
address section II.C.1.a, above.
(b) Adding an emissions limit for
organic liquid distribution facilities
transferring over 600,000 gallons per 30day period of organic liquid, based on
a RACT analysis, to address II.C.1.b,
above.
(c) Deleting the provision that allows
Control Officer discretion for approval
of hatch or seal opening, to address
II.C.1.c, above.* †
(d) Rephrasing and restructuring the
requirements for organic liquid storage
tanks to clarify the specified
requirements without weakening any
substantive requirements, to address
II.C.1.d, above.*
(e) Clarifying that the floating roof
exemption will only apply when the
tank is filled initially, after it is drained
completely and subsequently refilled, or
when undergoing maintenance
requiring the roof be rested on its leg
supports, to address II.C.1.e, above.*
(f) Removing the specified exemption
for external floating roof tanks, to
address II.C.1.f, above.*
(g) Deleting the specified section, and
adding requirements for internal
floating roof organic liquid storage tanks
that match SIP-approved requirements,
to address II.C.1.g, above.
(h) Limiting the conditions under
which a hatch, vent valve, or vapor
sealing device may be open during the
organic liquid transfer from the cargo
tank to the storage tank to those
necessary to avoid unsafe operating
conditions, to address II.C.1.h, above.*
2. Commitments for Rule 351 16
(a) Adding vapor loss control
requirements that will be at least as
stringent as the SIP-approved version, to
address II.C.2.a above.
(b) Revising Rule 351 to include an
emissions limit or vapor recovery
efficiency for loading at a bulk gasoline
plant, based on a RACT analysis, to
address II.C.2.b, above.
15 Rule commitments throughout this section
marked with an asterisk (*) also apply to Rule 351;
those marked with a dagger (†) also apply to Rule
352.
16 For additional Rule 351 commitments, please
see Rule 350 commitments (c)–(f) and (h), above.
E:\FR\FM\23SEP1.SGM
23SEP1
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 184 / Monday, September 23, 2019 / Proposed Rules
(c) Removing the exemption for
aviation gasoline loading at airports, to
address II.C.2.c, above.17
3. Commitments for Rule 352 18
(a) Removing the vapor tightness test
exemption for cargo tanks with gasoline
loads that originated outside of Arizona
and gasoline loads delivered outside
Maricopa County, to address II.C.3.a,
above.
(b) Requiring that a gasoline cargo
tank tested outside Maricopa County be
tested and verified vapor tight using
methods at least as stringent as those
found in the County’s rule, and that
testing documentation be submitted to
the MCAQD, to address II.C.3.b.
(c) Revising vapor tightness
certification expiration requirements to
shorten the maximum testing interval,
to address II.C.3.c.
(d) Revising to clarify and limit the
conditions under which a hatch, vent
valve, or vapor sealing device may be
open during the transfer of gasoline
from the cargo tank, to address II.C.3.d.
(e) Including appropriate EPAapproved test methods to determine
compliance with at least a 90%
reduction in VOC emissions by weight,
to address II.C.3.e.
(f) Revising the purging requirements
to include a prohibition on purging that
is at least as stringent as the SIPapproved version, to address II.C.3.f.
4. Commitments for Rule 353 19
(a) Deleting the exemption for
unattended GDFs, or GDFs where there
is only one owner or operator present,
to address II.C.4.a.
E. The EPA’s Recommendations To
Further Improve the Submitted Rules
The TSDs for Rule 350, 351, 352, and
353 describe additional rule revisions
that we recommend for the next time
the County modifies the rules.
jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
F. Public Comment and Proposed
Action
Rules 350, 351, 352, and 353 largely
fulfill the relevant CAA § 110 and part
D requirements, but the deficiencies, as
discussed in section C, preclude full SIP
approval pursuant to 110(k)(3) of the
Act. Section 110(k)(4) authorizes the
EPA to conditionally approve SIP
revisions based on a commitment by the
state to adopt specific enforceable
measures by a date certain but not later
than one year after the date of the plan
approval.20 Because the MCAQD and
17 This commitment also applies to Rule 352 and
Rule 353.
18 For additional Rule 352 commitments, please
see Rule 350 commitment (c), and Rule 351
commitment (c).
19 For an additional Rule 353 commitment, please
see Rule 351 commitment (c).
