Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 220 / Monday, November 16, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 70689 

effect on one or more Indian tribes, on 

the relationship between the Federal 

Government and Indian tribes, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities between the Federal 

Government and Indian tribes. If you 

believe this rule has implications for 

federalism or Indian tribes, please 

contact the person listed in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section 

above. 

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531–1538) requires 

Federal agencies to assess the effects of 

their discretionary regulatory actions. In 

particular, the Act addresses actions 

that may result in the expenditure by a 

State, local, or tribal government, in the 

aggregate, or by the private sector of 

$100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or 

more in any one year. Though this rule 

will not result in such expenditure, we 

do discuss the effects of this rule 

elsewhere in this preamble. 

F. Environment 

We have analyzed this rule under 

Department of Homeland Security 

Management Directive 023–01 and 

Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, 

which guide the Coast Guard in 

complying with the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

(NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321–4370f), and 

have concluded this action is one of a 

category of actions which do not 

individually or cumulatively have a 

significant effect on the human 

environment. This rule involves the 

establishment of a safety zone and is 

therefore categorically excluded from 

further review under paragraph 34(g) of 

Figure 2–1 of the Commandant 

Instruction. An environmental analysis 

checklist supporting this determination 

and a Categorical Exclusion 

Determination are available in the 

docket where indicated under 

ADDRESSES. We seek any comments or 

information that may lead to the 

discovery of a significant environmental 

impact from this rule. 

G. Protest Activities 

The Coast Guard respects the First 

Amendment rights of protesters. 

Protesters are asked to contact the 

person listed in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section to 

coordinate protest activities so that your 

message can be received without 

jeopardizing the safety or security of 

people, places, or vessels. 

H. Taking of Private Property 

This rule will not cause a taking of 

private property or otherwise have 

taking implications under E.O. 12630, 

Governmental Actions and Interference 

with Constitutionally Protected Property 

Rights. 

I. Civil Justice Reform 

This rule meets applicable standards 

in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of E.O. 

12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize 

litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and 

reduce burden. 

J. Protection of Children 

We have analyzed this rule under E.O. 

13045, Protection of Children from 

Environmental Health Risks and Safety 

Risks. This rule is not an economically 

significant rule and does not create an 

environmental risk to health or risk to 

safety that may disproportionately affect 

children. 

K. Energy Effects 

This action is not a ‘‘significant 

energy action’’ under E.O. 13211, 

Actions Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use. 

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165 

Harbors, Marine Safety, Navigation 

(water), Reporting and record keeping 

requirements, Security measures, 

Waterways. 

For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 

CFR part 165 as follows: 

PART 165—REGULATED NAVIGATION 

AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 165 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191; 

33 CFR 1.05–1, 6.04–1, 6.04–6, and 160.5; 

Department of Homeland Security Delegation 

No. 0170.1. 

■ 2. Add § 165.T09–0994 to read as 

follows: 

§ 165.T09–0994 Safety Zone; Unknown 

Substance in the Vicinity of Kelley’s Island 

Shoal, Lake Erie; Kelley’s Island, OH. 

(a) Location. The following area is a 

temporary safety zone: Unknown 

substance from an unknown vessel in 

the vicinity of Kelley’s Island Shoal, 

Lake Erie; Kelley’s Island, OH. The 

safety zone will encompass all U.S. 

navigable waters of Lake Erie within a 

1000 foot radius of 41°38′21′′ N, 

82°29′35′′ W. All coordinates are North 

American Datum 1983 (NAD 83). 

(b) Enforcement period. The safety 

zone described in paragraph (a) of this 

section will be enforced from 2 p.m. on 

October 25, 2015 until 8 p.m. on 

November 24, 2015. 

(c) Regulations. (1) In accordance with 

the general regulations in § 165.23, entry 

into, transiting, or anchoring within 

these safety zone is prohibited unless 

authorized by the Captain of the Port, 

Sector Detroit (COTP) or his designated 

on-scene representative. 

(2) The safety zone is closed to all 

vessel traffic, except as may be 

permitted by the COTP, via the 

Command Center, or his designated onscene representative. 

(3) The ‘‘on-scene representative’’ of 

the COTP is any Coast Guard 

commissioned, warrant or petty officer 

or a Federal, State, or local law 

enforcement officer designated by or 

assisting the COTP to act on his behalf. 

(4) Vessel operators must contact the 

COTP via the Command Center to 

obtain permission to enter or operate 

within the safety zone. The COTP may 

be contacted via VHF Channel 16 or at 

313–568–9560. Vessel operators given 

permission to enter or operate in the 

safety zone must comply with all 

directions given to them by the COTP, 

via the Sector Command Center or his 

on-scene representative. 

Dated: October 25, 2015. 

Scott B. Lemasters, 

Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the 

Port Detroit. 

