Approval of Air Quality Implementation Plans; New Jersey; Gasoline Vapor Recovery Requirements |
|---|
|
Peter D. Lopez
Environmental Protection Agency
26 November 2019
[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