20 42 U.S.C. 7410(k)(4).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:13 Sep 20, 2019
Jkt 247001
the ADEQ have committed to provide
the EPA with a SIP submission within
one year of this final action that will
include specific rule revisions that
would adequately address the identified
deficiencies, we are proposing to
conditionally approve Rules 350, 351,
352, and 353, pursuant to section
110(k)(4) of the Act. We are also
proposing to conditionally approve
MCAQD’s RACT demonstrations for the
2008 8-hr ozone NAAQS with respect to
the VOC source categories covered by
Rules 350, 351, 352, and 353, as
specified in Table 2. If the MCAQD and
the ADEQ submit the required rule
revisions by the specified deadline, and
the EPA approves the submission, then
the identified deficiencies will be cured.
However, if these proposed conditional
approvals are finalized, and MCAQD,
through the ADEQ, fails to submit these
revisions within the required timeframe,
the conditional approval would be
treated as a disapproval for those rules
for which the revisions are not
submitted (and the associated RACT SIP
CTG source categories). We will accept
comments from the public on this
proposal until October 23, 2019. If we
take final action to approve the
submitted rules, our final action will
incorporate these rules into the federally
enforceable SIP.
III. Incorporation by Reference
In this rule, the EPA is proposing to
include in a final EPA rule, regulatory
text that includes incorporation by
reference. In accordance with
requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is
proposing to incorporate by reference
the MCAQD rules described in Table 1
of this preamble. The EPA has made,
and will continue to make, these
materials available through https://
www.regulations.gov and at the EPA
Region IX Office (please contact the
person identified in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section of this
preamble for more information).
IV. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
Additional information about these
statutes and Executive Orders can be
found at https://www.epa.gov/lawsregulations/laws-and-executive-orders.
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory
Planning and Review and Executive
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and
Regulatory Review
This action is not a significant
regulatory action and was therefore not
submitted to the Office of Management
and Budget (OMB) for review.
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
49703
B. Executive Order 13771: Reducing
Regulations and Controlling Regulatory
Costs
This action is not an Executive Order
13771 regulatory action because actions
such as SIP approvals are exempted
under Executive Order 12866.
C. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
This action does not impose an
information collection burden under the
PRA, because the proposed conditional
approvals, if finalized, will not in-andof themselves create any new
information collection burdens, but will
simply conditionally approve certain
State requirements for inclusion in the
SIP.
D. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
I certify that this action will not have
a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities
under the RFA. This action will not
impose any requirements on small
entities. These proposed conditional
approvals, if finalized, will not in-andof themselves create any new
requirements but will simply
conditionally approve certain State
requirements for inclusion in the SIP.
E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
(UMRA)
This action does not contain any
unfunded mandate as described in
UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531–1538, and does
not significantly or uniquely affect small
governments. This action proposes to
conditionally approve pre-existing
requirements under State or local law,
and imposes no new requirements.
Accordingly, no additional costs to
State, local, or tribal governments, or to
the private sector, result from this
action.
F. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
This action does not have federalism
implications. It will not have substantial
direct effects on the states, on the
relationship between the national
government and the states, or on the
distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various
levels of government.
G. Executive Order 13175: Coordination
With Indian Tribal Governments
This action does not have tribal
implications, as specified in Executive
Order 13175, because the SIP revisions
that the EPA is proposing to
conditionally approve would not 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, and will not impose
substantial direct costs on tribal
E:\FR\FM\23SEP1.SGM
23SEP1
49704
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 184 / Monday, September 23, 2019 / Proposed Rules
conditionally approve certain State
requirements for inclusion in the SIP.
governments or preempt tribal law.
Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not
apply to this action.
H. Executive Order 13045: Protection of
Children From Environmental Health
Risks and Safety Risks
jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
The EPA interprets Executive Order
13045 as applying only to those
regulatory actions that concern
environmental health or safety risks that
the EPA has reason to believe may
disproportionately affect children, per
the definition of ‘‘covered regulatory
action’’ in section 2–202 of the
Executive Order. This action is not
subject to Executive Order 13045
because the proposed conditional
approvals, if finalized, will not in-andof themselves create any new
regulations, but will simply
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:13 Sep 20, 2019
Jkt 247001
I. Executive Order 13211: Actions That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use
This action is not subject to Executive
Order 13211, because it is not a
significant regulatory action under
Executive Order 12866.