[FR Doc. 2015–29171 Filed 11–13–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110–04–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2014–0256; FRL–9936–77– 

Region 9] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans; Arizona; 

Phased Discontinuation of Stage II 

Vapor Recovery Program 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is taking final action to 

approve a state implementation plan 

(SIP) revision from the Arizona 

Department of Environmental Quality 

related to the removal of ‘‘Stage II’’ 

vapor recovery equipment at gasoline 

dispensing facilities in the PhoenixMesa area. Specifically, the EPA is 

approving a SIP revision that eliminates 

the requirement to install and operate 

such equipment at new gasoline 

dispensing facilities, and that provides 

for the phased removal of such 

equipment at existing gasoline 

dispensing facilities from October 2016 

through September 2018. The EPA has 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
70690 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 220 / Monday, November 16, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

1Under Arizona law, the Arizona Department of 

Environmental Quality (ADEQ) is responsible for 

adopting and submitting the Arizona SIP and SIP 

revisions. Within the Maricopa County portion of 

the Phoenix-Mesa area, the Maricopa Association of 

Governments (MAG) is responsible for developing 

regional ozone air quality plans. 

2 Ground-level ozone is an oxidant that is formed 

from photochemical reactions in the atmosphere 

between volatile organic compounds (VOC) and 

oxides of nitrogen (NOX) in the presence of 

sunlight. These two pollutants, referred to as ozone 

precursors, are emitted by many types of pollution 

sources including on-road motor vehicles (cars, 

trucks, and buses), nonroad vehicles and engines, 

power plants and industrial facilities, and smaller 

area sources such as lawn and garden equipment 

and paints. 

3See 44 FR 8202 (February 8, 1979). 

4The Phoenix-Mesa 1997 8-hour ozone 

nonattainment area covers a much larger portion of 

Maricopa County than the Phoenix metropolitan 1- 

hour ozone area and also includes the Apache 

Junction portion of Pinal County. The precise 

boundaries of the Phoenix-Mesa 1997 8-hour ozone 

nonattainment area and the Phoenix metropolitan 

1-hour ozone nonattainment are found in 40 CFR 

81.303. 

5 Gasoline dispensing pump vapor control 

devices, commonly referred to as ‘‘Stage II’’ vapor 

recovery, are systems that control VOC vapor 

previously determined that onboard 

refueling vapor recovery is in 

widespread use nationally and waived 

the stage II vapor recovery requirement. 

The EPA is approving this SIP revision 

because the resultant short-term 

incremental increase in emissions 

would not interfere with attainment or 

maintenance of the national ambient air 

quality standards or any other 

requirement of the Clean Air Act and 

because it would avoid longer-term 

increases in emissions due to the 

incompatibilities between onboard 

refueling vapor recovery equipment on 

motor vehicles and the predominant 

type of stage II vapor recovery 

equipment installed at existing gasoline 

dispensing facilities in the PhoenixMesa area. 

DATES: This final rule is effective on 

December 16, 2015. 

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established 

docket number EPA–R09–OAR–2014– 

0256 for this action. The index to the 

docket is available electronically at 

www.regulations.gov and in hard copy 

at EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, 

San Francisco, California. 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 in 

either location (e.g., Confidential 

Business Information). To inspect the 

hard copy materials, please schedule an 

appointment during normal business 

hours with the contact listed in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Jeffrey Buss, Office of Air Planning, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 9, (415) 947–4152, email: 

buss.jeffrey@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document, the terms 

‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ and ‘‘our’’ refer to the EPA. 

Table of Contents 

I. Background for Final Rule 

II. Summary of Proposed Action 

III. Public Comments and EPA Responses 

IV. Final Action 

V. Incorporation by Reference 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. Background for Final Rule 

On September 2, 2015 (80 FR 53086), 

we proposed this action and provided 

for a 30-day comment period. On that 

same date, we issued a direct final rule 

(80 FR 53001) taking final action 

effective November 2, 2015 but 

indicated that, if we received adverse 

comments by the end of the comment 

period, we would publish a withdrawal 

of the direct final rule in the Federal 

Register prior to the effective date 

informing the public that the direct final 

rule will not take effect. 

We received timely adverse 

comments, and on October 27, 2015 (80 

FR 65660), we withdrew the direct final 

rule. In today’s action, we provide our 

responses to the public comments and 

take final action based on the proposal 

published on September 2, 2015. 

II. Summary of Proposed Action 

In our September 2, 2015 proposed 

rule (80 FR 53086), we directed 

commenters to the direct final rule for 

a detailed rationale for the proposed 

approval of the SIP revision. As such, 

the following paragraphs summarize the 

background information and evaluation 

included in the direct final rule also 

published on September 2, 2015 (80 FR 

53001). 

