[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 217 (Friday, November 8, 2024)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 88690-88694]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-25947]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R09-OAR-2024-0349; FRL-12130-01-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 a 
limited approval and limited disapproval of 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 loading of organic 
liquids and gasoline. We are proposing action on local rules to 
regulate these emission sources under the Clean Air Act (CAA or 
``Act''). We are also proposing to disapprove the MCAQD's reasonably 
available control technology (RACT) demonstration for the source 
categories 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 December 9, 2024.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R09-
OAR-2024-0349 at https://www.regulations.gov. For comments submitted at 
Regulations.gov, follow the online instructions for submitting 
comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from 
Regulations.gov. 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: Donnique Sherman, EPA Region IX, 75 
Hawthorne St., San Francisco, CA 94105. By phone: (415) 947-4129; email 
at <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#f98a919c8b949897d79d96979790888c9cb99c8998d79e968f"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="1e6d767b6c737f70307a717070776f6b7b5e7b6e7f30797168">[email protected]</span></a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, ``we,'' ``us'' and 
``our'' refer to the EPA.

Table of Contents

I. The State's Submittal

[[Page 88691]]

    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. Were there any newly identified deficiencies with the 
December 3, 2020, submitted rules?
    D. The EPA's Recommendations To Further Improve the Rules
    E. Proposed Action and Public Comment
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 No.              Rule title              Revised        Submitted
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MCAQD..............................             352  Gasoline Cargo Tank Testing      11/18/2020      12/03/2020
                                                      and Use.
MCAQD..............................             353  Storage and Loading of           11/18/2020      12/03/2020
                                                      Gasoline at a Gasoline
                                                      Dispensing Facility (GDF).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 352 and Rule 353 
into the SIP on February 26, 2020 (85 FR 10986), based on a commitment 
made by the MCAQD to remedy the deficiencies identified in that action. 
In order to fulfill that commitment, the MCAQD adopted revisions to the 
SIP-approved versions of these rules 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 for a limited approval and limited disapproval 
of the November 18, 2020 versions of these rules, then these versions 
will replace the conditionally 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 352 and Rule 353 to establish RACT-level controls for 
VOC emissions from sources covered by the CTGs listed in Table 2. Rule 
352 limits VOC emissions from gasoline cargo tanks that are used to 
load or unload gasoline within Maricopa County. Rule 353 limits VOC 
emissions from storage and loading of gasoline at gasoline dispensing 
facilities (GDFs).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ On November 12, 2019 (84 FR 60920), the EPA issued a 
determination that the Phoenix-Mesa ozone nonattainment area 
attained the 2008 ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard 
(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
------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Rule No.                          Associated CTGs
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rule 352..........................  Control of Volatile Organic Compound
                                     Leaks from Gasoline Tank Trucks and
                                     Vapor Collection Systems (EPA-450/2-
                                     78-051).
Rule 353..........................  Design Criteria for Stage I Vapor
                                     Control Systems--Gasoline Service
                                     Stations (EPA-450/R-75-102).
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 \2\ 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 352, 
Rule 353, and the County's RACT demonstration for the CTGs associated 
with these rules, into the Arizona SIP. The rules contained 
deficiencies which 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ ``Analysis of Reasonably Available Control Technology for 
the 2008 8-Hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) 
State Implementation Plan (RACT SIP)'' submitted June 22, 2017.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 88692]]

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 these rules were 
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 Compound Leaks from Gasoline Tank 
Trucks and Vapor Collection Systems,'' EPA-450/2-78-051, December 1978.
    5. ``Design Criteria for Stage I Vapor Control Systems-Gasoline 
Service Stations,'' EPA-450/R-75-102, November 1975.

B. Do the rules meet the evaluation criteria?

    The EPA is proposing to conclude that the State met its commitment 
and that these revised rules have corrected the deficiencies previously 
identified in the earlier versions of the rules that were conditionally 
approved into the SIP. 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.
    As described in the TSD, the submitted rules strengthen the SIP and 
generally establish RACT level controls. However, as discussed in the 
subsequent section, EPA is proposing to conclude that the submitted 
rules contain newly identified deficiencies that prevent full approval 
of the rules.