J. National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act (NTTAA)
Section 12(d) of the NTTAA directs
the EPA to use voluntary consensus
standards in its regulatory activities
unless to do so would be inconsistent
with applicable law or otherwise
impractical. The EPA believes that this
action is not subject to the requirements
of section 12(d) of the NTTAA because
application of those requirements would
be inconsistent with the CAA.
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 9990
K. Executive Order 12898: Federal
Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and
Low-Income Population
The EPA lacks the discretionary
authority to address environmental
justice in this rulemaking.
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: September 6, 2019.
Deborah Jordan,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. 2019–20425 Filed 9–20–19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
E:\FR\FM\23SEP1.SGM
23SEP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 184 (Monday, September 23, 2019)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 49699-49704]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2019-20425]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R09-OAR-2019-0493; FRL-9999-98-Region 9]
Air Plan Conditional Approval; Arizona; Maricopa County
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
conditionally approve revisions to the Maricopa County Air Quality
Department (MCAQD or the County) portion of the Arizona State
Implementation Plan (SIP). These revisions concern emissions of
volatile organic compounds (VOCs) from organic liquid and gasoline
storage and transfer operations. We are proposing to conditionally
approve local rules to regulate these emission sources under the Clean
Air Act (CAA or the Act) and conditionally approve the County's
demonstration regarding Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT)
requirements for the 2008 8-hour ozone National Ambient Air Quality
Standards (NAAQS) in the Phoenix-Mesa ozone nonattainment area, with
respect to petroleum liquid storage and gasoline transfer and
transport. We are taking comments on this proposal and plan to follow
with a final action.
DATES: Any comments must arrive by October 23, 2019.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R09-
OAR-2019-0493 at https://www.regulations.gov. For comments submitted at
Regulations.gov, follow the
[[Page 49700]]
online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments
cannot be edited or removed from 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 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. 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, 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://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rebecca Newhouse, EPA Region IX, 75
Hawthorne St., San Francisco, CA 94105, (415) 972-3004,
[email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, ``we,'' ``us'' and
``our'' refer to the EPA.
Table of Contents
I. The State's Submittal
A. What did the State submit?
B. Are there earlier versions of the submitted documents in the
SIP?
C. What is the purpose of the submitted documents?
II. The EPA's Evaluation and Action
A. How is the EPA evaluating the submitted documents?
B. Do the submitted documents meet the evaluation criteria?
C. What are the deficiencies?
D. What are the commitments to remedy the deficiencies?
E. The EPA's Recommendations To Further Improve the Submitted
Rules
F. Public Comment and Proposed Action
III. Incorporation by Reference
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. The State's Submittal
A. What did the State submit?
Table 1 lists the documents addressed by this proposal with the
dates that they were adopted by the local air agency and submitted by
the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ or the State).
Table 1--Submitted Documents
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Local agency Document Revised Submitted
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MCAQD............ Analysis of \1\ 06/16/2017 06/22/2017
Reasonably Available
Control Technology
for the 2008 8-Hour
Ozone National
Ambient Air Quality
Standard (NAAQS)
State Implementation
Plan (RACT SIP).
MCAQD............ Rule 350: Storage and 11/02/2016 06/22/2017
Transfer of Organic
Liquids (Non-
Gasoline) at an
Organic Liquid
Distribution
Facility.
MCAQD............ Rule 351: Storage and 11/02/2016 06/22/2017
Loading of Gasoline
at Bulk Gasoline
Plants and Bulk
Gasoline Terminals.
MCAQD............ Rule 352: Gasoline 11/02/2016 06/22/2017
Cargo Tank Testing
and Use.
MCAQD............ Rule 353: Storage and 11/02/2016 06/22/2017
Loading of Gasoline
at Gasoline
Dispensing
Facilities.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
On December 22, 2017, the submittal containing the documents listed
in Table 1 was deemed by operation of law to meet the completeness
criteria in 40 CFR part 51 Appendix V, which must be met before formal
EPA review.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ This document is dated December 5, 2016. It was adopted by
the County on June 16, 2017.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition to these SIP submittals, the County and the ADEQ
transmitted letters to the EPA 2 3 committing to adopt and
submit specific enforceable measures within a year of our final action
that would remedy the deficiencies identified in this notice and
further described in the associated technical support documents (TSDs)
for this action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Letter dated January 28, 2019, from Philip A. McNeely,
Director, MCAQD, to Misael Cabrera, Director, ADEQ.