Under the Clean Air Act (CAA or 

‘‘Act’’), the EPA has promulgated 

national ambient air quality standards 

(NAAQS or ‘‘standards’’) for certain 

pervasive air pollutants. The NAAQS 

are concentration levels the attainment 

and maintenance of which EPA has 

determined to be requisite to protect 

public health (i.e., the ‘‘primary’’ 

NAAQS) and welfare (i.e., the 

‘‘secondary’’ NAAQS). Under the CAA, 

states are required to develop and 

submit plans, referred to as state 

implementation plans (SIPs) to 

implement, maintain, and enforce the 

NAAQS.1

Ozone is one of the air pollutants for 

which the EPA has established 

NAAQS.2 The original NAAQS for 

ozone was 0.12 parts per million (ppm), 

1-hour average (‘‘1-hour ozone 

standard’’).3 In 1997, we revised the 

ozone NAAQS, setting it at 0.08 ppm 

averaged over an 8-hour timeframe 

(referred to herein as the ‘‘1997 8-hour 

ozone standard’’) (62 FR 33856, July 18, 

1997), and in 2008, we lowered the 8- 

hour ozone standard to 0.075 ppm 

(‘‘2008 8-hour ozone standard’’) (73 FR 

16436, March 27, 2008). The 1-hour 

ozone standard and the 1997 8-hour 

ozone standard have now been revoked. 

See 69 FR 23951 (April 30, 2004) and 

80 FR 12264 (March 6, 2015). Since 

publication of the direct final rule, the 

EPA has lowered the ozone standard 

further, to a level of 0.070 ppm, eighthour average (‘‘2015 8-hour ozone 

standard’’). 80 FR 65292 (October 26, 

2015). 

Under the CAA, the EPA is also 

responsible for designating areas of the 

country as attainment, nonattainment, 

or unclassifiable for the various 

NAAQS. We classified the ‘‘Phoenix 

metropolitan area,’’ defined by the 

Maricopa Association of Governments’ 

(MAGs’) urban planning area boundary 

(but later revised to exclude the Gila 

River Indian Community, as a 

‘‘Moderate,’’ and later ‘‘Serious,’’ 

nonattainment area for the 1-hour ozone 

standard. We have designated a larger 

geographic area, referred to as the 

‘‘Phoenix-Mesa’’ area,4 as a ‘‘Marginal’’ 

nonattainment area for the 1997 8-hour 

ozone standard and 2008 8-hour ozone 

standard. While we have redesignated 

the Phoenix metropolitan area, and the 

Phoenix-Mesa area as ‘‘attainment,’’ for 

the 1-hour and 1997 8-hour ozone 

standards, respectively, the PhoenixMesa area remains ‘‘Marginal’’ 

nonattainment for the 2008 ozone 

standard. More recently, we proposed to 

reclassify the Phoenix-Mesa area as 

‘‘Moderate’’ ozone nonattainment for 

the 2008 8-hour ozone standard based 

on ambient data showing that the area 

did not attain the standard by the 

applicable attainment date (i.e., July 20, 

2015) for such areas. 80 FR 51992 

(August 27, 2015). The EPA has not yet 

issued area designations for the 2015 8- 

hour ozone standard. 

States with ‘‘nonattainment’’ areas are 

required to submit revisions to their 

SIPs that include a control strategy 

necessary to demonstrate how the area 

will attain the NAAQS. As ‘‘Moderate,’’ 

and later ‘‘Serious,’’ nonattainment for 

the 1-hour ozone standard, the State of 

Arizona was required under CAA 

section 182(b)(3) to submit a SIP 

revision that requires the use of ‘‘Stage 

II’’ vapor recovery systems at gasoline 

dispensing facilities (GDFs) located 

within the Phoenix metropolitan area.5


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 220 / Monday, November 16, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 70691 

releases during the refueling of motor vehicles. This 

process takes the vapors normally emitted directly 

into the atmosphere when pumping gas and 

recycles them back into the underground fuel 

storage tank, preventing them from polluting the 

air. 6 ‘‘Area A’’ is defined in Arizona Revised Statutes 

(ARS) section 49–541, and it includes all of the 

Phoenix metropolitan 1-hour ozone nonattainment 

area plus additional areas in Maricopa County to 

the north, east, and west, as well as small portions 

of Yavapai County and Pinal County. Area A 

roughly approximates the boundaries of the 

Phoenix-Mesa area designated by the EPA for the 

1997 8-hour ozone standard. 

7See 59 FR 16262 (April 6, 1994). 

8 ‘‘Guidance on Removing Stage II Gasoline Vapor 

Control Programs from State Implementation Plans 

and Assessing Comparable Measures,’’ EPA Office 

of Air Quality Planning and Standards, August 7, 

2012. 

9See Table A–1 of the Stage II Guidance. 

10Table A–6 of the EPA’s Stage II Guidance cites 

the percentages of State/Area GDF using vacuum 

assist Stage II technology. The listed percentage for 

the Phoenix-Mesa area is 85%. 

11Effective for State law purposes upon the 

Governor’s signature (i.e., on April 22, 2014), House 

Bill (HB) 2128 (in relevant part) amends Arizona 

Revised Statutes (ARS) sections 41–2131 

(‘‘Definitions’’), 41–2132 (‘‘Stage I vapor recovery 

systems’’), 41–2133 (‘‘Compliance schedules’’), and 

adds new section 41–2135 (‘‘Stage II vapor recovery 

systems’’). The new section ARS 41–2135 retains 

the existing Stage II control requirements for 

existing GDFs and establishes a phased 

decommissioning process to remove Stage II 

controls beginning October 1, 2016 and ending 

September 30, 2018. 

