[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 160 (Monday, August 19, 2024)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 67014-67018]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-18458]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R09-OAR-2023-0603; FRL-11596-01-R9]


Air Plan Revisions; Arizona; Maricopa County Air Quality 
Department

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to 
approve revisions to the Maricopa County Air Quality Department (MCAQD 
or ``County'') portion of the Arizona State Implementation Plan (SIP). 
These revisions concern emissions of volatile organic compounds (VOC) 
from storage, transfer, or loading of organic liquids and gasoline. We 
are proposing to approve local rules to regulate these emission sources 
under the Clean Air Act (CAA or ``Act''). We are also proposing to 
approve the MCAQD's reasonably available control technology (RACT) 
demonstration associated with these rules for the 2008 8-hour ozone 
national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) in the Phoenix-Mesa 
ozone nonattainment area. We are taking comments on this proposal and 
plan to follow with a final action.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before September 18, 2024.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R09-
OAR-2023-0603 at https://www.regulations.gov. For comments submitted at 
Regulations.gov, follow the online instructions for submitting

[[Page 67015]]

comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from 
Regulations.gov. The EPA may publish any comment received to its public 
docket. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be 
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose 
disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio, 
video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written 
comment is considered the official comment and should include 
discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will generally not 
consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary 
submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other file sharing system). For 
additional submission methods, please contact the person identified in 
the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. For the full EPA public 
comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and 
general guidance on making effective comments, please visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets. If you need assistance in a 
language other than English or if you are a person with a disability 
who needs a reasonable accommodation at no cost to you, please contact 
the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mae Wang, EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne 
St., San Francisco, CA 94105; phone: (415) 947-4137; email: 
[email protected].

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

Table of Contents

I. The State's Submittal
    A. What rules did the State submit?
    B. Are there other versions of these rules?
    C. What is the purpose of the submitted rule revisions?
II. The EPA's Evaluation and Action
    A. How is the EPA evaluating the rules?
    B. Do the rules meet the evaluation criteria?
    C. The EPA's Recommendations To Further Improve the Rules
    D. Public Comment and Proposed Action
III. Incorporation by Reference
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. The State's Submittal

A. What rules did the State submit?

    Table 1 lists the rules addressed by this proposal with the dates 
that they were adopted by the MCAQD and submitted to the EPA by the 
Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ or ``State'').

                                            Table 1--Submitted Rules
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Local agency               Rule #                 Rule title                Revised        Submitted
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MCAQD..........................             350  Storage and Transfer of Organic      11/18/2020      12/03/2020
                                                  Liquids (Non-Gasoline) at an
                                                  Organic Liquid Distribution
                                                  (OLD) Facility.
MCAQD..........................             351  Storage and Loading of Gasoline      11/18/2020      12/03/2020
                                                  at Bulk Gasoline Plants and at
                                                  Bulk Gasoline Terminals.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On June 3, 2021, the SIP submittal containing the documents listed 
in Table 1 was deemed complete by operation of law.

B. Are there other versions of these rules?

    We conditionally approved earlier versions of Rule 350 and Rule 351 
into the SIP on February 26, 2020 (85 FR 10986). In order to fulfill 
the commitment the MCAQD made as part of our prior conditional 
approval, the MCAQD adopted revisions to the SIP-approved versions on 
November 18, 2020, and ADEQ submitted them to the EPA on December 3, 
2020. The February 26, 2020 conditional approval, and an explanation of 
how the SIP submittal proposed for approval here addresses the 
deficiencies identified in the conditional approval, are discussed in 
more detail below. If we finalize this proposal to approve the November 
18, 2020 versions of these rules, then these versions will replace the 
previously approved versions of these rules in the SIP.

C. What is the purpose of the submitted rule revisions?

    Emissions of VOC contribute to the formation of ground-level ozone, 
which harms human health and the environment. Section 110(a) of the CAA 
requires States to submit plans that provide for implementation, 
maintenance, and enforcement of the NAAQS. In addition, CAA section 
182(b)(2) requires that SIPs for ozone nonattainment areas classified 
as ``Moderate'' or higher implement RACT for sources covered by a 
control techniques guidelines (CTG) document. The MCAQD regulates a 
portion of the Phoenix-Mesa area designated as nonattainment for ozone 
and classified as Moderate nonattainment for the 2008 ozone NAAQS.\1\ 
Therefore, the MCAQD is required to submit SIP revisions that implement 
RACT-level controls for all sources covered by a CTG. The MCAQD 
submitted Rule 350 and Rule 351 to establish RACT-level controls for 
VOC emissions from sources covered by the petroleum liquid and gasoline 
storage and transfer CTGs. Rule 350 limits VOC emissions from organic 
liquid storage tanks and VOC emissions during transfer operations at 
organic liquid distribution facilities. Rule 351 limits VOC emissions 
from storage and loading of gasoline at bulk gasoline plants and bulk 
gasoline terminals. The associated CTGs are shown in Table 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ On November 12, 2019 (84 FR 60920), the EPA issued a 
determination that the Phoenix-Mesa ozone nonattainment area 
attained the 2008 ozone NAAQS by the Moderate area attainment date 
of July 20, 2018. That determination did not constitute a 
redesignation of the area to attainment for the 2008 ozone standard. 
The designation status of the Phoenix-Mesa area will remain Moderate 
nonattainment for the 2008 ozone NAAQS until such time as the EPA 
determines that the area meets Clean Air Act requirements for 
redesignation to attainment.

                   Table 2--Rules and Associated CTGs
------------------------------------------------------------------------
       MCAQMD rule                        Associated CTGs
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rule 350.................  Control of Volatile Organic Emissions from
                            Storage of Petroleum Liquids in Fixed-Roof
                            Tanks (EPA-450/2-77-036).
                           Control of Volatile Organic Emissions from
                            Petroleum Liquid Storage in External
                            Floating Roof Tanks (EPA-450/2-78-047).
Rule 351.................  Control of Volatile Organic Emissions from
                            Storage of Petroleum Liquids in Fixed-Roof
                            Tanks (EPA-450/2-77-036).
                           Control of Volatile Organic Emissions from
                            Petroleum Liquid Storage in External
                            Floating Roof Tanks (EPA-450/2-78-047).
                           Control of Hydrocarbons from Tank Truck
                            Gasoline Loading Terminals (EPA-450/2-77-
                            026).

[[Page 67016]]

 
                           Control of Volatile Organic Emissions from
                            Bulk Gasoline Plants (EPA-450/2-77-035).
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section III.D of the preamble to the EPA's final rule to implement 
the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS (80 FR 12264, March 6, 2015) discusses RACT 
requirements. It states in part that RACT SIPs must contain adopted 
RACT regulations, certifications where appropriate that existing 
provisions are RACT, and/or negative declarations that there are no 
sources in the nonattainment areas subject to a specific CTG. The 
County's RACT SIP provides MCAQD's analysis of its compliance with the 
CAA section 182 RACT requirements for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. On 
February 26, 2020, the EPA conditionally approved MCAQD Rule 350, Rule 
351, and the County's RACT demonstration for the CTGs associated with 
these rules, into the Arizona SIP. The rules contained deficiencies 
that precluded full SIP approval and were conditionally approved based 
on a commitment by the MCAQD and the ADEQ to provide, within one year, 
a SIP submission that would address those deficiencies. The MCAQD 
subsequently revised these rules to address the identified deficiencies 
and the ADEQ submitted the revised rules on December 3, 2020. The EPA's 
technical support document (TSD) has more information about these 
rules.

II. The EPA's Evaluation and Action

A. How is the EPA evaluating the rules?

    Rules in the SIP must be enforceable (see CAA section 110(a)(2)) 
and must not interfere with applicable requirements concerning 
attainment and reasonable further progress or other CAA requirements 
(see CAA section 110(l)). In addition, because this rule was submitted 
to satisfy the RACT requirement for sources covered by the CTGs listed 
in table 2, these rules must establish RACT level controls for such 
sources.
    Guidance and policy documents that the EPA used to evaluate 
enforceability, revision/relaxation, and rule stringency requirements 
for the applicable criteria pollutants include the following:
    1. ``State Implementation Plans; General Preamble for the 
Implementation of Title I of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990,'' 57 
FR 13498 (April 16, 1992); 57 FR 18070 (April 28, 1992).
    2. ``Issues Relating to VOC Regulation Cutpoints, Deficiencies, and 
Deviations,'' EPA, May 25, 1988 (the Bluebook, revised January 11, 
1990).
    3. ``Guidance Document for Correcting Common VOC & Other Rule 
Deficiencies,'' EPA Region 9, August 21, 2001 (the Little Bluebook).
    4. ``Control of Volatile Organic Emissions from Storage of 
Petroleum Liquids in Fixed-Roof Tanks,'' EPA-450/2-77-036, December 
1977.
    5. ``Control of Volatile Organic Emissions from Petroleum Liquid 
Storage in External Floating Roof Tanks,'' EPA-450/2-78-047, December 
1978.
    6. ``Control of Volatile Organic Emissions from Bulk Gasoline 
Plants,'' EPA-450/2-77-035, December 1977.
    7. ``Control of Hydrocarbons from Tank Truck Gasoline Loading 
Terminals,'' EPA-450/2-77-026, October 1977.

B. Do the rules meet the evaluation criteria?

    As summarized below, the EPA is proposing to conclude that these 
revised rules have corrected the deficiencies previously identified in 
the earlier versions of the rules that were conditionally approved into 
the SIP. Our February 26, 2020 conditional approval action found that 
these rules met all relevant CAA requirements except for the identified 
deficiencies. Because those deficiencies have been corrected, we are 
proposing to find that the revised rules are consistent with relevant 
requirements regarding enforceability, RACT, and SIP revisions. The 
submitted rules satisfy the CAA section 182 RACT requirements for the 
2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS for the Phoenix-Mesa ozone nonattainment area 
with regard to the CTGs listed in table 2 of this document. The TSD has 
more information on our evaluation, including descriptions of the 
individual deficiencies and the way that each was addressed in the 
current submitted version of the rules.
1. Deficiencies Previously Identified in MCAQD Rule 350
    Section 103 of Rule 350 exempted fuel consumed or dispensed at the 
facility directly to users, hazardous waste, and wastewater and ballast 
water from organic liquid storage and transfer requirements. These 
exemptions were not previously in the SIP and were a potential CAA 
section 110(l) relaxation as the County had not demonstrated the 
exemptions were necessary or that the exemptions would not interfere 
with attainment, reasonable further progress, or other requirements of 
the Act. The County corrected this deficiency by removing the 
exemptions.
    Similarly, Rule 350 was missing an emissions limit that was 
previously in the SIP for organic liquid distribution facilities 
transferring over 600,000 gallons per month of organic liquid. The 
County addressed this potential CAA section 110(l) relaxation by adding 
the prior SIP limit to Rule 350, section 305.4.
    Section 103.2(g)(2) of Rule 350 allowed the Control Officer to 
approve alternate procedures or requirements for opening vapor 
containment equipment while performing operations without clearly 
specifying what criteria the Control Officer would use to approve such 
alternate procedures. The County addressed this potentially 
inappropriate use of director's discretion by deleting the language 
referring to Control Officer approval.
    Sections 301.1, 301.2. 301.3, and 301.4 of Rule 350 did not state a 
particular prohibition and the phrasing made the requirements unclear. 
The County restructured and rephrased the rule language to clarify the 
requirements for organic liquid storage tanks. The new language appears 
in Rule 350, section 303.
    Section 103.2(e) of Rule 350 seemed to contain a limited exemption 
for floating roofs whenever the tank is being filled, instead of only 
during filling after the tank has been emptied completely. The County 
revised the language so the exemption applies only when the tank is 
drained completely and subsequently refilled.
    Section 302.1(b) of Rule 350 was not clear regarding which external 
floating roof tanks are exempt from the rule's requirements and seemed 
to provide tanks with shoe-mounted secondary seals a broad exemption 
from all the rule's requirements. The County corrected this deficiency 
by removing the exemption.
    Section 302.2(c)(1) of Rule 350 did not clearly specify vapor 
control requirements for internal floating roof tanks. The County 
revised the language to provide compliance with 40 CFR part 60, subpart 
Kb as one compliance option.

[[Page 67017]]

    Section 103.2(g)(1) of Rule 350 contained an overly broad provision 
that is inconsistent with the CTG for bulk plants and could result in 
an open hatch during an entire loading event, leading to VOC emissions 
release. The County revised the rule language to clarify that the 
conditions under which a hatch, vent valve, or vapor sealing device may 
be open during transfer are limited to those necessary to avoid unsafe 
operating conditions.
2. Deficiencies Previously Identified in MCAQD Rule 351
    Section 103.5(e)(2) of Rule 351 allowed the Control Officer to 
approve alternate procedures or requirements for opening vapor 
containment equipment while performing operations without clearly 
specifying what criteria the Control Officer would use to approve such 
alternate procedures. The County addressed this potentially 
inappropriate use of director's discretion by deleting the language 
referring to Control Officer approval.
    Sections 302.2, 302.3. and 304.4 of Rule 351 did not state a 
particular prohibition and the phrasing made the requirements unclear. 
The County restructured and rephrased the rule language to clarify the 
requirements for gasoline storage tanks. The new language appears in 
Rule 351, section 303.
    Section 103.4(b) of Rule 351 seemed to contain a limited exemption 
for floating roofs whenever the tank is being filled, instead of only 
during filling after the tank has been emptied completely. The County 
revised the language so the exemption applies only when the tank is 
drained completely and subsequently refilled.
    Section 303.1(b) of Rule 351 was not clear regarding which external 
floating roof tanks are exempt from the rule's requirements and seemed 
to provide tanks with shoe-mounted secondary seals a broad exemption 
from all the rule's requirements. The County corrected this deficiency 
by removing the exemption.
    Section 103.5(e)(1) of Rule 351 contained an overly broad provision 
that is inconsistent with the CTG for bulk plants and could result in 
an open hatch during an entire loading event, leading to VOC emissions 
release. The County revised the rule language to clarify that the 
conditions under which a hatch, vent valve, or vapor sealing device may 
be open during transfer are limited to those necessary to avoid unsafe 
operating conditions.
    The ``vapor loss control system'' included as a compliance option 
in Rule 351, section 303.4, was not as stringent as the vapor 
collection/processing system (VCPS) control option included in the SIP-
approved rule. The County added the term ``vapor collection/processing 
system'' back into Rule 351 and included an emission reduction 
efficiency requirement as stringent as the requirement in the previous 
SIP-approved rule in the term's definition and in section 304.3.
    Rule 351 lacked an emissions limit or vapor recovery efficiency 
requirement that had been demonstrated to meet RACT stringency 
requirements for gasoline bulk plant transfers. The County added a 
requirement in Rule 351, section 304.2 to require an emission limit of 
0.6 lbs VOC/1000 gallons or a vapor recovery efficiency of at least 
90%, comparable to other current local rules.
    Section 103.1 of Rule 351 exempted the loading of aviation gasoline 
at airports from the rule's gasoline transfer requirements. The County 
had not demonstrated the exemption was necessary or that the exemption 
would not interfere with reasonable further progress, or other 
requirements of the Act. The County corrected this deficiency by 
removing the exemption.

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

    The TSD includes recommendations for the next time the MCAQD 
modifies these rules.

D. Public Comment and Proposed Action

    As authorized in section 110(k)(3) of the Act, the EPA proposes to 
approve the submitted rules because they fulfill all relevant 
requirements. We are also proposing to approve the MCAQD's RACT 
demonstration for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS with regard to the 
sources covered by the CTGs associated with these rules (as listed in 
table 2). This approval, if finalized, would mean that the State has 
fulfilled its commitment under the terms of the conditional approval to 
submit a revised approvable SIP submission, and the finalized approval 
would replace our February 26, 2020 conditional approval with respect 
to these rules and associated CTG RACT categories. If we finalize this 
approval, we would also remove the text associated with the conditional 
approval from 40 CFR 52.119(c)(1). We will accept comments from the 
public on this proposal until September 18, 2024. If we take final 
action to approve the submitted rules, our final action will 
incorporate these rules into the federally enforceable SIP.

III. Incorporation by Reference

    In this rule, the EPA is proposing to include in a final EPA rule 
regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance 
with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is proposing to incorporate by 
reference MCAQD Rule 350, ``Storage and Transfer of Organic Liquids 
(Non-Gasoline) at an Organic Liquid Distribution (OLD) Facility,'' 
revised on November 18, 2020, which regulates VOC emissions from 
organic liquid storage and transfer operations at organic liquid 
distribution facilities. The EPA is also proposing to incorporate by 
reference MCAQD Rule 351, ``Storage and Loading of Gasoline at Bulk 
Gasoline Plants and at Bulk Gasoline Terminals,'' revised on November 
18, 2020, which regulates VOC emissions from gasoline storage and 
loading activities at bulk gasoline plants and terminals. The EPA has 
made, and will continue to make, these materials available through 
https://www.regulations.gov and at the EPA Region IX Office (please 
contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT 
section of this preamble for more information).

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a 
SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and 
applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). 
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve State 
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. 
Accordingly, this proposed action merely proposes to approve State law 
as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional 
requirements beyond those imposed by State law. For that reason, this 
proposed action:
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review 
by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58 
FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 14094 (88 FR 21879, April 11, 2023);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the 
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact 
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or 
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded 
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);

[[Page 67018]]

     Does not have federalism implications as specified in 
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, 
April 23, 1997) because it proposes to approve a State program;
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to 
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001); and
     Is not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of the 
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent 
with the Clean Air Act.
    In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian 
reservation land or in any other area where the EPA or an Indian Tribe 
has demonstrated that a Tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of 
Indian country, the rule does not have Tribal implications and will not 
impose substantial direct costs on Tribal governments or preempt Tribal 
law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 
2000).
    Executive Order 12898 (Federal Actions To Address Environmental 
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations, 59 FR 7629, 
February 16, 1994) directs Federal agencies to identify and address 
``disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental 
effects'' of their actions on minority populations and low-income 
populations to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law. 
The EPA defines environmental justice (EJ) as ``the fair treatment and 
meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, color, 
national origin, or income with respect to the development, 
implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and 
policies.'' The EPA further defines the term fair treatment to mean 
that ``no group of people should bear a disproportionate burden of 
environmental harms and risks, including those resulting from the 
negative environmental consequences of industrial, governmental, and 
commercial operations or programs and policies.''
    The State did not evaluate EJ considerations as part of its SIP 
submittal; the CAA and applicable implementing regulations neither 
prohibit nor require such an evaluation. The EPA did not perform an EJ 
analysis and did not consider EJ in this action. Consideration of EJ is 
not required as part of this action, and there is no information in the 
record inconsistent with the stated goal of E.O. 12898 of achieving EJ 
for people of color, low-income populations, and Indigenous peoples.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by 
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Ozone, Reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: August 13, 2024.
Martha Guzman Aceves,
Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. 2024-18458 Filed 8-16-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P