Document ID: EPA-R02-OAR-2019-0399-0001
Agency: epa
Document Type: Proposed Rule
Title: Air Quality State Implementation Plans; Approvals and Promulgations: New Jersey; Gasoline Vapor Recovery Requirements
Posted Date: 2019-11-26T05:00Z

[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 228 (Tuesday, November 26, 2019)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 65063-65067]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2019-25584]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R02-OAR-2019-0399, FRL-10002-59-Region 2]

Approval of Air Quality Implementation Plans; New Jersey; 
Gasoline Vapor Recovery Requirements

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency proposes to approve a 
revision to the New Jersey State Implementation Plan for ozone National 
Ambient Air Quality Standard which includes regulatory amendments 
relevant to the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection's 
requirements for Stage I and Stage II vapor recovery systems at 
gasoline dispensing facilities: Upgrades to Stage I controls for tank 
breathing and refueling systems; decommissioning existing Stage II 
systems incompatible with onboard refueling vapor recovery systems on 
or before December 23, 2020 with a demonstration that such removal is 
consistent with the Clean Air Act and EPA Guidance; and allowing for 
continued use of existing onboard refueling vapor recovery-compatible 
Stage II systems if facilities maintain the systems, including 
compliance with required testing, to ensure proper working order. The 
amendments also require installation of enhanced conventional dripless 
nozzles and low permeation hoses as part of decommissioning existing 
Stage II systems or as maintenance. The intended effect of the 
amendments is to propose approval of New Jersey's revised vapor 
recovery regulations. New Jersey's comprehensive submittal also 
included changes in amendments for its air permitting program and t-
butyl acetate emission reporting requirements, however, the EPA will be 
acting on these amendments under a separate action.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before December 26, 2019.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID number EPA-
R02-OAR-2019-0399, at http://www.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, the full EPA 
public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, 
and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Linda Longo, Air Programs Branch, 
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 2 Office, 290 Broadway, 25th 
Floor, New York, New York 10007-1866, (212) 637-3565, or by email at 
longo.linda@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. What is being addressed in this document?
II. What is the background of this action as it relates to Stage II 
vapor recovery?
III. What is the background of this action as it relates to Stage I 
vapor recovery?
IV. What is EPA's analysis of New Jersey's submission?
V. What are the relevant CAA requirements for this SIP revision?
    a. CAA Section 110(l) Non-Interference Measure
    b. CAA Section 184(b)(2) Comparable Measure
    c. CAA Section 193 Anti-Backsliding
VI. What action is EPA proposing to take?
VII. Incorporation by Reference
VIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. What is being addressed in this document?