In response to this requirement, the 

State of Arizona promulgated and 

submitted certain statutes and 

regulations that require use of Stage II 

vapor recovery systems in the Phoenix 

metropolitan area, and later extended 

the requirements to a larger geographic 

area referred to as ‘‘Area A.’’ 6 The EPA 

approved the state’s Stage-II-related 

statutes and regulations as a revision to 

the Arizona SIP. See 59 FR 54521 

(November 1, 1994) and 77 FR 35279 

(June 13, 2012). 

The 1990 amended CAA anticipates 

that, over time, Stage II vapor recovery 

requirements at GDFs would be 

replaced by ‘‘onboard refueling vapor 

recovery’’ (ORVR) systems that the EPA 

was to establish for new motor vehicles 

under CAA section 202(a)(6). ORVR 

consists of an activated carbon canister 

installed in a motor vehicle. The carbon 

canister captures gasoline vapors during 

refueling. There the vapors are captured 

by the activated carbon in the canister. 

When the engine is started, the vapors 

are drawn off of the activated carbon 

and into the engine where they are 

burned as fuel. In 1994, the EPA 

promulgated its ORVR standards,7 with 

a minimum 95% vapor capture 

efficiency, which fully applied to all 

new light duty vehicles by 2000. The 

ORVR requirements were phased in to 

apply to heavier classes of vehicles as 

well—reaching full effect for all new 

vehicles with a gross vehicle weight 

rating of up to 10,000 pounds by 2006. 

Recognizing that, over time, the 

number of vehicles with ORVR as a 

percentage of the overall motor vehicle 

fleet would increase with the turnover 

of older models not equipped with 

ORVR with newer models equipped 

with ORVR, CAA section 202(a)(6) 

permits the EPA to promulgate a 

determination that ORVR is in 

‘‘widespread use’’ throughout the motor 

vehicle fleet and to revise or waive 

Stage II vapor recovery requirements for 

Serious, Severe and Extreme ozone 

nonattainment areas. The EPA made the 

determination that ORVR systems are in 

‘‘widespread use’’ in the nation’s motor 

vehicle fleet in 2012. 77 FR 28772, May 

16, 2012; and 40 CFR 51.126. In the 

wake of the EPA’s ‘‘widespread use’’ 

determination, states, such as Arizona, 

that were required to implement Stage 

II vapor recovery programs under CAA 

section 182(b)(3) are now permitted to 

remove the requirement from their SIPs 

under certain circumstances. 

On August 7, 2012, the EPA released 

its ‘‘Guidance on Removing Stage II 

Gasoline Vapor Control Programs from 

State Implementation Plans and 

Assessing Comparable Measures’’ 8

(‘‘Stage II Guidance’’) to aid in the 

development of SIP revisions to remove 

Stage II controls from GDFs. The EPA’s 

Stage II Guidance projects that, by 2015, 

over 84% of all the gasoline dispensed 

in the nation will be dispensed to 

ORVR-equipped motor vehicles.9 As 

such, Stage II and ORVR have become 

largely redundant technologies, and 

Stage II control systems are achieving an 

ever-declining emissions benefit as 

more ORVR-equipped vehicle continue 

to enter the on-road motor vehicle fleet. 

In addition, the EPA’s Stage II Guidance 

recognizes that, in areas where certain 

types of vacuum-assist Stage II control 

systems are used, the limited 

compatibility between ORVR and some 

configurations of this Stage II hardware 

may ultimately result in an area-wide 

emissions disbenefit. The disbenefit can 

result when the Stage II controls pull air 

into the underground tank instead of 

gasoline vapors when both vacuumassist Stage II controls and ORVR are 

active during refueling. This increases 

the pressure in the underground tank 

and can cause venting of excess 

emissions into the air. The PhoenixMesa ozone nonattainment area is an 

area where the vast majority of Stage II 

systems that have been installed use 

vacuum assist technologies.10

In light of EPA’s national 

‘‘widespread use’’ determination 

allowing states to revise their SIPs to 

remove Stage II vapor recovery 

requirements and the potential for a 

disbenefit from continuation of the 

Stage II vapor recovery program, MAG 

developed emissions estimates based on 

information from the EPA’s Stage II 

guidance and based on Phoenix-areaspecific motor vehicle fleet data to 

determine the impact of continuation of 

the program and the impact of the 

phased removal of Stage II vapor 

recovery in the Phoenix-Mesa area. The 

emissions estimates demonstrated that 

the emissions reduction benefit from the 

Stage II vapor recovery program would 

continue to provide marginal but 

diminishing emissions reductions 

through 2017 and that the disbenefit 

from continuation of the Stage II vapor 

recovery program would begin in 2018 

and increase in the years thereafter. See 

table 1 on page 53005 of the direct final 

rule. 