C. Were there any newly identified deficiencies with the December 3, 
2020, submitted rules?

    EPA is proposing to conclude that the following provisions in Rule 
352 do not satisfy the requirements of section 110 and part D of title 
I of the Act and therefore prevent full approval of the SIP revision.
    1. In addition to the annual certification test required by Section 
301.1, Sections 502 and 503 of Rule 352 outline ongoing monitoring 
tests to perform to detect potential leaks. However, the rule does not 
identify any enforceable requirements to monitor using these tests on a 
periodic basis or any recordkeeping and reporting associated with this 
requirement. EPA is proposing to find that this undermines the 
enforceability of the rule, constitutes a SIP deficiency, and is 
inconsistent with the requirements of CAA Section 110.
    2. Section 103.3(a) requires that an ``owner or operator of a 
gasoline cargo tank provides documentation from the gasoline cargo tank 
testing company to the Control Officer that certifies that the gasoline 
cargo tank was tested and verified vapor tight using test methods at 
least as stringent as those in Section 501.1 (Maricopa County Vapor 
Tightness Test).'' This provision allows the Control Officer authority 
to approve another test method, and without further specificity 
regarding how this authority will be exercised, could functionally 
allow for a revision of the SIP without complying with the process for 
SIP revisions required by the CAA. As a result, EPA is proposing to 
determine that this undermines the enforceability of the submission, 
constitutes a SIP deficiency, and is inconsistent with the requirements 
of CAA Section 110.
    The EPA is proposing to conclude that the following provisions in 
Rule 353 do not satisfy the requirements of section 110 and part D of 
title I of the Act and prevent full approval of the SIP revision.
    1. Rule 353 requires that control equipment or spill containment 
equipment at a stationary GDF or on a gasoline cargo tank be leak free 
and vapor tight, requiring weekly inspections. Rule 353 generally 
requires a facility to determine if there is a ``potential vapor leak'' 
prior to being required to conduct a more stringent vapor tightness 
determination. Section 501 of Rule 353 allows for four different 
options to identify potential vapor leaks. Section 501.1 allows for the 
``use of sight, sound, or smell'' as an acceptable method for 
identifying potential vapor leaks. Although using sight, sound, or 
smell can play a role in identifying potential vapor leaks, allowing 
for that to potentially be the only method used could functionally 
allow for potential leak identification to be left solely left to the 
operator's discretion and sensory inputs. Therefore, without a 
provision to periodically utilize methods beyond sight, sound, or 
smell, EPA is proposing to determine that this provision undermines the 
enforceability of the rule's requirement for vapor tight compliance.
    2. Section 500 of Rule 353 contains ongoing monitoring and 
recordkeeping requirements but does not specifically contain any 
requirements to report compliance information. However, reporting 
requirements are contained within Section 301 of the rule because it 
incorporates the applicable requirements from the National Emission 
Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Source Category: Gasoline 
Dispensing Facilities at 40 CFR part 63, subpart CCCCCC (``Subpart 
CCCCCC''), which includes reporting requirements.\3\ However, Subpart 
CCCCCC is not applicable to the loading of aviation gasoline into 
storage tanks at airports, and the subsequent transfer of aviation 
gasoline within the airport.\4\ Rule 353 does apply to loading of 
aviation gasoline at airports, but does not elsewhere require periodic 
reporting for these facilities. Given this framework, EPA is proposing 
to find that Rule 353 has a reporting gap, because there is no periodic 
compliance reporting required for loading of aviation gasoline at 
airports. Due to the lack of adequate reporting requirements (or some 
alternative means of ensuring enforceability) during loading of 
aviation gasoline into storage tanks, EPA is proposing to find that 
this provision undermines the enforceability of the rule's requirement 
for vapor tight compliance, constitutes a SIP deficiency, and is 
inconsistent with the requirements of CAA Section 110.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See 40 CFR 63.11126 and Table 3 to Subpart CCCCCC. For 
example, Subpart CCCCCC requires annual reporting related to 
malfunctions (malfunction of process equipment and air pollution 
control equipment), requires all performance tests reports to be 
submitted, and requires advanced notification of performance tests.
    \4\ See 40 CFR part 63.11111(g).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

D. The EPA's Recommendations To Further Improve the Rules

    The TSDs include recommendations for the next time the MCAQD 
modifies these rules.

[[Page 88693]]