    Stage I and Stage II vapor recovery systems at gasoline dispensing 
facilities (GDFs) control hydrocarbon vapors, such as volatile organic 
compounds (VOC), at the point of the delivery truck's dispensing 
gasoline to storage tanks (Stage I) and during the refueling of motor 
vehicles (Stage II). Stage I vapor recovery systems (Stage I Systems), 
which have been in place nationwide since the 1970s, route displaced 
vapors back to the delivery truck (through either a dual-point or a 
single-point delivery and vent system) during unloading of gasoline 
from the truck to the storage tank. A dual-point system utilizes two 
hoses: One to deliver the product and the other to return the vapors 
back to the tanker truck with rotatable adapters located on the product 
port and the vapor port. A single-point vapor recovery system utilizes 
one co-axial hose that is essentially a hose within a hose, allowing 
product to enter and vapors to exit at the same time.
    Stage II vapor recovery systems (Stage II Systems) have been 
required in New Jersey since 1988. They utilize nozzles and hoses, 
installed on the GDF dispenser, that capture the fuel vapors from the 
gas tank of the refueling vehicle and return the vapors to the 
underground or aboveground storage tank via underground piping to 
prevent vapors from escaping to the atmosphere. GDFs in New Jersey 
employ two types of Stage II Systems--vacuum-assist and vapor balance 
systems. Vacuum-assist systems rely on a vacuum pump in the dispensing 
nozzle to move vapors from the vehicle into the GDF storage tank. Vapor 
balance systems transfer vapors from the vehicle to the storage tank 
based on pressure differential. Vacuum-assist systems work best with 
vehicles that are not equipped with technology to capture hydrocarbon 
emission inside the vehicle.
    Onboard refueling vapor recovery (ORVR) systems, a type of 
hydrocarbon emission control technology, is a carbon canister installed 
in automobiles to capture fuel vapors evacuated from the vehicle 
gasoline tank before those vapors reach the GDF pump nozzle. The ORVR 
captures and holds the vapors until they are combusted in the engine 
during operation. Incompatibility between the ORVR and vacuum-assist 
Stage II Systems could result in excess emissions from the GDF storage 
tank. Such an incompatibility could result from the ORVR's causing the 
vacuum pump on the nozzle to pump air rather than gasoline vapors back 
to the GDF storage tank. Vapor return to the GDF can lead to vapor 
growth, over-pressurization of the GDF storage tank, and potentially 
excess emissions. Thus, Stage II vapor recovery programs have become 
largely redundant and potentially incompatible controls. As such, the 
continued use of Stage II Systems achieves a declining emission 
reduction as an increasing proportion of the on-road motor vehicle 
fleet in New Jersey comprise of ORVR-equipped vehicles.
    To address the potential incompatibility, some GDFs have

[[Page 65064]]

installed ORVR-compatible Stage II Systems; these include: Vapor 
balance systems; vapor recovery systems with tank pressure management 
emission control equipment that are installed on the atmospheric vent 
of the GDF tank and operated in conjunction with Stage I and Stage II 
equipment; and vacuum assist systems that have ORVR-compatible pump 
nozzles.
    Stage II Systems and ORVR systems were both required by the 1990 
Amendments to the Clean Air Act (CAA).\1\ However, Congress recognized 
that the two technologies would, in time, become redundant; therefore, 
the CAA allows GDFs to phase out of the Stage II program as more ORVR-
equipped vehicles come into use.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Section 182(b)(3) of the CAA requires moderate and above 
ozone nonattainment areas to implement Stage II vapor recovery 
programs. Also, under CAA section 184(b)(2), states in the Ozone 
Transport Region (OTR) are required to implement Stage II or 
comparable measures. CAA section 202(a)(6) required EPA to 
promulgate regulations for ORVR for light-duty vehicles (passenger 
cars).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. What is the background of this action as it relates to Stage II 
vapor recovery?