\3\ Letter dated February 25, 2019, from Misael Cabrera,
Director, ADEQ, to Michael Stoker, Regional Administrator, EPA,
Region IX.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The County's submittal states that Rules 350, 351, 352 and 353 were
submitted to regulate sources associated with the Control Techniques
Guidelines (CTGs) shown in Table 2:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ See RACT SIP, Appendix C: CTG RACT Spreadsheet.
Table 2--Rules and Associated CTGs \4\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
County rule Associated CTGs
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rule 350.......................... Control of Volatile Organic
Emissions from Storage of Petroleum
Liquids in Fixed-Roof Tanks (EPA-
450/2-77-036).
Control of Volatile Organic
Emissions from Petroleum Liquid
Storage in External Floating Roof
Tanks (EPA-450/2-78-047).
Rule 351.......................... Control of Volatile Organic
Emissions from Storage of Petroleum
Liquids in Fixed-Roof Tanks (EPA-
450/2-77-036).
Control of Volatile Organic
Emissions from Petroleum Liquid
Storage in External Floating Roof
Tanks (EPA-450/2-78-047).
Control of Hydrocarbons from Tank
Truck Gasoline Loading Terminals
(EPA-450/2-77-026).
Control of Volatile Organic
Emissions from Bulk Gasoline Plants
(EPA-450/2-77-035).
Rule 352.......................... Control of Volatile Organic Compound
Leaks from Gasoline Tank Trucks and
Vapor Collection Systems (EPA-450/2-
78-051).
Rule 353.......................... Design Criteria for Stage I Vapor
Control Systems--Gasoline Service
Stations (EPA-450/R-75-102).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 49701]]
B. Are there earlier versions of the submitted documents in the SIP?
We approved earlier versions of the rules listed in Table 1 into
the SIP on September 5, 1995 (Rules 350 and 352) (60 FR 46024),
February 9, 1998 (Rule 351) (63 FR 6489), and on February 1, 1996 (Rule
353) (61 FR 3578). There is no previously approved version of the RACT
SIP for the 2008 8-hour ozone standard in the MCAQD portion of the
Arizona SIP. The ADEQ previously submitted the documents in Table 1 in
a SIP revision on December 19, 2016, along with the County's RACT SIP.
However, this submittal did not include documentation that showed the
entirety of the County's SIP revision had met the public notice
requirements required for completeness under 40 CFR part 51 Appendix V.
The County's June 22, 2017 submittal was provided in response to this
feedback, and the State withdrew the December 19, 2016 submittal on May
17, 2019.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Letter dated May 17, 2019, from Timothy S. Franquist,
Director, Air Quality Division, ADEQ, to Michael Stoker, Regional
Administrator, Region IX.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. What is the purpose of the submitted documents?
Emissions of VOCs contribute to the production of ground-level
ozone, smog and particulate matter, which harm human health and the
environment. Section 110(a) of the CAA requires states to submit
regulations that control VOC emissions. Section 182(b)(2) requires that
SIPs for ozone nonattainment areas classified as Moderate or above
implement RACT for any source covered by a CTG document and for any
major sources of VOCs. The MCAQD is subject to this requirement as it
regulates a portion of the Phoenix-Mesa ozone nonattainment area, which
is classified as Moderate for the 2008 8-hr ozone NAAQS (40 CFR
81.303).
Section III.D of the preamble to the EPA's final rule to implement
the 2008 ozone 8-hour ozone NAAQS (80 FR 12264, March 6, 2015)
discusses RACT requirements. It states in part that RACT SIPs must
contain adopted RACT regulations, certifications where appropriate that
existing provisions are RACT, and/or negative declarations that there
are no sources in the nonattainment areas covered by a specific CTG
category. The County's RACT SIP provides MCAQD's analyses of its
compliance with the CAA section 182 RACT requirements for the 2008 8-
hour ozone NAAQS. As a result of this analysis, the County revised and
submitted the rules listed in Table 1 to establish RACT-level controls
for VOC emissions from the petroleum liquid storage and gasoline
transfer and transport CTG source categories shown in Table 2.
The EPA's TSDs have more information about the submitted rules and
RACT SIP.
II. The EPA's Evaluation and Action
A. How is the EPA evaluating the submitted documents?
Rules in the SIP must be enforceable (see CAA section 110(a)(2)),
must not interfere with applicable requirements concerning attainment
and reasonable further progress or other CAA requirements (see CAA
section 110(l)), and must not modify certain SIP control requirements
in nonattainment areas without ensuring equivalent or greater emissions
reductions (see CAA section 193).
Generally, SIP rules must require RACT for each category of sources
covered by a CTG document as well as each major source of VOCs in ozone
nonattainment areas classified as Moderate or above (see CAA section
182(b)(2)). The MCAQD regulates a portion of the Phoenix-Mesa ozone
nonattainment area, which is classified as Moderate for the 2008 8-hr
ozone NAAQS 40 CFR 81.303. Therefore, these rules must implement RACT.
The County's RACT SIP explains that Rules 350, 351, 352, and 353
were revised and submitted in order to meet the RACT requirement for
the source categories listed in Table 2. Accordingly, our evaluation of
whether these rules establish RACT levels of control also constitutes
our evaluation of the approvability of the MCAQD RACT SIP, with respect
to those CTG source categories.
Guidance and policy documents that we used to evaluate
enforceability, revision/relaxation and rule stringency requirements
for the applicable criteria pollutants include the following:
1. ``State Implementation Plans; General Preamble for the
Implementation of Title I of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990,'' 57
FR 13498 (April 16, 1992); 57 FR 18070 (April 28, 1992).
2. ``Issues Relating to VOC Regulation Cutpoints, Deficiencies, and
Deviations,'' EPA, May 25, 1988 (the Bluebook, revised January 11,
1990).
3. ``Guidance Document for Correcting Common VOC & Other Rule
Deficiencies,'' EPA Region 9, August 21, 2001 (the Little Bluebook).
4. ``Control of Volatile Organic Emissions from Storage of
Petroleum Liquids in Fixed-Roof Tanks,'' EPA-450/2-77-036, December
1977.
5. ``Control of Volatile Organic Emissions from Petroleum Liquid
Storage in External Floating Roof Tanks,'' EPA-450/2-78-047, December
1978.
6. ``Control of Volatile Organic Emissions from Bulk Gasoline
Plants,'' EPA-450/2-77-035, December 1977.
7. ``Control of Hydrocarbons from Tank Truck Gasoline Loading
Terminals,'' EPA-450/2-77-026, October 1977.
8. ``Control of Volatile Organic Compound Leaks from Gasoline Tank
Trucks and Vapor Collection Systems,'' EPA-450/2-78-051, December 1978.
9. ``Design Criteria for Stage I Vapor Control Systems-Gasoline
Service Stations,'' EPA-450/R-75-102, November 1975.
10. ``Alternative Control Techniques Document: Volatile Organic
Liquid Storage in Floating and Fixed Roof Tanks,'' EPA-453/R-94-001,
January 1994.
B. Do the submitted documents meet the evaluation criteria?
Rules 350, 351, 352, and 353 apply to sources of VOC emissions from
organic liquid storage and gasoline transfer and storage operations in
the Phoenix-Mesa area. The four rules are generally more stringent than
the applicable CTGs, have requirements for organic liquid and gasoline
storage and transfer that are generally consistent with other local air
district rules for these source categories, and are largely consistent
with the applicable CAA requirements. However, as identified below, the
rules contain deficiencies that preclude full approval. In a letter
dated January 28, 2019 (the ``commitment letter''), the County
identified certain rule deficiencies and committed to revise those
provisions in accordance with EPA guidance, and submit the revised
rules within eleven months of a conditional approval.\6\ On February
25, 2019, the ADEQ provided its own commitment to submit the County's
revised rules to the EPA within one month after the County's action and
request for SIP revision.\7\ Because the commitments by the County and
ADEQ would remedy the identified rule deficiencies, we propose to
conditionally approve Rules 350, 351, 352, and 353, and the RACT SIP
with respect to the VOC source categories covered by Rules 350, 351,
352, 353 (as provided in Table 2). Summaries of the specific rule
deficiencies and the County's commitments to address those
[[Page 49702]]
deficiencies are included in the following sections.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Letter dated January 28, 2019, from Philip A. McNeely,
Director, MCAQD, to Misael Cabrera, Director, ADEQ.
\7\ Letter dated February 25, 2019, from Misael Cabrera,
Director, ADEQ, to Michael Stoker, Region Administrator, EPA, Region
IX.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Our TSDs for Rules 350, 351, 352, and 353 provide further details
on our evaluation for these proposed conditional approvals.
C. What are the deficiencies?
The following provisions of Rules 350, 351, 352, and 353 do not
fully satisfy the requirements of section 110 and part D of title I of
the Act and prevent full approval of the SIP revision.
1. Rule 350 Deficiencies \8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Rule deficiencies throughout this section marked with an
asterisk (*) also apply to Rule 351; those marked with a dagger
([dagger]) also apply to Rule 352.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(a) Rule 350 includes exemptions from rule requirements for fuel
consumed or dispensed at the facility directly to users, hazardous
waste, which is undefined, and wastewater and ballast water, none of
which are exempted from the applicable CTGs.
(b) The rule lacks an emissions limit for bulk terminals
transferring organic liquid. The SIP-approved version requires an
emissions limit of 0.08 lbs VOCs/1000 gallons transferred.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ The 0.08 lbs VOC/1000 gallons limit is included in SIP-
approved Rule 351, which contains transfer requirements for organic
liquid and gasoline.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(c) The rule contains inappropriate use of director's discretion
with respect to the opening of hatches or seals on cargo tanks.*
[dagger]
(d) Several sections do not clearly state rule prohibitions, and
instead require owners and operators with particular types of tanks to
put some amount of liquid into tanks that meet certain requirements.
Section 301.3, in particular, appears to be missing the word ``not'' in
a way that impacts the effectiveness of the requirement.*
(e) The rule exempts roofs from the requirement that they always be
floating on liquid when the tank is being filled, instead of only while
filling after the tank has been emptied completely.*
(f) The rule is not clear regarding which external floating roof
tanks are exempt from the rule's requirements.*
(g) The rule does not clearly specify vapor control requirements
for internal floating roof tanks.
(h) The rule contains an overly broad provision, allowing the
opening of hatches, vent valves, or vapor sealing devices for vacuum
relief when organic liquid is transferred from the cargo tank or
railcar into a storage tank.*
2. Rule 351 Deficiencies \10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ For additional Rule 351 deficiencies, please see Rule 350
deficiencies (c)-(f) and (h).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(a) The rule allows the use of a less stringent compliance option
than the SIP-approved rule for controlling VOC vapors from gasoline
storage.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ The vapor loss control requirement is included in SIP-
approved Rule 350, which contains storage requirements for organic
liquid and gasoline.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(b) Rule 351 requirements for gasoline transfers at bulk plants are
not as strict as requirements that have been demonstrated to be
reasonably available in other air districts, as there is no emissions
limit or vapor recovery efficiency requirement when vapor balance
systems are used.
(c) The rule exempts the loading of aviation gasoline at airports
from the rule's gasoline transfer requirements, which is not exempted
from applicable CTGs or other analogous SIP-approved district
rules.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ This deficiency also applies to Rule 352 and Rule 353.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Rule 352 Deficiencies \13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ For additional Rule 352 deficiencies, please see Rule 350
deficiency (c), and Rule 351 deficiency (c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(a) The rule exempts cargo tanks with gasoline loads that
originated outside of Arizona, and gasoline loads delivered outside
Maricopa County, from the rule's gasoline cargo tank vapor tightness
requirements. Exemptions from vapor tightness requirements based on
where the cargo tank is initially filled or where it ultimately
delivers gasoline are not provided for in the applicable CTG.
(b) The rule provides inappropriate discretion to unspecified
agencies to certify cargo tanks vapor tight.
(c) The rule allows gasoline cargo tank vapor tightness tests to
remain valid for up to two years, whereas the CTG and rules from other
air districts require more frequent testing.
(d) The rule allows inappropriate discretion for the opening of
cargo tank hatches during loading.
(e) No test method is specified for determining compliance with the
provision requiring a 90% reduction in VOC emissions by weight when
purging cargo tank vapors.
(f) The rule does not clearly prohibit purging of gasoline vapors
from cargo tanks, including during switch loading, and may relax
purging provisions as compared to the SIP-approved rule.
4. Rule 353 Deficiencies \14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ For an additional Rule 353 deficiency, please see Rule 351
deficiency (c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(a) The rule exempts an owner or operator from certain rule
requirements if the gasoline dispensing facility (GDF) is unattended or
there is only one owner or operator present. As there may be one
attendant at a GDF in many instances for a variety of reasons, this
exemption is overly broad and presents enforceability challenges.
D. What are the commitments to remedy the deficiencies?
The County's commitment letter includes specific and enforceable
commitments, outlined below, to address the above deficiencies for
Rules 350, 351, 352, and 353.
1. Rule 350 Commitments \15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ Rule commitments throughout this section marked with an
asterisk (*) also apply to Rule 351; those marked with a dagger
([dagger]) also apply to Rule 352.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(a) Removing the exemptions for fuel consumed or dispensed at the
facility directly to users, hazardous waste, wastewater, and ballast
water, to address section II.C.1.a, above.
(b) Adding an emissions limit for organic liquid distribution
facilities transferring over 600,000 gallons per 30-day period of
organic liquid, based on a RACT analysis, to address II.C.1.b, above.
(c) Deleting the provision that allows Control Officer discretion
for approval of hatch or seal opening, to address II.C.1.c, above.*
[dagger]
(d) Rephrasing and restructuring the requirements for organic
liquid storage tanks to clarify the specified requirements without
weakening any substantive requirements, to address II.C.1.d, above.*
(e) Clarifying that the floating roof exemption will only apply
when the tank is filled initially, after it is drained completely and
subsequently refilled, or when undergoing maintenance requiring the
roof be rested on its leg supports, to address II.C.1.e, above.*
(f) Removing the specified exemption for external floating roof
tanks, to address II.C.1.f, above.*
(g) Deleting the specified section, and adding requirements for
internal floating roof organic liquid storage tanks that match SIP-
approved requirements, to address II.C.1.g, above.
(h) Limiting the conditions under which a hatch, vent valve, or
vapor sealing device may be open during the organic liquid transfer
from the cargo tank to the storage tank to those necessary to avoid
unsafe operating conditions, to address II.C.1.h, above.*
2. Commitments for Rule 351 \16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ For additional Rule 351 commitments, please see Rule 350
commitments (c)-(f) and (h), above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(a) Adding vapor loss control requirements that will be at least as
stringent as the SIP-approved version, to address II.C.2.a above.
(b) Revising Rule 351 to include an emissions limit or vapor
recovery efficiency for loading at a bulk gasoline plant, based on a
RACT analysis, to address II.C.2.b, above.
[[Page 49703]]
(c) Removing the exemption for aviation gasoline loading at
airports, to address II.C.2.c, above.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ This commitment also applies to Rule 352 and Rule 353.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Commitments for Rule 352 \18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ For additional Rule 352 commitments, please see Rule 350
commitment (c), and Rule 351 commitment (c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(a) Removing the vapor tightness test exemption for cargo tanks
with gasoline loads that originated outside of Arizona and gasoline
loads delivered outside Maricopa County, to address II.C.3.a, above.
(b) Requiring that a gasoline cargo tank tested outside Maricopa
County be tested and verified vapor tight using methods at least as
stringent as those found in the County's rule, and that testing
documentation be submitted to the MCAQD, to address II.C.3.b.
(c) Revising vapor tightness certification expiration requirements
to shorten the maximum testing interval, to address II.C.3.c.
(d) Revising to clarify and limit the conditions under which a
hatch, vent valve, or vapor sealing device may be open during the
transfer of gasoline from the cargo tank, to address II.C.3.d.
(e) Including appropriate EPA-approved test methods to determine
compliance with at least a 90% reduction in VOC emissions by weight, to
address II.C.3.e.
(f) Revising the purging requirements to include a prohibition on
purging that is at least as stringent as the SIP-approved version, to
address II.C.3.f.
4. Commitments for Rule 353 \19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ For an additional Rule 353 commitment, please see Rule 351
commitment (c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(a) Deleting the exemption for unattended GDFs, or GDFs where there
is only one owner or operator present, to address II.C.4.a.
E. The EPA's Recommendations To Further Improve the Submitted Rules
The TSDs for Rule 350, 351, 352, and 353 describe additional rule
revisions that we recommend for the next time the County modifies the
rules.
F. Public Comment and Proposed Action
Rules 350, 351, 352, and 353 largely fulfill the relevant CAA Sec.
110 and part D requirements, but the deficiencies, as discussed in
section C, preclude full SIP approval pursuant to 110(k)(3) of the Act.
Section 110(k)(4) authorizes the EPA to conditionally approve SIP
revisions based on a commitment by the state to adopt specific
enforceable measures by a date certain but not later than one year
after the date of the plan approval.\20\ Because the MCAQD and the ADEQ
have committed to provide the EPA with a SIP submission within one year
of this final action that will include specific rule revisions that
would adequately address the identified deficiencies, we are proposing
to conditionally approve Rules 350, 351, 352, and 353, pursuant to
section 110(k)(4) of the Act. We are also proposing to conditionally
approve MCAQD's RACT demonstrations for the 2008 8-hr ozone NAAQS with
respect to the VOC source categories covered by Rules 350, 351, 352,
and 353, as specified in Table 2. If the MCAQD and the ADEQ submit the
required rule revisions by the specified deadline, and the EPA approves
the submission, then the identified deficiencies will be cured.
However, if these proposed conditional approvals are finalized, and
MCAQD, through the ADEQ, fails to submit these revisions within the
required timeframe, the conditional approval would be treated as a
disapproval for those rules for which the revisions are not submitted
(and the associated RACT SIP CTG source categories). We will accept
comments from the public on this proposal until October 23, 2019. If we
take final action to approve the submitted rules, our final action will
incorporate these rules into the federally enforceable SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ 42 U.S.C. 7410(k)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
III. Incorporation by Reference
In this rule, the EPA is proposing to include in a final EPA rule,
regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance
with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is proposing to incorporate by
reference the MCAQD rules described in Table 1 of this preamble. The
EPA has made, and will continue to make, these materials available
through https://www.regulations.gov and at the EPA Region IX Office
(please contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT section of this preamble for more information).
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
Additional information about these statutes and Executive Orders
can be found at https://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/laws-and-executive-orders.
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review
This action is not a significant regulatory action and was
therefore not submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
for review.
B. Executive Order 13771: Reducing Regulations and Controlling
Regulatory Costs
This action is not an Executive Order 13771 regulatory action
because actions such as SIP approvals are exempted under Executive
Order 12866.
C. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
This action does not impose an information collection burden under
the PRA, because the proposed conditional approvals, if finalized, will
not in-and-of themselves create any new information collection burdens,
but will simply conditionally approve certain State requirements for
inclusion in the SIP.
D. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
I certify that this action will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. This
action will not impose any requirements on small entities. These
proposed conditional approvals, if finalized, will not in-and-of
themselves create any new requirements but will simply conditionally
approve certain State requirements for inclusion in the SIP.
E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)
This action does not contain any unfunded mandate as described in
UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not significantly or uniquely affect
small governments. This action proposes to conditionally approve pre-
existing requirements under State or local law, and imposes no new
requirements. Accordingly, no additional costs to State, local, or
tribal governments, or to the private sector, result from this action.
F. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have
substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between
the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
G. Executive Order 13175: Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments
This action does not have tribal implications, as specified in
Executive Order 13175, because the SIP revisions that the EPA is
proposing to conditionally approve would not 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, and will not impose
substantial direct costs on tribal
[[Page 49704]]
governments or preempt tribal law. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not
apply to this action.
H. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks
The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those
regulatory actions that concern environmental health or safety risks
that the EPA has reason to believe may disproportionately affect
children, per the definition of ``covered regulatory action'' in
section 2-202 of the Executive Order. This action is not subject to
Executive Order 13045 because the proposed conditional approvals, if
finalized, will not in-and-of themselves create any new regulations,
but will simply conditionally approve certain State requirements for
inclusion in the SIP.
I. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use
This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211, because it is
not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.
J. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA)
Section 12(d) of the NTTAA directs the EPA to use voluntary
consensus standards in its regulatory activities unless to do so would
be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. The EPA
believes that this action is not subject to the requirements of section
12(d) of the NTTAA because application of those requirements would be
inconsistent with the CAA.
K. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Population
The EPA lacks the discretionary authority to address environmental
justice in this rulemaking.
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: September 6, 2019.
Deborah Jordan,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. 2019-20425 Filed 9-20-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