E. Proposed Action and Public Comment

    The EPA is proposing a limited approval and limited disapproval of 
the submitted rules. The EPA is proposing a limited approval because 
the EPA's analysis demonstrates that Rule 352 and Rule 353 would 
strengthen the SIP. The rules generally establish RACT level controls, 
and the MCAQD has fixed the deficiencies that were previously 
identified with the rules in the February 26, 2020, conditional 
approval. The EPA is proposing a simultaneous limited disapproval for 
Rule 352 and Rule 353 based on the enforceability issues identified in 
section II.C. of this notice and described in detail in their 
respective TSDs.
    In addition, as authorized in section 110(k)(3) of the Act, the EPA 
is proposing a disapproval of the RACT demonstrations for the 2008 
ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for the sources 
covered by the CTGs associated with these rules, because the 
deficiencies for certain source categories as identified in the 
proposed limited disapproval preclude the EPA from proposing to approve 
this RACT demonstration as a whole. The EPA is also proposing to find 
that the State has met its commitment under the previous conditional 
approval of Rules 352 and 353 and the associated CTG source categories. 
If we finalize this limited approval and limited disapproval as 
proposed, we would replace the conditionally approved versions of the 
rules with the newly submitted versions in the SIP, and 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 December 
9, 2024. If finalized, this action would incorporate the submitted 
rules into the SIP, including those provisions identified as deficient. 
This approval is limited because the EPA is simultaneously proposing a 
limited disapproval. If we finalize this disapproval as proposed, CAA 
section 110(c) would require the EPA to promulgate a federal 
implementation plan within 24 months unless we approve subsequent SIP 
revisions that correct the deficiencies identified in our final action.
    In addition, final disapproval would trigger the offset sanction in 
CAA section 179(b)(2) 18 months after the effective date of a final 
disapproval, and the highway funding sanction in CAA section 179(b)(1) 
six months after the offset sanction is imposed. A sanction would not 
be imposed if the EPA determines that a subsequent SIP submission 
corrects the deficiencies identified in our final action before the 
applicable deadline. The EPA intends to work with MCAQD to correct the 
deficiencies in a timely manner.
    Note that the submitted rules have been adopted by MCAQD, and the 
EPA's final limited disapproval would not prevent the State from 
enforcing them. The limited disapproval also would not prevent any 
portion of the rules from being incorporated by reference into the 
federally enforceable SIP as discussed in a July 9, 1992 EPA memo found 
at: https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-07/documents/procsip.pdf.

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 352, ``Gasoline Cargo Tank Testing and Use,'' 
revised on November 18, 2020, which regulates VOC emissions during 
loading and unloading of gasoline to any gasoline cargo tank within 
Maricopa County. The EPA is also proposing to incorporate by reference 
MCAQD Rule 353, ``Storage and Loading of Gasoline at a Gasoline 
Dispensing Facility,'' revised on November 18, 2020, which regulates 
VOC emissions during storage and loading of gasoline at a gasoline 
dispensing facility. The EPA has made, and will continue to make, these 
materials available through 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 CAA, 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 review state choices, 
and approve those choices if they meet the minimum criteria of the Act. 
Accordingly, this proposed action is proposing a limited approval and 
limited disapproval of state law as meeting federal requirements and 
does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state 
law.
    Additional information about these statutes and Executive Orders 
can be found at https://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/laws-and-executive-orders.

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive 
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review

    This action is not a significant regulatory action and was 
therefore not submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) 
for review.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

    This action does not impose an information collection burden under 
the PRA because this action does not impose additional requirements 
beyond those imposed by state law.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

    I certify that this action will not have a significant economic 
impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. This 
action will not impose any requirements on small entities beyond those 
imposed by state law.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

    This action does not contain any unfunded mandate as described in 
UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not significantly or uniquely affect 
small governments. This action does not impose additional requirements 
beyond those imposed by state law. Accordingly, no additional costs to 
state, local, or tribal governments, or to the private sector, will 
result from this action.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have 
substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between 
the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power 
and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

F. Executive Order 13175: Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments

    This action does not have tribal implications, as specified in 
Executive Order 13175, because 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, and will not 
impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal 
law. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action.

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental 
Health Risks and Safety Risks

    The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those

[[Page 88694]]

regulatory actions that concern environmental health or safety risks 
that the EPA has reason to believe may disproportionately affect 
children, per the definition of ``covered regulatory action'' in 
section 2-202 of the Executive Order. Therefore, this action is not 
subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is merely proposing a 
limited approval and limited disapproval of state law as meeting 
federal requirements. Furthermore, the EPA's Policy on Children's 
Health does not apply to this action.

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy 
Supply, Distribution, or Use

    This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211, because it is 
not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA)

    Section 12(d) of the NTTAA directs the EPA to use voluntary 
consensus standards in its regulatory activities unless to do so would 
be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. The EPA 
believes that this action is not subject to the requirements of section 
12(d) of the NTTAA because application of those requirements would be 
inconsistent with the CAA.

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental 
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Population

    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 communities with environmental justice 
(EJ) concerns to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law. 
EPA defines 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.'' 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 environmental justice considerations as 
part of its SIP submittal; the CAA and applicable implementing 
regulations neither prohibit nor require such an evaluation. EPA did 
not perform an EJ analysis and did not consider EJ in this action. Due 
to the nature of the action being taken here, this action is expected 
to have a neutral to positive impact on the air quality of the affected 
area. 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 communities with EJ 
concerns.

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: November 2, 2024.
Martha Guzman Aceves,
Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. 2024-25947 Filed 11-7-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>