    On November 29, 2017, the New Jersey Department of Environmental 
Protection (the State) submitted a revision to its State Implementation 
Plan (SIP). The SIP revision consists of the State's newly adopted New 
Jersey Administrative Code (N.J.A.C.) 7:27-16.3, ``Gasoline Transfer 
Operations,'' (the Rule), which makes the following changes to the 
controls required for Phase II \2\ vapor recovery at GDFs operating in 
New Jersey. For GDFs with existing ORVR-compatible Stage II Systems, 
the Rule allows GDFs to choose either: To decommission non-compliant 
systems within three years, or to continue to maintain the system as an 
ORVR-compatible system and comply with the requirement to test to 
ensure the system is working properly under N.J.A.C. 7:27-16.3(j). As 
part of decommissioning, under N.J.A.C. 7:27-16.3(g), each GDF with a 
storage tank greater than 2,000 gallons must be equipped with CARB-
certified dripless enhanced conventional dispensing nozzles and 
dispenser hoses that are CARB-certified low permeation hoses. An 
existing GDF is not required to replace nozzles and hoses immediately 
with CARB-certified but may make the replacements as part of 
maintenance if prior to decommissioning. If no nozzle is CARB-certified 
at the time of the installation, decommissioning, or nozzle 
replacement, a conventional nozzle may be installed. This reflects the 
latest technology and furthers the State's efforts for attainment of 
the ozone NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The New Jersey Administrative Code 7:27-16.3, Gasoline 
Transfer Operations. It should be noted that this Federal Register 
notice and the EPA use the term ``Stage I'' and ``Stage II'', 
whereas, the State follows the terminology ``Phase I'' and ``Phase 
II'' that California Air Resources Board (CARB) uses, because both 
the existing Rule and the amendments rely upon CARB certifications.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under CAA Section 202(a)(6), Congress provided authority to EPA to 
allow states to remove (e.g., decommission) Stage II vapor recovery 
programs from their SIPs, through a SIP revision, after EPA finds that 
ORVR is in widespread use nationwide. Nationally, the ORVR system has 
been phased in for new passenger vehicles since the model year 1998 and 
for light-duty trucks and most heavy-duty gasoline powered vehicles 
since model year 2001. Since 2006, nearly all new gasoline-powered 
light-duty vehicles, light-duty trucks, and heavy-duty vehicles have 
been equipped with ORVR systems.
    On May 16, 2012, the EPA determined that ORVR systems are in 
widespread use nationwide for control of gasoline emissions during 
refueling of vehicles at GDFs (Widespread Use Rule). See 77 FR 28772 
(May 16, 2012). The ORVR Widespread Use Rule also allowed the EPA to 
exempt all new ozone nonattainment areas classified serious or above 
from the requirement to adopt Stage II vapor recovery programs. 
Following promulgation of the Widespread Use Rule, the EPA issued 
guidance \3\ on how states may develop approvable SIP revisions that 
seek to remove Stage II programs from SIPs (the EPA Guidance). The EPA 
Guidance provides recommendations on how states may assess and 
demonstrate compliance with relevant CAA requirements and consistency 
with the EPA Widespread Use Rule in decommissioning Stage II programs. 
First, the EPA Guidance indicates that Incremental Equation 1 may be 
used to demonstrate compliance with the non-interference provisions 
under Section 110(l) and comparable measures provisions under Section 
184(b)(2) of the CAA. Second, the EPA Guidance states that Delta 
Equation 2 may be used to demonstrate that removal of a state's pre-
1990 Stage II vapor recovery program would not constitute backsliding 
and that the state would be in compliance with Section 193 of the CAA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ EPA (2012). ``Guidance on Removing Stage II Gasoline 
Refueling Vapor Recovery Programs from State Implementation Plans 
and Assessing Comparable Measures,''. See, https://www3.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/aqmguide/collection/cp2/20120807_page_stage2_removal_guidance.pdf, last accessed September 
12, 2019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The 2012 EPA widespread use analysis included in the EPA Guidance 
was based on the projected installation of ORVR systems on new model 
vehicles and estimates that in 2012 more than 75 percent of gasoline 
refueling nationwide would occur with ORVR-equipped vehicles.\4\ The 
State, in its November 2017 submission, estimates that by 2017 
approximately 90 percent of the vehicle fleet in New Jersey will have 
been equipped with ORVR technology.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See, Appendix Table A-1 of the EPA 2012 Guidance on Removing 
Stage II Gasoline Vapor Control Programs from State Implementation 
Plans and Assessing Comparable Measures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. What is the background of this action as it relates to Stage I 
vapor recovery?

    The current proposed Rule allows for strengthening Stage I Systems 
to include, with a few exceptions, CARB-certified Stage I enhanced 
vapor recovery components. The amendments allow existing GDFs one year 
to install a CARB-certified Stage I enhanced vapor recovery pressure/
vacuum relief vent valve and seven years to comply with the remaining 
equipment requirements. Unlike the CARB regulations, the proposed rule 
does not require all the components to be approved in the same 
Executive Order. The State's amendments also include an exception to 
the CARB requirements for single-point vapor balance systems and 
rotatable adapters for existing systems. The State requires a dual-
point vapor balance system for new Stage I Systems. However, an 
existing facility that has already installed a single-point vapor 
balance system does not need to replace it with a dual-point system nor 
install rotatable adapters.

IV. What is the EPA's analysis of New Jersey's submission?

    In reviewing the proposed SIP revision, the EPA must ensure that: 
(1) The State has demonstrated that the proposed action would not 
interfere with ozone attainment; (2) that the proposed action would 
achieve equivalent or greater emission reductions; and (3) that the 
ultimate period to remove Stage II Systems in New Jersey is during a 
time when the State can demonstrate de minimis incremental benefits. 
The EPA finds that the State has demonstrated widespread use of ORVR 
systems throughout the motor vehicle fleet and that implementation of 
the Rule in the proposed SIP revision would comply with CAA Sections 
110(l), 184(b)(2), and

[[Page 65065]]

193. As outlined in the SIP revision, the modifications authorized 
under the proposed Rule \5\ will result in an emission reduction of 
approximately 3.5 tons per day of VOC. In evaluating the State's 
analysis, the EPA also considered previous EPA approvals of the removal 
of Stage II System from other SIPs to ensure consistency to similar 
Stage II-related SIP revisions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Attachment to the NJDEP SIP revision titled Phase II SIP 
NJAC 7-27:16.3 Nov 28 2017.docx.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The State's proposed SIP revision also includes requirements for 
CARB-certified Stage I enhanced vapor recovery components for tank 
breathing and refueling systems. The Stage I enhancements will achieve 
approximately 5 tons per day of VOC emission reductions.

V. What are the relevant CAA requirements for this SIP revision?

a. CAA Section 110(l) Non-Interference Measure

    CAA Section 110(l) specifies that the EPA cannot approve a SIP 
revision if it would interfere with attainment of National Ambient Air 
Quality Standards (NAAQS), reasonable further progress towards 
attainment, or any other applicable requirement of the CAA. The State 
has demonstrated through application of the Incremental Equation 1 and 
the Motor Vehicle Emissions Simulator (MOVES) model to the relevant 
state emissions data, in accordance with the EPA Guidance, that the 
combination of the widespread use ORVR-equipped vehicles and the 
decommissioning of ORVR-incompatible vapor control systems will not 
result in an actual increase of VOC emissions in the State. For 
purposes of the current proposed rulemaking, the incremental emissions 
impact derived from Incremental Equation 1 is the difference between 
the refueling vapors that Stage II captures from non-ORVR vehicles and 
associated incompatible excess emissions. The EPA Guidance calls for 
demonstrating ``the point in time at which de minimis incremental 
benefits are reached.'' Using emissions data from a sample of urban and 
rural non-attainment areas (i.e., Essex, Middlesex, Camden, Ocean, and 
Salem counties) the State estimated this time period to be a nine-year 
span from 2014 through 2022. As recommended in the EPA Guidance, the 
State used the MOVES model to estimate the fraction of gasoline 
dispensed to ORVR-equipped vehicles and the fraction of annual vehicle 
miles traveled by ORVR-equipped vehicles. The State used the above-
mentioned nine-year span \6\ and the five counties for the time and 
geographic parameters, respectively. Because a small, but declining, 
number of non-ORVR vehicles remain in the State highway fleet, there is 
a small, but ever-decreasing, level of future emission reduction that 
could be achieved from Stage II Systems. However, the State has 
demonstrated that statewide overall benefits from Stage II Systems 
become zero during the mid-2017 to mid-2021 timeframe; that is, Stage 
II System implementation provides no net difference in the total VOC 
emission. Because the timing of this proposed rulemaking coincides with 
the mid-2017 and mid-2021 timeframe (i.e., the effective date for 
N.J.A.C. 7:27-16.3 is on or before December 23, 2020), the removal of 
the Stage II program from the SIP will not interfere with the State's 
attainment of the ozone NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ The years in between 2014 and 2018 were interpolated and the 
years after 2018 were extrapolated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

b. CAA Section 184(b)(2) Comparable Measure

    Because New Jersey is located in the northeast Ozone Transport 
Region, under CAA Section 184(b)(2), the State must adopt and implement 
either Stage II controls at GDFs or control measures capable of 
achieving emission reductions comparable to those achievable through 
Stage II Systems. The State conducted a statewide comparable measure 
analysis in accordance with the EPA Guidance that shows that phasing 
out the Stage II program would result in zero or de minimis \7\ 
incremental loss of area wide emission control during the mid-2017 and 
mid-2021 timeframe. This is because as the number of ORVR vehicles 
increases, the efficiency of refueling ORVR vehicles at the Stage II 
GDFs decreases.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ The EPA Guidance defines de minimis as an incremental loss 
of 10% or less. The EPA Guidance at p. 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In determining the optimal period for requiring the decommissioning 
of Stage II Systems (i.e., mid-2017 and mid-2021), the State analyzed 
Stage II related gasoline throughput distribution (i.e., amount of 
gasoline dispensed) and the associated inefficiency that is due to 
ORVR-Stage II incompatibilities. The State's review included: 
Permitting and enforcement data; existing EPA and CARB throughput 
distribution estimates; and an NJDEP-administered survey \8\ of GDFs. 
The State examined the effect on incremental loss of a range of 
gasoline throughputs (i.e., 29 to 71 percent) that would occur at 
vacuum-assist facilities from the years 2014 to 2022. Based on its 
analysis, the State concluded that the incremental potential loss of 
area wide emission control for in the five representative counties 
under study would be de minimis under the EPA Guidance. See summary in 
Appendix A in the Docket. For example, Appendix A shows that for 
Middlesex County in the year 2017, if 29 percent of the gasoline 
throughput were to occur at Stage II facilities, given widespread use 
of ORVR-equipped vehicles, the incremental loss of emissions would be 
3.5 percent; and if 71 percent of the gasoline throughput were to occur 
at Stage II facilities, the incremental loss would be 0.45 percent. 
Thus, the incremental loss would be less than 10 percent (de minimis 
under the EPA Guidance) for 2017. The State's full analysis shows that 
for all the years under study (i.e., 2014 to 2022) and for all five 
counties, the incremental loss would be de minimis under the EPA 
Guidance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ NJDEP (2014). ``NJDEP survey of gasoline dispensing 
facilities conducted in January of 2014,'' on file with NJDEP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As part of the throughput distribution analysis, the State also 
undertook a determination of the ``crossover period,'' the timeframe 
over which use of Stage II Systems is expected to yield no net 
difference in controlled emissions and therefore represents the ideal 
time for the State to phase out the use of Stage II controls. The 
crossover period for New Jersey is from mid-2017 to mid-2021. The 
proposed rule amendments require decommissioning of ORVR-incompatible 
Stage II Systems on or before December 23, 2020, a date that is well 
within the projected crossover period. Therefore, the State's analysis 
has demonstrated that the decommissioning compliance date will not 
result in emission increases, hence the State will not need to adopt 
and implement any additional Stage II controls at GDFs or control 
measures capable of achieving emission reductions comparable to those 
achievable through Stage II Systems.

c. CAA Section 193 Anti-Backsliding

    CAA Section 193 applies to nonattainment areas in states that adopt 
Stage II control programs into the SIP prior to November 15, 1990 and 
prohibits modification of any control unless the modification insures 
equivalent or greater emission reductions. As discussed above, the 
State adopted the Stage II program in 1988 and, therefore, must show 
that the proposed action will not result in backsliding of the ozone 
nonattainment requirements for the State.

[[Page 65066]]

    To demonstrate compliance with CAA Section 193, the State used the 
EPA Guidance's Delta Equation 2 to show that the removal of Stage II 
Systems will have no impact on area-wide emissions reductions based on 
the difference between Stage II and ORVR efficiencies. As stated in 
Section V.a. above, the State demonstrated that statewide overall 
benefits from Stage II Systems would become zero during the mid-2017 
and mid-2021 crossover period. Because Stage II decommissioning 
compliance date of on or before December 23, 2020 falls well within the 
crossover period, EPA finds no potential for backsliding.

VI. What action is EPA proposing to take?

    The EPA is proposing to approve the State's November 29, 2017 SIP 
revision, which would incorporate into the State's SIP N.J.A.C. 7:27-
16.3, ``Gasoline Transfer Operations.'' The SIP revision would allow 
for strengthening the Stage I vapor recovery requirements and 
decommissioning of Stage II Systems at GDFs. The EPA's proposal is 
based on the conclusion that the SIP revision conforms with the EPA 
Guidance, will not interfere with any applicable requirement of any 
NAAQS or with other applicable requirements of the CAA, and meets all 
applicable requirements of the CAA. The proposed gasoline transfer 
operation provisions will reduce emissions of gasoline vapors resulting 
in a reduction of VOCs, which contribute to the formation of ozone.
    The State's November 29, 2017 SIP revision is approvable under CAA 
section 110(l) because VOC emissions increase that may have occurred 
between the years 2017 to 2021 are too small to interfere with 
attainment and reasonable further progress towards attainment of ozone 
NAAQS. The State's SIP submission also demonstrates that continuing a 
Stage II vapor recovery program would have resulted in an increase in 
refueling emissions due to excess emissions resulting from 
incompatibility between the ORVR and Stage II Systems. Preventing an 
increase in refueling emissions is consistent with non-interference 
requirements of the CAA Section 110(l).
    The revision to the SIP also satisfies the ``comparable measures'' 
requirement of CAA section 184(b)(2), which requires OTR states 
proposing to remove Stage II control programs to implement measures 
that would achieve ``comparable,'' and not ``equivalent,'' reductions 
to existing Stage II programs. As stated in the EPA Guidance, ``the 
comparable measures requirement is satisfied if phasing out a Stage II 
control program in a particular area is estimated to have no, or a de 
minimis, incremental loss of area-wide emission control.'' In this 
case, the State has demonstrated that any temporary emissions increase 
resulting from phasing out of Stage II controls during the years 2017 
to 2021 would be de minimis.
    Finally, the State has satisfied the anti-backsliding requirements 
of CAA Section 193. The compliance date of on or about December 23, 
2020 for decommissioning Stage II Systems and removal of the Stage II 
program from the SIP is well within the crossover period of mid-2017 
and mid-2021 timeframe.
    The State's November 29, 2017 comprehensive SIP submittal also 
proposed amendments for the air permitting program and for t-butyl 
acetate emission reporting requirements. However, the EPA will act on 
these amendments in a separate action.
    The EPA is soliciting public comments on the issues discussed in 
this notice. These comments will be considered before taking final 
action. Interested parties may participate in the Federal rulemaking 
procedure by submitting written comments to this proposed rule by 
following the instructions listed in the ADDRESSES section of this 
Federal Register.

VII. Incorporation by Reference

    In this document, the EPA is proposing to include regulatory text 
that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with 
requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is proposing to incorporate by 
reference revisions to NAJC 7:27-16.3, ``Gasoline Transfer Operations'' 
as described in this preamble.
    The EPA has made, and will continue to make, these documents 
generally available electronically through http://www.regulations.gov 
and in hard copy at the appropriate EPA regional office, 290 Broadway, 
25th floor, New York, New York, 10007-1866. Please contact the person 
identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this 
preamble for more information.

VIII. 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 Clean Air 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 proposes to approve state law as 
meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional 
requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this 
proposed action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to 
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 
2011);
     Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2, 
2017) regulatory action because SIP approvals are exempted under 
Executive Order 12866;
     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, this proposed rule does not have tribal implications 
as specified by Executive Order 13175, because the SIP is not approved 
to apply in Indian country located in the state, and the EPA notes that 
it will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or 
preempt tribal law. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this 
action.

List of Subjects 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by 
reference, Volatile organic compounds, Intergovernmental relations, 
Ozone,

[[Page 65067]]

Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

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

    Dated: November 13, 2019.
Peter D. Lopez,
Regional Administrator, Region 2.
[FR Doc. 2019-25584 Filed 11-25-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P