Air Plan Revisions; Arizona; Maricopa County Air Quality Department, 67014-67018 [2024-18458]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
67014
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 160 / Monday, August 19, 2024 / Proposed Rules
regulatory provisions governing
regulation of offsets under CAA section
173 and 40 CFR 51.165(a)(3)(ii)(C)(1)(i),
as explained above. As discussed in our
TSD, we also found that the sourcespecific SIP revisions met the
requirements of sections 110(l) and 193
of the Act. If we finalize this action as
proposed, our action will be codified
through revisions to 40 CFR 52.120
(Identification of Plan).
We will accept comments from the
public on this proposal until September
18, 2024.
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
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 three source-specific SIP revisions
identified in Section I.A. of this
preamble, submitted on April 3, 2024.
These source-specific SIP revisions will
incorporate specific provisions from
permits issued by the MCAQD to ensure
certain emission reductions are surplus,
permanent, quantifiable, and federally
enforceable. The EPA has made, and
will continue to make, these materials
available through https://
www.regulations.gov and in hard copy
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
Under the Clean Air Act, the
Administrator is required to approve a
SIP submission that complies with the
provisions of the Act and applicable
federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k);
40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP
submissions, the EPA’s role is to
approve state choices, provided that
they meet the criteria of the Clean Air
Act. Accordingly, this proposed action
merely proposes to approve state law as
meeting federal requirements and does
not impose additional requirements
beyond those imposed by state law. For
that reason, this 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 14094 (88 FR
21879, April 11, 2023);
• 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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:03 Aug 16, 2024
Jkt 262001
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5
U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
• Does not contain any unfunded
mandate or significantly or uniquely
affect small governments, as described
in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4);
• Does not have federalism
implications as specified in Executive
Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10,
1999);
• Is not subject to Executive Order
13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997)
because it proposes to approve a state
program;
• Is not a significant regulatory action
subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR
28355, May 22, 2001); and
• Is not subject to requirements of
Section 12(d) of the National
Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because
application of those requirements would
be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act.
In addition, the SIP is not approved
to apply on any Indian reservation land
or in any other area where the EPA or
an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a
tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of
Indian country, the rule does not have
tribal implications and will not impose
substantial direct costs on tribal
governments or preempt tribal law as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65
FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
Executive Order 12898 (Federal
Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and
Low-Income Populations, 59 FR 7629,
February 16, 1994) directs Federal
agencies to identify and address
‘‘disproportionately high and adverse
human health or environmental effects’’
of their actions on minority populations
and low-income populations to the
greatest extent practicable and
permitted by law. The EPA defines
environmental justice (EJ) as ‘‘the fair
treatment and meaningful involvement
of all people regardless of race, color,
national origin, or income with respect
to the development, implementation,
and enforcement of environmental laws,
regulations, and policies.’’ The EPA
further defines the term fair treatment to
mean that ‘‘no group of people should
bear a disproportionate burden of
environmental harms and risks,
including those resulting from the
negative environmental consequences of
industrial, governmental, and
commercial operations or programs and
policies.’’
The State did not evaluate EJ
considerations as part of its SIP
submittal; the CAA and applicable
implementing regulations neither
prohibit nor require such an evaluation.
The EPA did not perform an EJ analysis
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
and did not consider EJ in this action.
Consideration of EJ is not required as
part of this action, and there is no
information in the record inconsistent
with the stated goal of Executive Order
12898 of achieving EJ for people of
color, low-income populations, and
Indigenous peoples.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection,
Administrative practice and procedure,
Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations,
Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Volatile
organic compounds.
Dated: August 12, 2024.
Martha Guzman Aceves,
Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. 2024–18386 Filed 8–16–24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R09–OAR–2023–0603; FRL–11596–
01–R9]
Air Plan Revisions; Arizona; Maricopa
County Air Quality Department
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve
revisions to the Maricopa County Air
Quality Department (MCAQD or
‘‘County’’) portion of the Arizona State
Implementation Plan (SIP). These
revisions concern emissions of volatile
organic compounds (VOC) from storage,
transfer, or loading of organic liquids
and gasoline. We are proposing to
approve local rules to regulate these
emission sources under the Clean Air
Act (CAA or ‘‘Act’’). We are also
proposing to approve the MCAQD’s
reasonably available control technology
(RACT) demonstration associated with
these rules for the 2008 8-hour ozone
national ambient air quality standards
(NAAQS) in the Phoenix-Mesa ozone
nonattainment area. We are taking
comments on this proposal and plan to
follow with a final action.
DATES: Comments must be received on
or before September 18, 2024.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R09–
OAR–2023–0603 at https://
www.regulations.gov. For comments
submitted at Regulations.gov, follow the
online instructions for submitting
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\19AUP1.SGM
19AUP1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 160 / Monday, August 19, 2024 / Proposed Rules
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. If you need
assistance in a language other than
English or if you are a person with a
disability who needs a reasonable
accommodation at no cost to you, please
contact the person identified in the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.
Mae
Wang, EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne
St., San Francisco, CA 94105; phone:
(415) 947–4137; email: wang.mae@
epa.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Throughout this document, ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us’’
and ‘‘our’’ refer to the EPA.
Table of Contents
I. The State’s Submittal
67015
A. What rules did the State submit?
B. Are there other versions of these rules?
C. What is the purpose of the submitted
rule revisions?
II. The EPA’s Evaluation and Action
A. How is the EPA evaluating the rules?
B. Do the rules meet the evaluation
criteria?
C. The EPA’s Recommendations To Further
Improve the Rules
D. Public Comment and Proposed Action
III. Incorporation by Reference
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. The State’s Submittal
A. What rules did the State submit?
Table 1 lists the rules addressed by
this proposal with the dates that they
were adopted by the MCAQD and
submitted to the EPA by the Arizona
Department of Environmental Quality
(ADEQ or ‘‘State’’).
TABLE 1—SUBMITTED RULES
Local agency
Rule #
Rule title
MCAQD .............
350
MCAQD .............
351
Revised
Storage and Transfer of Organic Liquids (Non-Gasoline) at an Organic
Liquid Distribution (OLD) Facility.
Storage and Loading of Gasoline at Bulk Gasoline Plants and at Bulk
Gasoline Terminals.
On June 3, 2021, the SIP submittal
containing the documents listed in
Table 1 was deemed complete by
operation of law.
B. Are there other versions of these
rules?
We conditionally approved earlier
versions of Rule 350 and Rule 351 into
the SIP on February 26, 2020 (85 FR
10986). In order to fulfill the
commitment the MCAQD made as part
of our prior conditional approval, the
MCAQD adopted revisions to the SIPapproved versions on November 18,
2020, and ADEQ submitted them to the
EPA on December 3, 2020. The February
26, 2020 conditional approval, and an
explanation of how the SIP submittal
proposed for approval here addresses
the deficiencies identified in the
conditional approval, are discussed in
more detail below. If we finalize this
proposal to approve the November 18,
2020 versions of these rules, then these
versions will replace the previously
approved versions of these rules in the
SIP.
C. What is the purpose of the submitted
rule revisions?
Emissions of VOC contribute to the
formation of ground-level ozone, which
harms human health and the
environment. Section 110(a) of the CAA
requires States to submit plans that
provide for implementation,
maintenance, and enforcement of the
NAAQS. In addition, CAA section
182(b)(2) requires that SIPs for ozone
nonattainment areas classified as
‘‘Moderate’’ or higher implement RACT
for sources covered by a control
techniques guidelines (CTG) document.
Submitted
11/18/2020
12/03/2020
11/18/2020
12/03/2020
The MCAQD regulates a portion of the
Phoenix-Mesa area designated as
nonattainment for ozone and classified
as Moderate nonattainment for the 2008
ozone NAAQS.1 Therefore, the MCAQD
is required to submit SIP revisions that
implement RACT-level controls for all
sources covered by a CTG. The MCAQD
submitted Rule 350 and Rule 351 to
establish RACT-level controls for VOC
emissions from sources covered by the
petroleum liquid and gasoline storage
and transfer CTGs. Rule 350 limits VOC
emissions from organic liquid storage
tanks and VOC emissions during
transfer operations at organic liquid
distribution facilities. Rule 351 limits
VOC emissions from storage and loading
of gasoline at bulk gasoline plants and
bulk gasoline terminals. The associated
CTGs are shown in Table 2.
TABLE 2—RULES AND ASSOCIATED CTGS
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
MCAQMD rule
Rule 350 ...........
Rule 351 ...........
Associated CTGs
Control
Control
Control
Control
Control
of
of
of
of
of
Volatile Organic Emissions from Storage of Petroleum Liquids in Fixed-Roof Tanks (EPA–450/2–77–036).
Volatile Organic Emissions from Petroleum Liquid Storage in External Floating Roof Tanks (EPA–450/2–78–047).
Volatile Organic Emissions from Storage of Petroleum Liquids in Fixed-Roof Tanks (EPA–450/2–77–036).
Volatile Organic Emissions from Petroleum Liquid Storage in External Floating Roof Tanks (EPA–450/2–78–047).
Hydrocarbons from Tank Truck Gasoline Loading Terminals (EPA–450/2–77–026).
1 On November 12, 2019 (84 FR 60920), the EPA
issued a determination that the Phoenix-Mesa
ozone nonattainment area attained the 2008 ozone
NAAQS by the Moderate area attainment date of
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:03 Aug 16, 2024
Jkt 262001
July 20, 2018. That determination did not constitute
a redesignation of the area to attainment for the
2008 ozone standard. The designation status of the
Phoenix-Mesa area will remain Moderate
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
nonattainment for the 2008 ozone NAAQS until
such time as the EPA determines that the area meets
Clean Air Act requirements for redesignation to
attainment.
E:\FR\FM\19AUP1.SGM
19AUP1
67016
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 160 / Monday, August 19, 2024 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 2—RULES AND ASSOCIATED CTGS—Continued
MCAQMD rule
Associated CTGs
Control of Volatile Organic Emissions from Bulk Gasoline Plants (EPA–450/2–77–035).
Section III.D of the preamble to the
EPA’s final rule to implement the 2008
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 subject to a specific
CTG. The County’s RACT SIP provides
MCAQD’s analysis of its compliance
with the CAA section 182 RACT
requirements for the 2008 8-hour ozone
NAAQS. On February 26, 2020, the EPA
conditionally approved MCAQD Rule
350, Rule 351, and the County’s RACT
demonstration for the CTGs associated
with these rules, into the Arizona SIP.
The rules contained deficiencies that
precluded full SIP approval and were
conditionally approved based on a
commitment by the MCAQD and the
ADEQ to provide, within one year, a SIP
submission that would address those
deficiencies. The MCAQD subsequently
revised these rules to address the
identified deficiencies and the ADEQ
submitted the revised rules on
December 3, 2020. The EPA’s technical
support document (TSD) has more
information about these rules.
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
II. The EPA’s Evaluation and Action
A. How is the EPA evaluating the rules?
Rules in the SIP must be enforceable
(see CAA section 110(a)(2)) and must
not interfere with applicable
requirements concerning attainment and
reasonable further progress or other
CAA requirements (see CAA section
110(l)). In addition, because this rule
was submitted to satisfy the RACT
requirement for sources covered by the
CTGs listed in table 2, these rules must
establish RACT level controls for such
sources.
Guidance and policy documents that
the EPA 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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:03 Aug 16, 2024
Jkt 262001
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.
B. Do the rules meet the evaluation
criteria?
As summarized below, the EPA is
proposing to conclude that these revised
rules have corrected the deficiencies
previously identified in the earlier
versions of the rules that were
conditionally approved into the SIP.
Our February 26, 2020 conditional
approval action found that these rules
met all relevant CAA requirements
except for the identified deficiencies.
Because those deficiencies have been
corrected, we are proposing to find that
the revised rules are consistent with
relevant requirements regarding
enforceability, RACT, and SIP revisions.
The submitted rules satisfy the CAA
section 182 RACT requirements for the
2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS for the
Phoenix-Mesa ozone nonattainment area
with regard to the CTGs listed in table
2 of this document. The TSD has more
information on our evaluation,
including descriptions of the individual
deficiencies and the way that each was
addressed in the current submitted
version of the rules.
1. Deficiencies Previously Identified in
MCAQD Rule 350
Section 103 of Rule 350 exempted
fuel consumed or dispensed at the
facility directly to users, hazardous
waste, and wastewater and ballast water
from organic liquid storage and transfer
requirements. These exemptions were
not previously in the SIP and were a
potential CAA section 110(l) relaxation
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
as the County had not demonstrated the
exemptions were necessary or that the
exemptions would not interfere with
attainment, reasonable further progress,
or other requirements of the Act. The
County corrected this deficiency by
removing the exemptions.
Similarly, Rule 350 was missing an
emissions limit that was previously in
the SIP for organic liquid distribution
facilities transferring over 600,000
gallons per month of organic liquid. The
County addressed this potential CAA
section 110(l) relaxation by adding the
prior SIP limit to Rule 350, section
305.4.
Section 103.2(g)(2) of Rule 350
allowed the Control Officer to approve
alternate procedures or requirements for
opening vapor containment equipment
while performing operations without
clearly specifying what criteria the
Control Officer would use to approve
such alternate procedures. The County
addressed this potentially inappropriate
use of director’s discretion by deleting
the language referring to Control Officer
approval.
Sections 301.1, 301.2. 301.3, and
301.4 of Rule 350 did not state a
particular prohibition and the phrasing
made the requirements unclear. The
County restructured and rephrased the
rule language to clarify the requirements
for organic liquid storage tanks. The
new language appears in Rule 350,
section 303.
Section 103.2(e) of Rule 350 seemed
to contain a limited exemption for
floating roofs whenever the tank is being
filled, instead of only during filling after
the tank has been emptied completely.
The County revised the language so the
exemption applies only when the tank
is drained completely and subsequently
refilled.
Section 302.1(b) of Rule 350 was not
clear regarding which external floating
roof tanks are exempt from the rule’s
requirements and seemed to provide
tanks with shoe-mounted secondary
seals a broad exemption from all the
rule’s requirements. The County
corrected this deficiency by removing
the exemption.
Section 302.2(c)(1) of Rule 350 did
not clearly specify vapor control
requirements for internal floating roof
tanks. The County revised the language
to provide compliance with 40 CFR part
60, subpart Kb as one compliance
option.
E:\FR\FM\19AUP1.SGM
19AUP1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 160 / Monday, August 19, 2024 / Proposed Rules
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Section 103.2(g)(1) of Rule 350
contained an overly broad provision
that is inconsistent with the CTG for
bulk plants and could result in an open
hatch during an entire loading event,
leading to VOC emissions release. The
County revised the rule language to
clarify that the conditions under which
a hatch, vent valve, or vapor sealing
device may be open during transfer are
limited to those necessary to avoid
unsafe operating conditions.
2. Deficiencies Previously Identified in
MCAQD Rule 351
Section 103.5(e)(2) of Rule 351
allowed the Control Officer to approve
alternate procedures or requirements for
opening vapor containment equipment
while performing operations without
clearly specifying what criteria the
Control Officer would use to approve
such alternate procedures. The County
addressed this potentially inappropriate
use of director’s discretion by deleting
the language referring to Control Officer
approval.
Sections 302.2, 302.3. and 304.4 of
Rule 351 did not state a particular
prohibition and the phrasing made the
requirements unclear. The County
restructured and rephrased the rule
language to clarify the requirements for
gasoline storage tanks. The new
language appears in Rule 351, section
303.
Section 103.4(b) of Rule 351 seemed
to contain a limited exemption for
floating roofs whenever the tank is being
filled, instead of only during filling after
the tank has been emptied completely.
The County revised the language so the
exemption applies only when the tank
is drained completely and subsequently
refilled.
Section 303.1(b) of Rule 351 was not
clear regarding which external floating
roof tanks are exempt from the rule’s
requirements and seemed to provide
tanks with shoe-mounted secondary
seals a broad exemption from all the
rule’s requirements. The County
corrected this deficiency by removing
the exemption.
Section 103.5(e)(1) of Rule 351
contained an overly broad provision
that is inconsistent with the CTG for
bulk plants and could result in an open
hatch during an entire loading event,
leading to VOC emissions release. The
County revised the rule language to
clarify that the conditions under which
a hatch, vent valve, or vapor sealing
device may be open during transfer are
limited to those necessary to avoid
unsafe operating conditions.
The ‘‘vapor loss control system’’
included as a compliance option in Rule
351, section 303.4, was not as stringent
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:03 Aug 16, 2024
Jkt 262001
as the vapor collection/processing
system (VCPS) control option included
in the SIP-approved rule. The County
added the term ‘‘vapor collection/
processing system’’ back into Rule 351
and included an emission reduction
efficiency requirement as stringent as
the requirement in the previous SIPapproved rule in the term’s definition
and in section 304.3.
Rule 351 lacked an emissions limit or
vapor recovery efficiency requirement
that had been demonstrated to meet
RACT stringency requirements for
gasoline bulk plant transfers. The
County added a requirement in Rule
351, section 304.2 to require an
emission limit of 0.6 lbs VOC/1000
gallons or a vapor recovery efficiency of
at least 90%, comparable to other
current local rules.
Section 103.1 of Rule 351 exempted
the loading of aviation gasoline at
airports from the rule’s gasoline transfer
requirements. The County had not
demonstrated the exemption was
necessary or that the exemption would
not interfere with reasonable further
progress, or other requirements of the
Act. The County corrected this
deficiency by removing the exemption.
C. The EPA’s Recommendations To
Further Improve the Rules
The TSD includes recommendations
for the next time the MCAQD modifies
these rules.
D. Public Comment and Proposed
Action
As authorized in section 110(k)(3) of
the Act, the EPA proposes to approve
the submitted rules because they fulfill
all relevant requirements. We are also
proposing to approve the MCAQD’s
RACT demonstration for the 2008 8hour ozone NAAQS with regard to the
sources covered by the CTGs associated
with these rules (as listed in table 2).
This approval, if finalized, would mean
that the State has fulfilled its
commitment under the terms of the
conditional approval to submit a revised
approvable SIP submission, and the
finalized approval would replace our
February 26, 2020 conditional approval
with respect to these rules and
associated CTG RACT categories. If we
finalize this approval, we would also
remove the text associated with the
conditional approval from 40 CFR
52.119(c)(1). We will accept comments
from the public on this proposal until
September 18, 2024. If we take final
action to approve the submitted rules,
our final action will incorporate these
rules into the federally enforceable SIP.
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
67017
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
MCAQD Rule 350, ‘‘Storage and
Transfer of Organic Liquids (NonGasoline) at an Organic Liquid
Distribution (OLD) Facility,’’ revised on
November 18, 2020, which regulates
VOC emissions from organic liquid
storage and transfer operations at
organic liquid distribution facilities.
The EPA is also proposing to
incorporate by reference MCAQD Rule
351, ‘‘Storage and Loading of Gasoline
at Bulk Gasoline Plants and at Bulk
Gasoline Terminals,’’ revised on
November 18, 2020, which regulates
VOC emissions from gasoline storage
and loading activities at bulk gasoline
plants and terminals. 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
Under the Clean Air Act, the
Administrator is required to approve a
SIP submission that complies with the
provisions of the Act and applicable
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k);
40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP
submissions, the EPA’s role is to
approve State choices, provided that
they meet the criteria of the Clean Air
Act. Accordingly, this proposed action
merely proposes to approve State law as
meeting Federal requirements and does
not impose additional requirements
beyond those imposed by State law. For
that reason, this 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 14094 (88 FR
21879, April 11, 2023);
• Does not impose an information
collection burden under the provisions
of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
• Is certified as not having a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5
U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
• Does not contain any unfunded
mandate or significantly or uniquely
affect small governments, as described
in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4);
E:\FR\FM\19AUP1.SGM
19AUP1
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
67018
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 160 / Monday, August 19, 2024 / Proposed Rules
• Does not have federalism
implications as specified in Executive
Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10,
1999);
• Is not subject to Executive Order
13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997)
because it proposes to approve a State
program;
• Is not a significant regulatory action
subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR
28355, May 22, 2001); and
• Is not subject to requirements of
section 12(d) of the National
Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because
application of those requirements would
be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act.
In addition, the SIP is not approved
to apply on any Indian reservation land
or in any other area where the EPA or
an Indian Tribe has demonstrated that a
Tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of
Indian country, the rule does not have
Tribal implications and will not impose
substantial direct costs on Tribal
governments or preempt Tribal law as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65
FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
Executive Order 12898 (Federal
Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and
Low-Income Populations, 59 FR 7629,
February 16, 1994) directs Federal
agencies to identify and address
‘‘disproportionately high and adverse
human health or environmental effects’’
of their actions on minority populations
and low-income populations to the
greatest extent practicable and
permitted by law. The EPA defines
environmental justice (EJ) as ‘‘the fair
treatment and meaningful involvement
of all people regardless of race, color,
national origin, or income with respect
to the development, implementation,
and enforcement of environmental laws,
regulations, and policies.’’ The EPA
further defines the term fair treatment to
mean that ‘‘no group of people should
bear a disproportionate burden of
environmental harms and risks,
including those resulting from the
negative environmental consequences of
industrial, governmental, and
commercial operations or programs and
policies.’’
The State did not evaluate EJ
considerations as part of its SIP
submittal; the CAA and applicable
implementing regulations neither
prohibit nor require such an evaluation.
The EPA did not perform an EJ analysis
and did not consider EJ in this action.
Consideration of EJ is not required as
part of this action, and there is no
information in the record inconsistent
with the stated goal of E.O. 12898 of
achieving EJ for people of color, low-
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:03 Aug 16, 2024
Jkt 262001
income populations, and Indigenous
peoples.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations,
Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Volatile organic
compounds.
Dated: August 13, 2024.
Martha Guzman Aceves,
Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. 2024–18458 Filed 8–16–24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R03–OAR–2023–0301; FRL–10191–
01–R3]
Approval and Promulgation of Air
Quality Implementation Plans;
Delaware; Regional Haze State
Implementation Plan for the Second
Implementation Period
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA or ‘‘the Agency’’) is
proposing to approve the regional haze
State implementation plan (SIP)
revision submitted by Delaware on
August 8, 2022, and supplemented on
March 7, 2024, as satisfying applicable
requirements under the Clean Air Act
(CAA) and EPA’s Regional Haze Rule
(RHR) for the program’s second
implementation period. Delaware’s SIP
submission addresses the requirement
that States must periodically revise their
long-term strategies for making
reasonable progress towards the
national goal of preventing any future,
and remedying any existing,
anthropogenic impairment of visibility,
including regional haze, in mandatory
Class I Federal areas. The SIP
submission also addresses other
applicable requirements for the second
implementation period of the regional
haze program. EPA is taking this action
pursuant to sections 110 and 169A of
the CAA.
DATES: Written comments must be
received on or before September 18,
2024.
SUMMARY:
Submit your comments,
identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R03–
OAR–2023–0301 at
www.regulations.gov. For comments
submitted at www.regulations.gov,
ADDRESSES:
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
follow the online instructions for
submitting comments. Once submitted,
comments cannot be edited or removed
from www.regulations.gov. For either
manner of submission, 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
www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epadockets.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Adam Yarina, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Air & Radiation
Division, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Region III, Four Penn Center,
1600 John F Kennedy Boulevard,
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. The
telephone number is (215) 814–2108.
Mr. Yarina can also be reached via
electronic mail at yarina.adam@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. What action is EPA proposing?
II. Background and Requirements for
Regional Haze Plans
A. Regional Haze Background
B. Roles of Agencies in Addressing
Regional Haze
III. Requirements for Regional Haze Plans for
the Second Implementation Period
A. Identification of Class I Areas
B. Calculations of Baseline, Current, and
Natural Visibility Conditions; Progress to
Date; and the Uniform Rate of Progress
C. Long-Term Strategy for Regional Haze
D. Reasonable Progress Goals
E. Monitoring Strategy and Other State
Implementation Plan Requirements
F. Requirements for Periodic Reports
Describing Progress Towards the
Reasonable Progress Goals
G. Requirements for State and Federal
Land Manager Coordination
IV. EPA’s Evaluation of Delaware’s Regional
Haze Submission for the Second
Implementation Period
A. Background on Delaware’s First
Implementation Period SIP Submission
E:\FR\FM\19AUP1.SGM
19AUP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 160 (Monday, August 19, 2024)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 67014-67018]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-18458]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R09-OAR-2023-0603; FRL-11596-01-R9]
Air Plan Revisions; Arizona; Maricopa County Air Quality
Department
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve revisions to the Maricopa County Air Quality Department (MCAQD
or ``County'') portion of the Arizona State Implementation Plan (SIP).
These revisions concern emissions of volatile organic compounds (VOC)
from storage, transfer, or loading of organic liquids and gasoline. We
are proposing to approve local rules to regulate these emission sources
under the Clean Air Act (CAA or ``Act''). We are also proposing to
approve the MCAQD's reasonably available control technology (RACT)
demonstration associated with these rules for the 2008 8-hour ozone
national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) in the Phoenix-Mesa
ozone nonattainment area. We are taking comments on this proposal and
plan to follow with a final action.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before September 18, 2024.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R09-
OAR-2023-0603 at https://www.regulations.gov. For comments submitted at
Regulations.gov, follow the online instructions for submitting
[[Page 67015]]
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. If you need assistance in a
language other than English or if you are a person with a disability
who needs a reasonable accommodation at no cost to you, please contact
the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mae Wang, EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne
St., San Francisco, CA 94105; phone: (415) 947-4137; email:
[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 rules did the State submit?
B. Are there other versions of these rules?
C. What is the purpose of the submitted rule revisions?
II. The EPA's Evaluation and Action
A. How is the EPA evaluating the rules?
B. Do the rules meet the evaluation criteria?
C. The EPA's Recommendations To Further Improve the Rules
D. Public Comment and Proposed Action
III. Incorporation by Reference
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. The State's Submittal
A. What rules did the State submit?
Table 1 lists the rules addressed by this proposal with the dates
that they were adopted by the MCAQD and submitted to the EPA by the
Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ or ``State'').
Table 1--Submitted Rules
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Local agency Rule # Rule title Revised Submitted
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MCAQD.......................... 350 Storage and Transfer of Organic 11/18/2020 12/03/2020
Liquids (Non-Gasoline) at an
Organic Liquid Distribution
(OLD) Facility.
MCAQD.......................... 351 Storage and Loading of Gasoline 11/18/2020 12/03/2020
at Bulk Gasoline Plants and at
Bulk Gasoline Terminals.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On June 3, 2021, the SIP submittal containing the documents listed
in Table 1 was deemed complete by operation of law.
B. Are there other versions of these rules?
We conditionally approved earlier versions of Rule 350 and Rule 351
into the SIP on February 26, 2020 (85 FR 10986). In order to fulfill
the commitment the MCAQD made as part of our prior conditional
approval, the MCAQD adopted revisions to the SIP-approved versions on
November 18, 2020, and ADEQ submitted them to the EPA on December 3,
2020. The February 26, 2020 conditional approval, and an explanation of
how the SIP submittal proposed for approval here addresses the
deficiencies identified in the conditional approval, are discussed in
more detail below. If we finalize this proposal to approve the November
18, 2020 versions of these rules, then these versions will replace the
previously approved versions of these rules in the SIP.
C. What is the purpose of the submitted rule revisions?
Emissions of VOC contribute to the formation of ground-level ozone,
which harms human health and the environment. Section 110(a) of the CAA
requires States to submit plans that provide for implementation,
maintenance, and enforcement of the NAAQS. In addition, CAA section
182(b)(2) requires that SIPs for ozone nonattainment areas classified
as ``Moderate'' or higher implement RACT for sources covered by a
control techniques guidelines (CTG) document. The MCAQD regulates a
portion of the Phoenix-Mesa area designated as nonattainment for ozone
and classified as Moderate nonattainment for the 2008 ozone NAAQS.\1\
Therefore, the MCAQD is required to submit SIP revisions that implement
RACT-level controls for all sources covered by a CTG. The MCAQD
submitted Rule 350 and Rule 351 to establish RACT-level controls for
VOC emissions from sources covered by the petroleum liquid and gasoline
storage and transfer CTGs. Rule 350 limits VOC emissions from organic
liquid storage tanks and VOC emissions during transfer operations at
organic liquid distribution facilities. Rule 351 limits VOC emissions
from storage and loading of gasoline at bulk gasoline plants and bulk
gasoline terminals. The associated CTGs are shown in Table 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ On November 12, 2019 (84 FR 60920), the EPA issued a
determination that the Phoenix-Mesa ozone nonattainment area
attained the 2008 ozone NAAQS by the Moderate area attainment date
of July 20, 2018. That determination did not constitute a
redesignation of the area to attainment for the 2008 ozone standard.
The designation status of the Phoenix-Mesa area will remain Moderate
nonattainment for the 2008 ozone NAAQS until such time as the EPA
determines that the area meets Clean Air Act requirements for
redesignation to attainment.
Table 2--Rules and Associated CTGs
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MCAQMD 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).
[[Page 67016]]
Control of Volatile Organic Emissions from
Bulk Gasoline Plants (EPA-450/2-77-035).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section III.D of the preamble to the EPA's final rule to implement
the 2008 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 subject to a specific CTG. The
County's RACT SIP provides MCAQD's analysis of its compliance with the
CAA section 182 RACT requirements for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. On
February 26, 2020, the EPA conditionally approved MCAQD Rule 350, Rule
351, and the County's RACT demonstration for the CTGs associated with
these rules, into the Arizona SIP. The rules contained deficiencies
that precluded full SIP approval and were conditionally approved based
on a commitment by the MCAQD and the ADEQ to provide, within one year,
a SIP submission that would address those deficiencies. The MCAQD
subsequently revised these rules to address the identified deficiencies
and the ADEQ submitted the revised rules on December 3, 2020. The EPA's
technical support document (TSD) has more information about these
rules.
II. The EPA's Evaluation and Action
A. How is the EPA evaluating the rules?
Rules in the SIP must be enforceable (see CAA section 110(a)(2))
and must not interfere with applicable requirements concerning
attainment and reasonable further progress or other CAA requirements
(see CAA section 110(l)). In addition, because this rule was submitted
to satisfy the RACT requirement for sources covered by the CTGs listed
in table 2, these rules must establish RACT level controls for such
sources.
Guidance and policy documents that the EPA 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.
B. Do the rules meet the evaluation criteria?
As summarized below, the EPA is proposing to conclude that these
revised rules have corrected the deficiencies previously identified in
the earlier versions of the rules that were conditionally approved into
the SIP. Our February 26, 2020 conditional approval action found that
these rules met all relevant CAA requirements except for the identified
deficiencies. Because those deficiencies have been corrected, we are
proposing to find that the revised rules are consistent with relevant
requirements regarding enforceability, RACT, and SIP revisions. The
submitted rules satisfy the CAA section 182 RACT requirements for the
2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS for the Phoenix-Mesa ozone nonattainment area
with regard to the CTGs listed in table 2 of this document. The TSD has
more information on our evaluation, including descriptions of the
individual deficiencies and the way that each was addressed in the
current submitted version of the rules.
1. Deficiencies Previously Identified in MCAQD Rule 350
Section 103 of Rule 350 exempted fuel consumed or dispensed at the
facility directly to users, hazardous waste, and wastewater and ballast
water from organic liquid storage and transfer requirements. These
exemptions were not previously in the SIP and were a potential CAA
section 110(l) relaxation as the County had not demonstrated the
exemptions were necessary or that the exemptions would not interfere
with attainment, reasonable further progress, or other requirements of
the Act. The County corrected this deficiency by removing the
exemptions.
Similarly, Rule 350 was missing an emissions limit that was
previously in the SIP for organic liquid distribution facilities
transferring over 600,000 gallons per month of organic liquid. The
County addressed this potential CAA section 110(l) relaxation by adding
the prior SIP limit to Rule 350, section 305.4.
Section 103.2(g)(2) of Rule 350 allowed the Control Officer to
approve alternate procedures or requirements for opening vapor
containment equipment while performing operations without clearly
specifying what criteria the Control Officer would use to approve such
alternate procedures. The County addressed this potentially
inappropriate use of director's discretion by deleting the language
referring to Control Officer approval.
Sections 301.1, 301.2. 301.3, and 301.4 of Rule 350 did not state a
particular prohibition and the phrasing made the requirements unclear.
The County restructured and rephrased the rule language to clarify the
requirements for organic liquid storage tanks. The new language appears
in Rule 350, section 303.
Section 103.2(e) of Rule 350 seemed to contain a limited exemption
for floating roofs whenever the tank is being filled, instead of only
during filling after the tank has been emptied completely. The County
revised the language so the exemption applies only when the tank is
drained completely and subsequently refilled.
Section 302.1(b) of Rule 350 was not clear regarding which external
floating roof tanks are exempt from the rule's requirements and seemed
to provide tanks with shoe-mounted secondary seals a broad exemption
from all the rule's requirements. The County corrected this deficiency
by removing the exemption.
Section 302.2(c)(1) of Rule 350 did not clearly specify vapor
control requirements for internal floating roof tanks. The County
revised the language to provide compliance with 40 CFR part 60, subpart
Kb as one compliance option.
[[Page 67017]]
Section 103.2(g)(1) of Rule 350 contained an overly broad provision
that is inconsistent with the CTG for bulk plants and could result in
an open hatch during an entire loading event, leading to VOC emissions
release. The County revised the rule language to clarify that the
conditions under which a hatch, vent valve, or vapor sealing device may
be open during transfer are limited to those necessary to avoid unsafe
operating conditions.
2. Deficiencies Previously Identified in MCAQD Rule 351
Section 103.5(e)(2) of Rule 351 allowed the Control Officer to
approve alternate procedures or requirements for opening vapor
containment equipment while performing operations without clearly
specifying what criteria the Control Officer would use to approve such
alternate procedures. The County addressed this potentially
inappropriate use of director's discretion by deleting the language
referring to Control Officer approval.
Sections 302.2, 302.3. and 304.4 of Rule 351 did not state a
particular prohibition and the phrasing made the requirements unclear.
The County restructured and rephrased the rule language to clarify the
requirements for gasoline storage tanks. The new language appears in
Rule 351, section 303.
Section 103.4(b) of Rule 351 seemed to contain a limited exemption
for floating roofs whenever the tank is being filled, instead of only
during filling after the tank has been emptied completely. The County
revised the language so the exemption applies only when the tank is
drained completely and subsequently refilled.
Section 303.1(b) of Rule 351 was not clear regarding which external
floating roof tanks are exempt from the rule's requirements and seemed
to provide tanks with shoe-mounted secondary seals a broad exemption
from all the rule's requirements. The County corrected this deficiency
by removing the exemption.
Section 103.5(e)(1) of Rule 351 contained an overly broad provision
that is inconsistent with the CTG for bulk plants and could result in
an open hatch during an entire loading event, leading to VOC emissions
release. The County revised the rule language to clarify that the
conditions under which a hatch, vent valve, or vapor sealing device may
be open during transfer are limited to those necessary to avoid unsafe
operating conditions.
The ``vapor loss control system'' included as a compliance option
in Rule 351, section 303.4, was not as stringent as the vapor
collection/processing system (VCPS) control option included in the SIP-
approved rule. The County added the term ``vapor collection/processing
system'' back into Rule 351 and included an emission reduction
efficiency requirement as stringent as the requirement in the previous
SIP-approved rule in the term's definition and in section 304.3.
Rule 351 lacked an emissions limit or vapor recovery efficiency
requirement that had been demonstrated to meet RACT stringency
requirements for gasoline bulk plant transfers. The County added a
requirement in Rule 351, section 304.2 to require an emission limit of
0.6 lbs VOC/1000 gallons or a vapor recovery efficiency of at least
90%, comparable to other current local rules.
Section 103.1 of Rule 351 exempted the loading of aviation gasoline
at airports from the rule's gasoline transfer requirements. The County
had not demonstrated the exemption was necessary or that the exemption
would not interfere with reasonable further progress, or other
requirements of the Act. The County corrected this deficiency by
removing the exemption.
C. The EPA's Recommendations To Further Improve the Rules
The TSD includes recommendations for the next time the MCAQD
modifies these rules.
D. Public Comment and Proposed Action
As authorized in section 110(k)(3) of the Act, the EPA proposes to
approve the submitted rules because they fulfill all relevant
requirements. We are also proposing to approve the MCAQD's RACT
demonstration for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS with regard to the
sources covered by the CTGs associated with these rules (as listed in
table 2). This approval, if finalized, would mean that the State has
fulfilled its commitment under the terms of the conditional approval to
submit a revised approvable SIP submission, and the finalized approval
would replace our February 26, 2020 conditional approval with respect
to these rules and associated CTG RACT categories. If we finalize this
approval, we would also remove the text associated with the conditional
approval from 40 CFR 52.119(c)(1). We will accept comments from the
public on this proposal until September 18, 2024. 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 MCAQD Rule 350, ``Storage and Transfer of Organic Liquids
(Non-Gasoline) at an Organic Liquid Distribution (OLD) Facility,''
revised on November 18, 2020, which regulates VOC emissions from
organic liquid storage and transfer operations at organic liquid
distribution facilities. The EPA is also proposing to incorporate by
reference MCAQD Rule 351, ``Storage and Loading of Gasoline at Bulk
Gasoline Plants and at Bulk Gasoline Terminals,'' revised on November
18, 2020, which regulates VOC emissions from gasoline storage and
loading activities at bulk gasoline plants and terminals. 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
Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a
SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and
applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve State
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act.
Accordingly, this proposed action merely proposes to approve State law
as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional
requirements beyond those imposed by State law. For that reason, this
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 14094 (88 FR 21879, April 11, 2023);
Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
[[Page 67018]]
Does not have federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
Is not subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885,
April 23, 1997) because it proposes to approve a State program;
Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001); and
Is not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the Clean Air Act.
In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian
reservation land or in any other area where the EPA or an Indian Tribe
has demonstrated that a Tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of
Indian country, the rule does not have Tribal implications and will not
impose substantial direct costs on Tribal governments or preempt Tribal
law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9,
2000).
Executive Order 12898 (Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations, 59 FR 7629,
February 16, 1994) directs Federal agencies to identify and address
``disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental
effects'' of their actions on minority populations and low-income
populations to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law.
The EPA defines environmental justice (EJ) as ``the fair treatment and
meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, color,
national origin, or income with respect to the development,
implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and
policies.'' The EPA further defines the term fair treatment to mean
that ``no group of people should bear a disproportionate burden of
environmental harms and risks, including those resulting from the
negative environmental consequences of industrial, governmental, and
commercial operations or programs and policies.''
The State did not evaluate EJ considerations as part of its SIP
submittal; the CAA and applicable implementing regulations neither
prohibit nor require such an evaluation. The EPA did not perform an EJ
analysis and did not consider EJ in this action. Consideration of EJ is
not required as part of this action, and there is no information in the
record inconsistent with the stated goal of E.O. 12898 of achieving EJ
for people of color, low-income populations, and Indigenous peoples.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Ozone, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.
Dated: August 13, 2024.
Martha Guzman Aceves,
Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. 2024-18458 Filed 8-16-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