In response to these findings, the 

Arizona Legislature adopted changes in 

the specific statutory provisions 

establishing the Stage II vapor recovery 

program to eliminate the requirement to 

install Stage II equipment at new GDFs 

and to provide for a phased 

decommissioning process to remove 

Stage II equipment at existing GDFs 

beginning in October 2016 and ending 

in September 2018.11

Subsequent to legislative action, on 

September 2, 2014, ADEQ submitted a 

SIP revision, titled ‘‘MAG State 

Implementation Plan Revision for the 

Removal of Stage II Vapor Recovery 

Controls in the Maricopa Eight-Hour 

Ozone Nonattainment Area’’ (‘‘Stage II 

Vapor Recovery SIP Revision’’ or ‘‘SIP 

Revision’’), including the statutory 

revisions and related emissions impact 

documentation. 

After review of the SIP Revision, on 

September 2, 2015 (80 FR 53086), the 

EPA proposed approval based on the 

following conclusions: 

• ADEQ has met the procedural 

requirements for SIP revisions under 

section 110(l); 

• Pursuant to the EPA’s 

determination of ‘‘widespread use’’ (of 

ORVR systems in the motor vehicle 

fleet), states are allowed to rescind Stage 

II vapor recovery control requirements 

in their SIPs if doing so is consistent 

with the general SIP revision 

requirements of CAA section 110(l) and 

section 193; 

• CAA section 193 does not apply to 

this particular SIP revision because the 

Stage II vapor recovery controls were 

not in effect prior to the 1990 CAA 

Amendments; 

• MAG’s year-by-year estimates of 

areawide VOC emissions with and 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
70692 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 220 / Monday, November 16, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

12The EPA-approved MAG Eight-Hour Ozone 

Maintenance Plan anticipates VOC emissions 

between 653.9 mtpd (June ozone episode, 2005) and 

659.0 mtpd (June ozone episode, 2015) during the 

relevant period. See our proposed approval of the 

maintenance plan and redesignation request at 79 

FR 16734, at 16744 (March 26, 2014). 

without the SIP Revision reflect 

reasonable methods and assumptions, 

and provide a reasonable basis upon 

which to evaluate the ozone impacts of 

the SIP Revision; 

• MAG’s emissions estimates 

conclude that the temporary emissions 

increases due to the SIP Revision 

(relative to the scenario in which Stage 

II requirements remain fully 

implemented) will occur during years 

2014 through 2017 and will range from 

0.015 metric tons per day (mtpd) to 

0.031 mtpd, and that beginning in 2018 

and increasing in magnitude thereafter, 

the SIP Revision will result in fewer 

VOC emissions than would otherwise 

have occurred if Stage II requirements 

were to remain fully implemented in the 

Phoenix-Mesa area (due to the 

incompatibility of ORVR-equipped 

vehicles and vacuum-assist Stage II 

technologies); 

• The temporary increases in VOC 

emissions during years 2014 through 

2017 due to the SIP Revision would 

represent an approximate 0.002 percent 

to 0.005 percent increase in the overall 

VOC emissions inventory in the 

Phoenix-Mesa area; 12 and 

• The SIP Revision would not 

interfere with reasonable further 

progress or attainment of the ozone 

NAAQS for the purposes of CAA section 

110(l) because: (1) The increases in VOC 

emissions from 2014 through 2017 

would have negligible impacts on ozone 

concentrations in the area; (2) the 

schedule for the phase-out of Stage II 

controls under the SIP Revision will 

maintain most of the emissions 

reductions benefits associated with 

Stage II control through 2017; (3) the 

scheduled phase-out will reduce the 

emissions increase (due to ORVR and 

Stage II incompatibilities) that would 

otherwise be expected in 2018 but 

would not entirely avoid an emissions 

increase in that year because some 

existing GDFs will not yet have removed 

Stage II controls by the beginning of the 

2018 ozone season; and (4) the phaseout of Stage II controls by the end of the 

2018 ozone season will support longerterm regional efforts to attain or 

maintain the ozone standards in the 

Phoenix-Mesa area. 

For further information about the SIP 

Revision and our corresponding 

evaluation, please see the direct final 

rule (80 FR 53001, September 2, 2015). 

III. Public Comments and EPA 

Responses 

In response to September 2, 2015 

proposed rule, we received four 

comments. In the following paragraphs, 

we provide our responses to these 

comments. 

Comment #1: While supportive of our 

proposed action, a commenter suggests 

that the EPA eliminate the Arizona 

vehicle inspection and maintenance 

(VEI) program as well. 

Response #1: The State of Arizona’s 

VEI program is an approved element of 

the Arizona SIP. A state may submit 

revisions to its SIP, but such revisions 

do not become effective until the EPA 

approves them under section 110(k) of 

the CAA. No VEI SIP revision submittal 

is pending at this time. If the State of 

Arizona were to submit a revision to the 

SIP-approved VEI program, or rescission 

of the program, the EPA is authorized to 

approve such a revision only if such 

revision were consistent with all CAA 

requirements such as section 110(l), 

which prohibits the EPA from 

approving a SIP revision if the revision 

would interfere with any applicable 

requirement concerning reasonable 

further progress towards, and 

attainment of, the NAAQS. 

Comment #2: A commenter was not 

opposed to the removal of Stage II vapor 

recovery equipment at GDFs so long as 

the fuel pump dispensing nozzle is 

properly covered to capture vapors 

during refueling. 

Response #2: We disagree that such 

covers are necessary to capture vapors 

during refueling with ORVR-equipped 

motor vehicles. While Stage II vapor 

recovery systems rely upon a rubber 

boot around the nozzle to create a seal 

between the nozzle and the vehicle, 

ORVR prevents vapors from escaping 

during refueling by employing a seal in 

the fill pipe. In most instances, these 

seals are created by the incoming 

gasoline backing slightly near the 

bottom of the fill pipe. When the engine 

is started, the vapors are purged from 

the activated carbon canister and into 

the engine where they are burned as 

fuel. See 77 FR 28772 at 28774 (May 16, 

2012). Because ORVR uses a seal within 

the fill pipe of the vehicle, a rubber boot 

or cover is not required to prevent 

vapors from escaping during refueling. 

Comment #3: A commenter objects to 

our proposal, and asks the EPA to 

reconsider its proposed approval of the 

SIP revision, contending that the 

revision will cause adverse effects 

particularly in the summer months. This 

commenter also questions whether there 

would be any benefit from the revision 

and asks the EPA to identify to whom 

the revision applies. 

Response #3: We recognize that the 

Stage II vapor recovery controls have 

provided significant reductions of VOC 

emissions in the Phoenix-Mesa area 

since they were implemented in the 

mid-1990s. These controls have done so 

by taking the vapors normally emitted 

directly into the atmosphere when 

pumping gas and recycling them back 

into the underground fuel storage tank, 

preventing them from polluting the air. 

However, as discussed in more detail in 

the direct final rule at 80 FR 53002 and 

52003 (September 2, 2015), the 1990 

amended CAA anticipated that, over 

time, Stage II vapor recovery 

requirements at gasoline stations would 

be replaced by ORVR systems installed 

on motor vehicles, and authorized the 

EPA to revise or waive Stage II vapor 

recovery requirements for ozone 

nonattainment areas, including such 

areas as the Phoenix-Mesa area, once the 

EPA determines that ORVR is in 

‘‘widespread use’’ throughout the motor 

vehicle fleet. The EPA published its 

‘‘widespread use’’ determination in 

2012 at 77 FR 28772 (May 16, 2012), 

and as a result, the Stage II vapor 

recovery controls are no longer required 

in ozone nonattainment areas. 

Moreover, as described further in our 

direct final rule at 53004, with certain 

types of vacuum-assist Stage II control 

systems, the limited compatibility 

between ORVR and some configurations 

of this Stage II hardware may ultimately 

result in an area-wide emissions 

disbenefit. This is because the Stage II 

controls pull air into the underground 

tank instead of gasoline vapors when 

both vacuum-assist Stage II control and 

ORVR are active during refueling, 

increasing the pressure in the 

underground tank and causing venting 

of excess emission into the air. The 

Phoenix-Mesa ozone nonattainament 

area is an area where the vast majority 

of Stage II systems that have been 

installed use vacuum assist 

technologies, and MAG has estimated 

that 2018 is the first year in which the 

disbenefit from implementation of Stage 

II controls would occur if Stage II 

control requirements were to remain in 

place given the motor vehicle fleet in 

the Phoenix-Mesa area. The disbenefit 

(i.e., the increase in emissions if Stage 

II control were to be retained) grows 

quickly after that year as shown in table 

1 of our direct final rule at 53005. 

Thus, from the perspective of 

summertime ozone conditions in the 

Phoenix-Mesa area, the issue is not 

whether to remove the Stage II vapor 

recovery equipment but when and how. 

The state has submitted a SIP revision 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 220 / Monday, November 16, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 70693 

13Approval of these statutory provisions as 

revisions to the Arizona SIP supersedes the 

following existing SIP provisions in the Arizona 

SIP: ARS section 41–2131, as approved at 77 FR 

35279 (June 13, 2012); ARS section 41–2132, as 

approved at 77 FR 35279 (June 13, 2012); and ARS 

section 41–2133, as approved at 77 FR 35279 (June 

13, 2012). As noted previously, ‘‘Area A’’ is roughly 

the same geographic area as the Phoenix-Mesa 8- 

hour ozone nonattainment area. 

that eliminates the requirement for 

installation of Stage II vapor recovery 

equipment at new GDFs, and that 

establishes a phased decommissioning 

process to remove Stage II controls at 

existing GDFs over a two-year period 

beginning October 1, 2016 and ending 

September 30, 2018. As explained on 

page 53003 of the direct final rule, the 

two-year period for decommissioning is 

based on the expectation of the Arizona 

Department of Weights and Measures of 

the time necessary to safely 

decommission Stage II controls at the 

over 1,000 existing GDFs in the 

Phoenix-Mesa area. Decommissioning is 

expected to be spread evenly over each 

of the 24 months from October 2016 

through September 2018 and to occur 

for existing GDFs during the month 

when the annual scheduled Stage II 

control test would have occurred. 

We believe that the two-year 

decommissioning process established by 

the state minimizes the temporary 

adverse effect of increased VOC 

emissions (i.e., from foregone emissions 

reductions from elimination of the Stage 

II requirement at new GDFs and the 

phase-out of Stage II equipment at 

existing GDFs) while avoiding the 

longer-term adverse impact due to the 

disbenefit associated with retaining the 

Stage II vapor recovery controls. As 

noted on page 53005 of the direct final 

rule, the temporary adverse effect 

during years 2014 through 2017 would 

represent an approximate 0.002 percent 

to 0.005 percent increase in the overall 

VOC emission inventory in the PhoenixMesa area. Based on the small 

magnitude of this impact, its temporary 

nature, and the avoidance of the longterm disbenefit, we have concluded that 

the SIP revision would not interfere 

with attainment or maintenance of the 

ozone NAAQS in the Phoenix-Mesa 

area. 

Comment #4: A commenter objects to 

our proposal, stating that it does not 

take into account those individuals who 

are chemically sensitive to vapors and 

would be harmed if the SIP revision 

were to be approved. This commenter 

also noted that there are communities 

where most of the drivers operate older 

vehicles and that those living in such 

areas would be at higher risk than those 

in areas where the vehicle models are 

newer, and suggested that the EPA defer 

the approval of the Stage II vapor 

recovery phase-out for a couple of years 

to allow for a greater percentage of 

ORVR-equipped vehicles to replace the 

older vehicles without ORVR. 

Response #4: The commenter is 

correct that, in reviewing the Stage II 

SIP Revision, the EPA did not take into 

account the particular sensitivities of 

individuals to gasoline vapors or the 

percentage of ORVR-equipped vehicles 

refueling at individual GDFs in the 

Phoenix-Mesa area. Our role in a 

reviewing SIP revision is to approve 

state choices, provided that they meet 

the criteria of the CAA. None of the 

applicable CAA criteria calls for 

evaluating the sensitivities of 

individuals to gasoline vapors nor do 

the criteria require a GDF-specific ORVR 

evaluation. 

Rather, as described on pages 53004 

and 53004 of the direct final rule, we 

evaluated the SIP revision for 

compliance with CAA section 110(l), 

which prohibits the EPA from 

approving a SIP revision if that revision 

would interfere with any applicable 

requirement concerning reasonable 

further progress towards, or attainment 

of, any of the NAAQS, or any applicable 

requirement of the CAA. In this 

instance, because the Stage II SIP 

revision would affect VOC emissions, 

and because VOC is a precursor to 

ozone, we focused on ozone NAAQS 

impacts. Ozone is a regional pollutant 

and thus our evaluation of the SIP 

revision is appropriately based on areawide VOC emissions estimates and 

considers those emissions in the context 

of regional, not local, ozone 

concentrations. 

Lastly, deferral by the EPA of action 

on the Stage II SIP revision is not 

appropriate because CAA section 

110(k)(2) establishes a deadline of at 

most 18 months from the date a SIP 

revision is submitted for the EPA to take 

final action. Moreover, we have 

concluded that the two-year 

decommissioning process established by 

the state would minimize the temporary 

adverse impact on regional VOC 

emissions while avoiding the longer 

term disbenefit associated with 

implementation of Stage II vapor 

recovery controls at GDFs in the 

Phoenix-Mesa area. Deferral by the state 

of the two-year decommissioning 

process would be less advantageous 

from a regional ozone perspective 

because it would only serve to lengthen 

the period in which the area would 

experience the disbenefit from Stage II 

vapor recovery due to the increasing 

percentage of motor vehicles with ORVR 

and accompanying incompatibilities 

with the Stage II vapor recovery 

equipment. 

IV. Final Action 

Under CAA section 110(k) and for the 

reasons set forth in our September 2, 

2015 direct final rule and summarized 

above, the EPA is taking final action to 

approve the Stage II Vapor Recovery SIP 

Revision submitted by ADEQ on 

September 2, 2014 to provide for the 

phased removal of ‘‘Stage II’’ vapor 

recovery equipment at GDFs in the 

Phoenix-Mesa area. Specifically, the 

EPA is approving a SIP revision that 

eliminates the requirement to install 

and operate such equipment at new 

GDFs, and that provides for the phased 

removal of such equipment at existing 

GDFs from October 2016 through 

September 2018. 

The EPA is approving this SIP 

revision because Stage II vapor recovery 

controls are no longer a SIP requirement 

under CAA section 182(b)(3) due to 

EPA’s ‘‘widespread use determination’’ 

for ORVR. Additionally, we are 

approving this SIP revision because the 

temporary incremental increase in VOC 

emissions from 2014 through 2017 

would not interfere with reasonable 

further progress toward, or attainment 

of, any of the NAAQS, and because this 

SIP revision avoids the longer-term VOC 

emissions increases associated with 

continued implementation of Stage II 

controls in the Phoenix-Mesa area. As 

part of this final action, the EPA is 

approving the specific statutory 

provisions that provide for the phaseout of Stage II controls in Area A, i.e., 

sections 5 through 8, and 10 through 12 

of House Bill 2128, amending ARS 

sections 41–2131, 41–2132, 41–2133 

and adding section 41–2135.13

V. Incorporation by Reference 

In this rule, the EPA is finalizing 

regulatory text that includes 

incorporation by reference. In 

accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 

51.5, the EPA is finalizing the 

incorporation by reference of certain 

sections of House Bill 2128 amending 

various sections of the Arizona Revised 

Statutes related to stage II vapor 

recovery systems in Area A, effective 

April 22, 2014, as described in the 

amendments to 40 CFR part 52 set forth 

below. The EPA has made, and will 

continue to make, these documents 

generally available electronically 

through www.regulations.gov and/or in 

hard copy at the appropriate EPA office 

(see the ADDRESSES section of this 

preamble for more information). 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
70694 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 220 / Monday, November 16, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

VI. 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 Clean Air Act. 

Accordingly, this action merely 

approves state law as meeting Federal 

requirements and does not impose 

additional requirements beyond those 

imposed by state law. For that reason, 

this 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 (Pub. L. 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 Clean Air Act; 

and 

• does not provide the 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, 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, this rule does not have 

tribal implications as specified by 

Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, 

November 9, 2000), nor will it impose 

substantial direct costs on tribal 

governments or preempt tribal law. 

The Congressional Review Act, 5 

U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides 

that before a rule may take effect, the 

agency promulgating the rule must 

submit a rule report, which includes a 

copy of the rule, to each House of the 

Congress and to the Comptroller General 

of the United States. The EPA will 

submit a report containing this action 

and other required information to the 

U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of 

Representatives, and the Comptroller 

General of the United States prior to 

publication of the rule in the Federal 

Register. A major rule cannot take effect 

until 60 days after it is published in the 

Federal Register. This action is not a 

‘‘major rule’’ as defined by 5 U.S.C. 

804(2). 

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean 

Air Act, petitions for judicial review of 

this action must be filed in the United 

States Court of Appeals for the 

appropriate circuit by January 15, 2016. 

Filing a petition for reconsideration by 

the Administrator of this final rule does 

not affect the finality of this action for 

the purposes of judicial review nor does 

it extend the time within which a 

petition for judicial review may be filed, 

and shall not postpone the effectiveness 

of such rule or action. This action may 

not be challenged later in proceedings to 

enforce its requirements (see section 

307(b)(2)). 

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: October 28, 2015. 

Jared Blumenfeld, 

Regional Administrator, Region IX. 

Chapter I, title 40 of the Code of 

Federal Regulations is amended as 

follows: 

PART 52—APPROVAL AND 

PROMULGATION OF 

IMPLEMENTATION PLANS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 52 

continues to read as follows: 

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

Subpart D—Arizona 

■ 2. Section 52.120 is amended by 

adding paragraph (c)(171) to read as 

follows: 

§ 52.120 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(171) The following plan was 

submitted on September 2, 2014 by the 

Governor’s designee. 

(i) Incorporation by reference. 

(A) Arizona Department of 

Environmental Quality. 

(1) House Bill 2128, effective April 22, 

2014, excluding sections 1 through 4, 

and 9 (including the text that appears in 

all capital letters and excluding the text 

that appears in strikethrough). 

(ii) Additional materials. 

(A) Arizona Department of 

Environmental Quality. 

(1) MAG 2014 State Implementation 

Plan Revision for the Removal of Stage 

II Vapor Recovery Controls in the 

Maricopa Eight-Hour Ozone 

Nonattainment Area (August 2014), 

adopted by the Regional Council of the 

Maricopa Association of Governments 

on August 27, 2014, excluding appendix 

A, exhibit 2 (‘‘Arizona Revised Statutes 

Listed in Table 1–1’’). 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2015–28909 Filed 11–13–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 62 

[EPA–R05–OAR–2015–0701; FRL–9936–96– 

Region 5] 

Air Plan Approval; Michigan; Sewage 

Sludge Incinerators State Plan and 

Small Municipal Waste Combustors 

Negative Declaration for Designated 

Facilities and Pollutants 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Direct final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is approving Michigan’s 

State Plan to control air pollutants from 

‘‘Sewage Sludge Incinerators’’ (SSI). The 

Michigan Department of Environmental 

Quality (MDEQ) submitted the State 

Plan on September 21, 2015. The State 

Plan is consistent with the Emission 

Guidelines (EGs) promulgated by EPA 

on March 21, 2011. This approval 

means that EPA finds that the State Plan 

meets applicable Clean Air Act (Act) 

requirements for subject SSI units. Once 

effective, this approval also makes the 

State Plan Federally enforceable. EPA is 

also notifying the public that we have 

received from Michigan a negative 

declaration for Small Municipal Waste 

Combustors (SMWC). The MDEQ 

submitted its negative declaration on 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES