79340 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 250 / Monday, December 30, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

We are issuing this AD to detect and correct 

chafing of the AC feeder cable. A chafed and 

arcing AC feeder cable could puncture the 

adjacent hydraulic line, which, in 

combination with the use of the alternate 

extension system, could result in an in-flight 

fire. 

(f) Compliance 

Comply with this AD within the 

compliance times specified, unless already 

done. 

(g) Clamp Inspection, Related Investigative 

Actions, and Corrective Actions 

Within 6,000 flight hours or 36 months 

after the effective date of this AD, whichever 

occurs earlier: Do a general visual inspection 

for installation of clamps between the AC 

feeder cables and hydraulic line; and do all 

applicable related investigative and 

corrective actions; in accordance with the 

Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier 

Service Bulletin 84–24–53, Revision A, dated 

May 16, 2013. Do all applicable related 

investigative and corrective actions before 

further flight. 

(h) Credit for Previous Actions 

This paragraph provides credit for actions 

required by paragraph (g) of this AD, if those 

actions were performed before the effective 

date of this AD using Bombardier Service 

Bulletin 84–24–53, dated May 11, 2012. 

(i) Other FAA AD Provisions 

The following provisions also apply to this 

AD: 

(1) Alternative Methods of Compliance 

(AMOCs): The Manager, New York Aircraft 

Certification Office (ACO), ANE–170, FAA, 

has the authority to approve AMOCs for this 

AD, if requested using the procedures found 

in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 

39.19, send your request to your principal 

inspector or local Flight Standards District 

Office, as appropriate. If sending information 

directly to the ACO, send it to ATTN: 

Program Manager, Continuing Operational 

Safety, FAA, New York ACO, 1600 Stewart 

Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; 

telephone 516–228–7300; fax 516–794–5531. 

Before using any approved AMOC, notify 

your appropriate principal inspector, or 

lacking a principal inspector, the manager of 

the local flight standards district office/

certificate holding district office. The AMOC 

approval letter must specifically reference 

this AD. 

(2) Airworthy Product: For any requirement 

in this AD to obtain corrective actions from 

a manufacturer, use these actions if they are 

FAA-approved. Corrective actions are 

considered FAA-approved if they were 

approved by the State of Design Authority (or 

its delegated agent, or the DAH with a State 

of Design Authority’s design organization 

approval). For a repair method to be 

approved, the repair approval must 

specifically refer to this AD. You are required 

to ensure the product is airworthy before it 

is returned to service. 

(j) Related Information 

(1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing 

Airworthiness Information (MCAI) Canadian 

Airworthiness Directive CF–2013–16, dated 

June 14, 2013, for related information. This 

MCAI may be found in the AD docket on the 

Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by 

searching for and locating it in Docket No. 

FAA–2013–1067. 

(2) For service information identified in 

this AD, contact Bombardier, Inc., Q-Series 

Technical Help Desk, 123 Garratt Boulevard, 

Toronto, Ontario M3K 1Y5, Canada; 

telephone 416–375–4000; fax 416–375–4539; 

email thd.qseries@aero.bombardier.com; 

Internet http://www.bombardier.com. You 

may view this service information at the 

FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 

Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For 

information on the availability of this 

material at the FAA, call 425–227–1221. 

Issued in Renton, Washington, on 

December 20, 2013. 

Jeffrey E. Duven, 

Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, 

Aircraft Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. 2013–31188 Filed 12–27–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R06–OAR–2013–0439; FRL–9904–87– 

Region–6] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; Texas; 

Stage II Vapor Recovery Program and 

Control of Air Pollution From Volatile 

Organic Compounds 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve 

revisions to the Texas State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) submitted by 

the Texas Commission on 

Environmental Quality (TCEQ). The 

EPA is proposing to approve revisions 

to regulations that control emissions of 

volatile organic compounds (VOCs) at 

gasoline dispensing facilities (GDFs) in 

Texas. The revisions address the 

maintenance and removal of Stage II 

vapor recovery equipment at GDFs. The 

EPA is also proposing to approve related 

revisions to the Stage II SIP narrative 

that pertain to the maintenance and 

removal of Stage II vapor recovery 

equipment and demonstrate that the 

absence of Stage II equipment in the 

Beaumont-Port Arthur (BPA), DallasFort Worth (DFW) and HoustonGalveston Brazoria (HGB) areas, and in 

El Paso County would not interfere with 

attainment of the national ambient air 

quality standards (NAAQS) for ozone, 

reasonable further progress (RFP) or any 

other requirement of the Clean Air Act 

(CAA or Act). The EPA is proposing to 

approve these revisions pursuant to 

section 110 of the Act and the EPA’s 

regulations and consistent with the 

EPA’s guidance. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before January 29, 2014. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R06– 

OAR–2013–0439, by one of the 

following methods: 

• www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

on-line instructions. 

• E-Mail: Ms. Carrie Paige at 

paige.carrie@epa.gov. 

• Mail: Mr. Guy Donaldson, Chief, 

Air Planning Section (6PD–L), 

Environmental Protection Agency, 1445 

Ross Avenue, Suite 1200, Dallas, Texas 

75202–2733. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–R06–OAR–2013– 

0439. EPA’s policy is that all comments 

received will be included in the public 

docket without change and may be 

made available online at http://

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided, unless 

the comment includes information 

claimed to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

the disclosure of which is restricted by 

statute. Do not submit information 

through http://www.regulations.gov or 

email, if you believe that it is CBI or 

otherwise protected from disclosure. 

The http://www.regulations.gov Web 

site is an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, 

which means that EPA will not know 

your identity or contact information 

unless you provide it in the body of 

your comment. If you send an email 

comment directly to EPA without going 

through http://www.regulations.gov, 

your email address will be 

automatically captured and included as 

part of the comment that is placed in the 

public docket and made available on the 

Internet. If you submit an electronic 

comment, EPA recommends that you 

include your name and other contact 

information in the body of your 

comment along with any disk or CD– 

ROM submitted. If EPA cannot read 

your comment due to technical 

difficulties and cannot contact you for 

clarification, EPA may not be able to 

consider your comment. Electronic files 

should avoid the use of special 

characters and any form of encryption 

and should be free of any defects or 

viruses. For additional information 

about EPA’s public docket, visit the EPA 

Docket Center homepage at http://

www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm. 

Docket: The index to the docket for 

this action is available electronically at 

www.regulations.gov and in hard copy 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 250 / Monday, December 30, 2013 / Proposed Rules 79341 

1Stage I vapor recovery systems are installed on 

the transport tanker trucks that deliver gasoline to 

the service stations. Stage I systems direct vapors 

from the underground storage tank at the service 

station back into the tanker truck as the 

underground tank is filled with liquid gasoline from 

the tanker truck. 

2For more detailed information on the phase-in 

of ORVR, please see the discussion in EPA’s 

proposed rule for the Widespread Use for Onboard 

Refueling Vapor Recovery and Stage II Waiver, 

published on July 15, 2011 (76 FR 41731). 

at EPA Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, 

Suite 700, Dallas, Texas. While all 

documents in the docket are listed in 

the index, some information may be 

publicly available only at the hard copy 

location (e.g., copyrighted material), and 

some may not be publicly available at 

either location (e.g., CBI). To inspect the 

hard copy materials, please schedule an 

appointment with the person listed in 

the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT

paragraph below or Mr. Bill Deese at 

214–665–7253. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. 

Carrie Paige, Air Planning Section 

(6PD–L); telephone (214) 665–6521; 

email address paige.carrie@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document, ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ 

and ‘‘our’’ means EPA. 

Table of Contents 

I. Background 

II. EPA’s Evaluation of the Revisions 

III. Proposed Action 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. Background 

A. What is a SIP? 

A SIP is a set of air pollution 

regulations, control strategies, other 

means or techniques, and technical 

analyses developed by the state, to 

ensure that the state meets the NAAQS. 

It is required by section 110 and other 

provisions of the CAA. A SIP protects 

air quality primarily by addressing air 

pollution at its point of origin. A SIP 

can be extensive, containing state 

regulations or other enforceable 

documents, and supporting information 

such as emissions inventories, 

monitoring networks, and modeling 

demonstrations. When a state makes 

changes to the regulations and control 

strategies in its SIP, such revisions must 

be submitted to EPA for approval and 

incorporation into the federallyenforceable SIP. 

B. What is Stage II Vapor Recovery? 

When an automobile or other vehicle 

is brought into a gas station to be 

refueled, the empty portion of the gas 

tank on the vehicle contains gasoline 

vapors, which belong to a class of 

compounds known as VOCs. When 

liquid gasoline is pumped into the 

partially empty gas tank the vapors are 

forced out of the tank as the tank fills 

with liquid gasoline. Where air 

pollution control technology is not 

used, these vapors are emitted into the 

air. In the atmosphere, these VOCs can, 

in the presence of sunlight, react with 

nitrogen oxides (NOX) and VOCs from 

other sources to form ozone. The Stage 

II system consists of special nozzles and 

coaxial hoses at each gas pump that 

capture vapors from the vehicle’s fuel 

tank and route them to underground or 

aboveground storage tank(s) during the 

refueling process. 

The 1990 CAA Amendments require 

owners or operators of GDFs in serious, 

severe or extreme ozone nonattainment 

areas to install and operate a system for 

recovery of gas vapor from the fueling 

of vehicles. This requirement only 

applies to facilities that sell more than 

a specified number of gallons per month 

and is set forth in section 182(b)(3)(A)– 

(C) and section 324(a)–(c) of the CAA. 

States were required to adopt rules for 

this requirement no later than two years 

after the enactment of the 1990 CAA 

Amendments. As a consequence of 

these provisions, GDF owners or 

operators in moderate or worse 

nonattainment areas have installed 

these vapor control systems, known as 

‘‘Stage II controls.’’ 1

The first Stage II SIP for Texas was 

submitted by the State to EPA on 

September 30, 1992. The SIP required 

owners and operators of GDFs to install 

and operate Stage II vapor recovery 

equipment in the four Texas ozone 

nonattainment areas classified as 

moderate or worse. The EPA approved 

these rules on April 15, 1994 (59 FR 

17940). The four areas where Stage II is 

required are comprised of 16 counties: 

Beaumont-Port Arthur (BPA), including 

Hardin, Jefferson and Orange counties; 

Dallas-Fort Worth (DFW), including 

Collin, Dallas, Denton and Tarrant 

counties; El Paso County; and HoustonGalveston-Brazoria (HGB), including 

Brazoria, Chambers, Fort Bend, 

Galveston, Harris, Liberty, Montgomery, 

and Waller counties. In this rulemaking, 

where we refer to all 16 of these 

counties, we will note such as ‘‘the 16 

counties.’’ For additional information 

on Stage II, including the history of 

Stage II in Texas, please see the 

technical support document (TSD) in 

the docket for this action. 

C. What is Onboard Refueling Vapor 

Recovery (ORVR)? 

In addition to Stage II controls, the 

1990 CAA Amendments required 

another method of controlling vehicle 

refueling emissions. Section 202(a)(6) of 

the Act requires an onboard system of 

capturing vehicle refueling emissions, 

referred to as an ORVR system. The 

ORVR system captures fuel vapors from 

the vehicle gas tank during refueling. 

The gas tank and fill pipe are designed 

so that when refueling the vehicle, fuel 

vapors in the gas tank travel into a 

special canister, which adsorbs the 

vapor. When the engine is in operation, 

it draws the gasoline vapors into the 

engine to be used as fuel. In fact, the 

per-vehicle vapor recovery efficiency of 

ORVR exceeds that of Stage II. The EPA 

began the phase-in of ORVR by 

requiring that 40 percent of passenger 

cars manufactured in model year 1998 

be equipped with ORVR, increasing to 

100 percent by model year 2000. The 

phase-in of ORVR included other 

vehicle types and ORVR has been a 

required control on nearly all new 

gasoline-powered highway vehicles 

since 2006.2

Each year, non-ORVR vehicles 

continue to be replaced with ORVR 

vehicles. Stage II and ORVR emission 

control systems are redundant, and on 

May 16, 2012, the EPA determined that 

emission reductions from ORVR are 

essentially equal to and will soon 

surpass the emission reductions 

achieved by Stage II alone (see 77 FR 

28772). In the May 16, 2012 action, we 

found that ORVR vehicles are in 

‘‘widespread use’’ and waived the Stage 

II requirement in order to ensure that 

refueling vapor control regulations are 

beneficial without being unnecessarily 

burdensome to American business. 

Effective May 16, 2012, a state 

previously required to implement a 

Stage II program may take appropriate 

action to remove the program from its 

SIP (77 FR 28772, codified at 40 CFR 

51.126). 

D. What did the State submit? 

On October 31, 2013, the TCEQ 

submitted revisions to Title 30 of the 

Texas Administrative Code, Chapter 115 

(denoted 30 TAC 115 or Chapter 115) 

and corresponding revisions to the 

Texas Stage II SIP. Chapter 115 

addresses control of air pollution from 

VOCs. The revisions to Chapter 115 

specify that new GDFs would not be 

required to install Stage II equipment 

and provide removal (also defined as 

decommissioning) procedures that 

existing GDFs in the 16 counties must 

complete by August 31, 2018. The GDFs 

electing to retain Stage II equipment for 

some time until August 31, 2018, would 

be required to maintain such equipment 

pursuant to the rules in the approved 

SIP. The revisions to the Stage II SIP 

narrative describe the removal of Stage 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
79342 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 250 / Monday, December 30, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

3EPA document number EPA–457/B–12–001, 

dated August 7, 2012 and available electronically at 

www.epa.gov/glo/pdfs/20120807guidance.pdf. This 

guidance is also in the docket for today’s action. 

4The EPA regulations do not require the use of 

a particular issue of code. The PEI and several states 

have recommended practices or specific 

requirements for decommissioning Stage II systems. 

The PEI guidance referred to as PEI RP300–93 was 

developed by industry experts with a focus on 

regulatory compliance and safety. The EPA’s 

Guidance on Removing Stage II is included in the 

docket for this rulemaking. The PEI document is 

protected by copyright and is available at 

www.pei.org/. 

5The action at 78 FR 7672 approved the 

replacement of the BPA motor vehicle emission 

budgets with new budgets based on the 

MOVES2010a emissions model. 

6See Table 12–1 in the TCEQ proposal dated 

April 23, 2013, in the docket for this rulemaking. 

II equipment at GDFs and require 

maintenance of the Stage II equipment 

until decommissioning occurs. The 

revisions to the SIP narrative also 

include a demonstration that the 

removal of, or failure to install, Stage II 

equipment in the 16 counties is 

consistent with section 110(l) of the Act. 

Section 110(l) precludes the 

Administrator from approving a SIP 

revision if it would interfere with 

applicable CAA requirements, including 

attainment and maintenance of the 

ozone NAAQS. 

In addition to the October 31, 2013 

submittal, there are two submittals that 

address revisions to the State’s Stage II 

rules and related SIP, dated November 

14, 2002 and June 27, 2007, on which 

EPA has not taken action. 

The revisions in the November 14, 

2002 submittal addressed the Stage II 

rules at 30 TAC 115 (Division 4) and the 

Stage II SIP narrative. The EPA 

approved the revisions to Chapter 115 

(see 70 FR 15769, March 29, 2005) but 

evidently overlooked the SIP narrative. 

EPA is not taking action on the 2002 

Stage II SIP narrative because it is 

superseded by the October 31, 2013 

submittal. 

The revisions submitted on June 27, 

2007, revise Chapter 115 to add 

exemption language for fleets having 

95% or more vehicles with ORVR. EPA 

is not taking action on the June 27, 2007 

revisions because they would be 

superseded by the revisions in the 

October 31, 2013 submittal. In addition, 

in the TCEQ’s submittal dated October 

31, 2013, the TCEQ adopted the 

withdrawal of the June 27, 2007 

submittal from the EPA. 

II. EPA’s Evaluation of the Revisions 

A. Revisions to 30 TAC 115 and the 

Stage II SIP Narrative 

The TCEQ submitted revisions to 30 

TAC 115 sections 240–247 and 249. The 

revised language details the 

requirements for decommissioning 

equipment and the requirements for 

operating the Stage II equipment until it 

is decommissioned. We have reviewed 

the revisions and believe the revisions 

are consistent with 77 FR 28772 and 40 

CFR 51.126, EPA’s Guidance on 

Removing Stage II Gasoline Vapor 

Control Programs from State 

Implementation Plans and Assessing 

Comparable Measures 3 (EPA’s 

Guidance on Removing Stage II), and 

the recommended installation and 

decommissioning procedures published 

by the Petroleum Equipment Institute 

(PEI RP300–93).4 For a line-by-line 

evaluation of these revisions, please see 

the TSD. We are proposing approval of 

the revisions to sections 115.240– 

115.247 and 115.249. 

The TCEQ is also revising the Stage II 

SIP narrative, which provides an 

accounting and description of the Stage 

II program components. The appendix 

also explains why the revisions to allow 

decommissioning of Stage II equipment 

meet the requirements of the Clean Air 

Act, Section 110(l). These revisions are 

consistent with the EPA’s Stage II 

Waiver at 77 FR 28772 and 40 CFR 

51.126, the EPA’s Guidance on 

Removing Stage II, and the PEI RP300– 

93. 

B. Section 110(l) Analysis 

Our primary consideration for 

determining the approvability of the 

TCEQ’s revisions to remove Stage II 

vapor control requirements from the SIP 

and provide for decommissioning of all 

Stage II equipment by August 31, 2018 

in the BPA, DFW and HGB areas and El 

Paso County is whether these revisions 

comply with section 110(l) of the Act. 

Section 110(l) of the Act provides that 

the EPA cannot approve a SIP revision 

if that revision interferes with any 

applicable requirement regarding 

attainment, reasonable further progress 

(RFP) or any requirement established in 

the CAA. The EPA can, however, 

approve a SIP revision that removes or 

modifies control measures in the SIP 

once the State makes a 

‘‘noninterference’’ demonstration that 

such removal or modification will not 

interfere with attainment of the NAAQS, 

RFP or any other CAA requirement. As 

such, Texas must make a demonstration 

of noninterference in the 16 counties in 

order to remove the Stage II 

requirements from its SIP. 

The TCEQ estimated the impacts on 

air quality from decommissioning Stage 

II in Texas by using the equations in the 

EPA’s Guidance on Removing Stage II. 

The TCEQ assumed there would not be 

any Stage II equipment in place and 

calculated emissions based on the 

national average for replacement of 

older vehicles with newer, ORVRequipped models (fleet turnover). We 

note that the State is not requiring or 

expecting decommissioning to occur at 

all GDFs in the 16 counties in the first 

year following approval of the SIP 

revision, but assumed an absence of 

Stage II equipment as a worst-case 

scenario. The TCEQ compared the 

estimated impacts against future 

emission inventories already established 

in RFP and maintenance plans for these 

16 counties. For each area, the 

calculations show that there would be 

increases in VOC emissions from Stage 

II decommissioning and we refer to 

these increases as a ‘‘loss in benefit.’’ 

Our evaluation of each of the four areas 

is provided below. For more detail 

regarding each area, please see the TSD. 

1. The Beaumont-Port Arthur Area 

The BPA area was redesignated as 

attainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone 

standard on October 20, 2010, (75 FR 

64675). The approved maintenance plan 

for the redesignated area (see 78 FR 

7672, February 4, 2013) 5 demonstrates 

attainment of the 1997 ozone NAAQS 

through 2021. We compared the loss in 

benefit from decommissioning against 

the VOC emissions approved in the BPA 

maintenance plan (78 FR 7672) for 2014 

and 2021. For each of the future years 

2014, 2017 and 2021, the loss in benefit 

is estimated to be 0.166 tpd, 0.109 tpd 

and 0.059 tpd respectively. In the 

approved maintenance plan, the VOC 

emissions for the future years 2014, 

2017 and 2021 are greater than the base 

year (2005) emissions, thus these future 

years show a shortfall in emissions 

reductions. Adding the loss in benefit 

from decommissioning, the shortfall 

from 2005 to 2021 increases to an 

estimated 12.24 tpd or 5.8%. However, 

the approved maintenance plan 

provides a drop in NOX emissions for 

the years 2014, 2017 and 2021 and the 

decrease from 2005 to 2021 is 7.3%, 

which offsets the 5.8% shortfall in VOC 

emissions reductions. These numbers 

indicate that with decommissioning of 

Stage II equipment, emissions in the 

BPA area would continue to decline. 

Furthermore, the TCEQ calculated the 

loss in benefit through 2030 and the 

losses shrink each year.6 The dwindling 

of loss in VOC benefits is expected over 

time, as non-ORVR vehicles continue to 

be replaced with ORVR vehicles. 

In addition, the photochemical 

modeling analysis in the approved 

maintenance plan (75 FR 64675) 

showed that the formation of ozone in 

the BPA area is more sensitive to NOX


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 250 / Monday, December 30, 2013 / Proposed Rules 79343 

7See the docket for 75 FR 64675 and specifically 

the TSD and proposed rule; the docket ID is EPA– 

R06–OAR–2008–0932. 

emissions than to VOC emissions. 

Specifically, the modeling showed that 

to decrease the ozone design value in 

the BPA area, reducing NOX emissions 

is 3.76 times as effective as reducing 

VOC emissions.7 Based on this analysis 

and with the surplus of NOX emissions 

reductions projected through 2021, we 

would not expect the loss in benefit 

from Stage II decommissioning to 

contribute to future violations of the 

ozone standard in the BPA area. 

We are proposing to find that the 

absence of Stage II vapor recovery 

equipment in the BPA area will not 

interfere with any applicable 

requirement regarding attainment and 

RFP, or any other applicable 

requirement of the CAA. 

2. The DFW Area 

The TCEQ estimated that the loss in 

benefit from decommissioning Stage II 

equipment in the DFW area would be 

2.425 tpd in 2012, 1.594 tpd in 2014, 

and the estimated losses in benefit 

continue to decrease as more non-ORVR 

cars are removed from the fleet. The 

TCEQ estimates the loss of benefit in 

2030 would only be 0.322 tpd. The 

estimated loss of 1.594 tpd of VOC 

reduction in 2014, which is when we 

anticipate decommissioning could 

begin, assumes that Stage II is 

completely absent in Collin, Dallas, 

Denton and Tarrant counties. We 

understand there are a limited number 

of contractors qualified to perform 

decommissioning and owners and 

operators with relatively newer Stage II 

equipment would prefer to maintain 

such equipment through its useful life. 

Therefore, we expect decommissioning 

will proceed at an orderly and gradual 

pace and as such, the actual loss in 

projected emission reductions will be 

less than the State has estimated for 

2014. Modeling provided by TCEQ 

indicates very little sensitivity of ozone 

levels to small changes in VOC 

emissions (i.e., an estimated increase of 

up to 0.01 ppb had the 

decommissioning been completed in 

2012). 

In addition and as described in more 

detail elsewhere in this action, the 

TCEQ acquired 2011 vehicle registration 

data showing that by the end of 2012 

approximately 78.5% of the vehicles 

registered in Collin, Dallas, Denton, and 

Tarrant counties were equipped with 

ORVR. Using national default fuel 

economy values, the TCEQ estimated 

that 83.6% of the gasoline dispensed in 

these counties in 2012 was to ORVRequipped vehicles. These numbers are 

at least five percentage points higher 

than the projected penetration of ORVR 

in the national vehicle fleet for 2012, as 

presented by EPA in the Stage II waiver 

(77 FR 28772, 28778). The EPA 

determined that at least 75% of ORVR 

coverage is substantial enough to be 

viewed as ‘‘widespread’’ (77 FR 28772). 

The TCEQ does not have to demonstrate 

that ORVR is in widespread use in the 

DFW area because EPA’s action at 77 FR 

28772 provides a nationwide 

determination of widespread use 

effective May 16, 2012. However, the 

results of the TCEQ’s findings are 

consistent with the Stage II waiver and 

support the revisions to decommission 

Stage II equipment in the DFW area. 

Finally, Stage II was required for 

implementation in only four of the DFW 

nonattainment counties and ORVR is 

required nationwide. Because ORVR is 

more efficient than Stage II and ORVR 

is in widespread use, and because the 

DFW area ozone levels are more 

sensitive to NOX emissions, we would 

not expect the loss in benefit from 

decommissioning in the four counties to 

contribute to future violations of the 

ozone standard or interfere with RFP or 

other applicable CAA requirements. 

We are proposing to find that the 

absence of Stage II vapor recovery 

equipment in the DFW area will not 

interfere with any applicable 

requirement regarding attainment and 

RFP, or any other applicable 

requirement of the CAA. 

3. El Paso County 

El Paso County has an approved 

maintenance plan for the 1997 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS, which demonstrates 

attainment of the 1997 ozone NAAQS 

from 2004 through 2014 (see 74 FR 

2387, January 15, 2009). We compared 

the loss in benefit from 

decommissioning against the VOC 

emissions in the approved maintenance 

plan for 2014. For 2014, the loss in 

benefit is estimated to be 0.224 tpd. In 

the approved maintenance plan, the 

VOC emissions for 2014 are estimated to 

be 44.61 tpd, which are lower than the 

base year emissions of 52.44 tpd. The 

resultant surplus of 7.83 tpd offsets the 

estimated loss in benefit from 

decommissioning. The approved 

maintenance plan also shows a surplus 

in NOX emission reductions through 

2014. These numbers indicate that with 

decommissioning of Stage II equipment, 

emissions of VOC in El Paso County 

would continue to decline through 

2014. The TCEQ calculated the loss in 

benefit through 2030 and the losses get 

smaller each year. 

We are proposing to find that the 

absence of Stage II vapor recovery 

equipment in El Paso County will not 

interfere with any applicable 

requirement regarding attainment and 

RFP, or any other applicable 

requirement of the CAA. 

4. The Houston-Galveston-Brazoria Area 

The TCEQ estimated that the loss in 

benefit from decommissioning Stage II 

equipment in the HGB area would be 

2.361 tpd in 2012, 1.539 tpd in 2014, 

0.667 tpd in 2018, and the estimated 

losses in benefit continue to decrease 

through 2030, when the TCEQ estimates 

the loss of benefit would only be 0.298 

tpd. The estimated loss of 1.539 tpd of 

VOC reduction in 2014, which is when 

we anticipate decommissioning could 

begin, assumes that Stage II is 

completely absent in the eight HGB area 

counties. As stated earlier however, we 

expect decommissioning will proceed 

gradually and as such, the actual loss in 

projected emission reductions will be 

less than the State has estimated for 

2014. Modeling provided by TCEQ 

indicates very little sensitivity of ozone 

levels to these small changes in VOC 

emissions (i.e., an estimated increase of 

up to 0.02 ppb had the 

decommissioning been completed in 

2012 and an estimated increase of up to 

0.01 ppb in 2018). 

In addition, the TCEQ acquired 2011 

vehicle registration data showing that by 

the end of 2012 approximately 77.4% of 

the vehicles registered in the eight HGB 

counties were equipped with ORVR. 

Using national default fuel economy 

values, the TCEQ estimated that 82.7% 

of the gasoline dispensed in these 

counties in 2012 was to ORVR-equipped 

vehicles. These numbers are at least five 

percentage points higher than the 

projected penetration of ORVR in the 

national vehicle fleet for 2012 (77 FR 

28772, 28778). The results of the 

TCEQ’s findings are therefore consistent 

with the Stage II waiver and support the 

revisions to decommission Stage II 

equipment in the HGB area. 

We would not expect the loss in 

benefit from decommissioning in the 

HGB area to contribute to future 

violations of the ozone standard or 

interfere with RFP or other applicable 

CAA requirements. 

We are proposing to find that the 

absence of Stage II vapor recovery 

equipment in the HGA area will not 

interfere with any applicable 

requirement regarding attainment and 

RFP, or any other applicable 

requirement of the CAA. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
79344 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 250 / Monday, December 30, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

C. The Fraction of ORVR-Equipped 

Vehicles Where Stage II is Required in 

Texas 

The TCEQ reviewed vehicle 

registration data to determine what 

portion of the on-road vehicles in the 16 

counties are equipped with ORVR and 

what portion of the gasoline dispensed 

in these areas goes into ORVR-equipped 

vehicles. For these calculations, the 

TCEQ obtained 2011 vehicle registration 

data from the Texas Department of 

Motor Vehicles for each of the 16 

counties. The results indicate that by 

the end of 2012 more than 75% of 

gasoline was dispensed to ORVRequipped vehicles in each of the four 

areas where Stage II is required. In 

addition, by the end of 2013 at least 

75% of the vehicle population in each 

of these four areas is expected to be 

ORVR-equipped. We determined that at 

least 75% of ORVR coverage (percent of 

gasoline that will be dispensed into 

ORVR-equipped vehicles) is substantial 

enough to constitute widespread use (77 

FR 28772). The TCEQ does not have to 

demonstrate that ORVR is in 

widespread use because EPA’s action at 

77 FR 28772 provides a nationwide 

determination of widespread use 

effective May 16, 2012. However, the 

TCEQ’s findings do demonstrate that 

ORVR is in widespread use in all four 

areas and thus lend support to the 

revisions to decommission Stage II 

equipment. 

III. Proposed Action 

The EPA is proposing to approve 

revisions to the Texas SIP that control 

emissions of VOCs and pertain to the 

maintenance and removal of Stage II 

vapor recovery equipment submitted on 

October 31, 2013. We are proposing to 

approve revisions to the following 

sections within 30 TAC 115: 115.240, 

115.241, 115.242, 115.243, 115.244, 

115.245, 115.246, 115.247, and 115.249. 

The EPA is also proposing to approve 

related revisions to the Stage II SIP 

narrative that address the maintenance 

and removal of Stage II equipment, and 

demonstrate that the removal of, or 

failure to install Stage II equipment in 

the BPA, DFW, and HGB areas, and in 

El Paso County, meets section 110(l) of 

the Act. The EPA is proposing to 

approve these revisions in accordance 

with section 110 of the Act and EPA’s 

regulations and consistent with EPA 

guidance. 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the Clean Air Act, the 

Administrator is required to approve a 

SIP submission that complies with the 

provisions of the Act and applicable 

federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 

40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP 

submissions, EPA’s role is to approve 

state choices, provided that they meet 

the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, 

this action merely proposes to approve 

state law as meeting federal 

requirements and does not impose 

additional requirements beyond those 

imposed by state law. For that reason, 

this action: 

• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ subject to review by the Office 

of Management and Budget under 

Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993); 

• Does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.); 

• Is certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

U.S.C. 601 et seq.); 

• Does not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Public Law 104–4); 

• Does not have federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• Is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); 

• Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); 

• Is not subject to requirements of 

section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because 

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the CAA; and 

• Does not provide EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address, as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable and legally permissible 

methods, under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

In addition, this rule does not have 

tribal implications as specified by 

Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, 

November 9, 2000), because the SIP is 

not approved to apply in Indian country 

located in the state, and EPA notes that 

it will not impose substantial direct 

costs on tribal governments or preempt 

tribal law. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Volatile organic 

compounds. 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. 

Dated: December 16, 2013. 

Ron Curry, 

Regional Administrator, Region 6. 

[FR Doc. 2013–31107 Filed 12–27–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R10–OAR–2010–1071, FRL–9904–68– 

Region 10] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans; State of 

Washington; Regional Haze State 

Implementation Plan; Federal 

Implementation Plan for Best Available 

Retrofit Technology for Alcoa 

Wenatchee 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing to partially 

disapprove a Washington Regional Haze 

State Implementation Plan (RH SIP) 

element submitted by the State of 

Washington (the State) on December 22, 

2010, that exempted Alcoa’s Wenatchee 

Works aluminum smelting facility 

(Alcoa Wenatchee facility or Wenatchee 

facility), located near Wenatchee, 

Washington, from the Clean Air Act’s 

Best Available Retrofit Technology 

(BART) requirements. On December 26, 

2012, the EPA proposed to approve, 

along with proposed action on other SIP 

elements, the State’s determination that 

the Alcoa Wenatchee facility is exempt 

from BART requirements. The EPA 

received adverse comments regarding 

the dispersion modeling used for this 

determination. After further review, the 

EPA now proposes to disapprove the 

State’s determination that the facility is 

not subject to BART and proposes to 

find that the Wenatchee facility is 

subject to BART. The EPA is also 

proposing a BART determination for the 

facility through a Federal 

Implementation Plan (FIP). This Federal 

Register document also announces the 

availability of new information 

regarding Alcoa’s ability to afford 

limestone slurry forced oxidation 

(LSFO) sulfur dioxide (SO2) control 

technology at the Intalco Aluminum 

Corporation facility in Ferndale, 

Washington (Intalco). Also available for 

public review is new air quality 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS