[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 112 (Friday, June 10, 2022)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 35387]
[FR Doc No: 2022-12392]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2022-0030; Airspace Docket No. 21-AAL-54]
RIN 2120-AA66

Modification of Class E Airspace, and Revocation of Class E
Airspace; Sitka Rocky Gutierrez Airport, AK; Correction

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Final rule; correction.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is correcting a final rule that published in the
Federal Register on June 1, 2022. The rule modified the Class E surface
airspace, removed Class E airspace designated as an extension to Class
D and E surface areas, and modified Class E airspace beginning at 700
feet above the surface. The final rule incorrectly listed the effective
date of 0901 UTC, July 14, 2022. This action corrects the effective
date to 0901 UTC, September 8, 2022.

DATES: Effective 0901 UTC, September 8, 2022. The Director of the
Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under
1 CFR part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order JO 7400.11
and publication of conforming amendments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nathan A. Chaffman, Federal Aviation
Administration, Western Service Center, Operations Support Group, 2200
S 216th Street, Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

History

    The FAA published a final rule in the Federal Register (87 FR
32981; June 1, 2022) for Docket No. FAA-2022-0030, which modified the
Class E surface airspace, removed Class E airspace designated as an
extension to Class D and E surface areas, and modified Class E airspace
beginning at 700 feet above the surface at Sitka Rocky Gutierrez
Airport, AK. Subsequent to publication, the FAA identified that the
effective date listed in the final rule was incorrect. The final rule
stated the effective date of 0901 UTC, July 14, 2022. However, the
final rule was submitted too late to be effective on July 14, 2022, and
should have listed the effective date as 0901 UTC, September 8, 2022.
This action corrects the error.
    Class E2, Class E4, and Class E5 airspace designations are
published in paragraphs 6002, 6004, and 6005, respectively, of FAA
Order JO 7400.11F, dated August 10, 2021, and effective September 15,
2021, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E
airspace designations listed in this document will be published
subsequently in FAA Order JO 7400.11.

Correction to Final Rule

    Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to the FAA,
Modification of Class E airspace, and Revocation of Class E airspace;
Sitka Rocky Gutierrez Airport, AK, published in the Federal Register of
June 1, 2022, (87 FR 32981), FR Doc. 2022-11591, is corrected as
follows:
    1. On page 32981, in the first column, beginning on line 53, DATES
is corrected to read:

DATES: Effective 0901 UTC, September 8, 2022. The Director of the
Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under
1 CFR part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order JO 7400.11
and publication of conforming amendments.

    Issued in Des Moines, Washington, on June 3, 2022.
B.G. Chew,
Acting Group Manager, Operations Support Group, Western Service Center.
[FR Doc. 2022-12392 Filed 6-9-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: May 6, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 86)]
[Notices]
[Page 20969-20970]
[DOCID:fr06my09-90]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-1780-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2008-0018]

Texas; Amendment No. 5 to Notice of a Major Disaster Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration
for the State of Texas (FEMA-1780-DR), dated July 24, 2008, and related
determinations.

DATES: Effective Date: February 4, 2009.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Peggy Miller, Disaster Assistance
Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW.,
Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA) hereby gives notice that pursuant to the authority vested in the
Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security under 6 U.S.C. 112,
Bradley Harris of FEMA is appointed to act as the Federal Coordinating
Officer for this disaster.
    This action terminates the appointment of Sandy Coachman as Federal
Coordinating Officer for this disaster.

The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA)
are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community
Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling;
97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment
Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048,
Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households in
Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidentially
Declared Disaster Assistance--Disaster Housing Operations for
Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially Declared Disaster
Assistance to Individuals and Households--Other Needs; 97.036,
Disaster Grants--Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared
Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.

Nancy Ward,
Acting Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. E9-10453 Filed 5-5-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 9111-23-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 211 (Monday, November 2, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 67400-67401]
[FR Doc No: 2015-27892]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OECA-2009-0494; FRL-9936-41-OECA]

Proposed Information Collection Request; Comment Request; Tips
and Complaints Regarding Environmental Violations (Renewal)

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency is planning to submit an
information collection request (ICR), ``Tips and Complaints Regarding
Environmental Violations (Renewal)'' (EPA ICR No. 2219.05, OMB Control
No. 2020-0032) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review
and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C.
3501 et seq.). Before doing so, EPA is soliciting public comments on
specific aspects of the proposed information collection as described
below. This is a proposed extension of the ICR, which is currently
approved through 04/30/2016. An Agency may not conduct or sponsor and a
person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless
it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before January 4, 2016.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OECA-
2009-0494, online using www.regulations.gov (our preferred method), by
email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or by mail to: EPA Docket Center,
Environmental Protection Agency, Mail Code 28221T, 1200 Pennsylvania
Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460.
    EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the
public docket without change including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes profanity, threats, information
claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael LeDesma, Legal Counsel
Division, Office of Criminal Enforcement, Forensics, and Training;
Environmental Protection Agency, Building 25, Box 25227, Denver Federal
Center, Denver, CO 80025; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER> or fax number:
303-462-9075; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Supporting documents which explain in detail
the information that the EPA will be collecting are available in the
public docket for this ICR. The docket can be viewed online at
www.regulations.gov or in person at the EPA Docket Center, WJC West,
Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC. The telephone
number for the Docket Center is<PHONE_NUMBER>. For additional
information about EPA's public docket, visit http://www.epa.gov/dockets.
    Pursuant to section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA, EPA is soliciting
comments and information to enable it to: (i) Evaluate whether the
proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper
performance of the functions of the Agency, including whether the
information will have practical utility; (ii) evaluate the accuracy of
the Agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of
information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions
used; (iii) enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the
information to be collected; and (iv) minimize the burden of the
collection of information on those who are to respond, including
through the use of appropriate automated electronic, mechanical, or
other technological collection techniques or other forms of information
technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses. EPA
will consider the comments received and amend the ICR as appropriate.
The final ICR package will then be submitted to OMB for review and
approval. At that time, EPA will issue another Federal Register notice
to announce the submission of the ICR to OMB and the opportunity to
submit additional comments to OMB.
    Abstract: The Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance (OECA)
is the component of the Environmental Protection Agency responsible for
administrative, civil and criminal enforcement of the environmental
laws that EPA administers. EPA's criminal enforcement program, and, to
a lesser extent, its civil enforcement program are, like other federal
law enforcement programs, dependent on tips and complaints from
concerned citizens and members of the regulated community. The OECA
Tips & Complaints Web page provides a convenient means by which

these individuals can voluntarily submit tips and complaints regarding
suspected violations of environmental law. OECA is considering the use
of a mobile-friendly version of the Tips and Complaints Web pages that
will complement the existing process. Tips or complaints received are
used by civil and/or criminal enforcement personnel at EPA to determine
whether an investigation is warranted into the suspected or alleged
misconduct. In some cases, EPA may decide to refer tips or complaints
for investigation to other federal agencies or to State or local
authorities within whose jurisdiction the matter may appropriately
fall. The OECA Tips and Complaints Web page or mobile-friendly versions
does not replace or otherwise supplant other means of providing tips or
complaints to EPA; it merely provides a convenient means by which to
supply these tips or complaints.
    As with complaints provided by phone, fax, or electronic mail, we
expect that tippers or complainants are already in the possession of
information that leads them to suspect a violation of environmental law
when they contact EPA to report the matter. Accordingly, EPA believes
that the burden associated with the reporting is merely that arising
from the need to read the instructions and type or select information
into the appropriate fields. In our estimate, this amounts to
approximately \1/2\ hour per tip or complaint, for total annualized
burden for all tippers and complainants of 5,143 hours. While we do not
expect actual labor costs associated with these burden hours, the
opportunity cost of 4,601 burden hours would be approximately $100,026.
    EPA does not maintain hardcopies of the information supplied
through the webform. Tips or complaints not acted upon within 30 days
are automatically purged from the database. Tips or complaints upon
which some action is taken are preserved for a period of five years,
pursuant to the record schedule for criminal investigations.
    Form Numbers: None.
    Respondents/affected entities: Anyone wishing to file a tip or
complaint.
    Respondent's obligation to respond: Voluntary.
    Estimated number of respondents: 10,286 (total).
    Frequency of response: Occasionally.
    Total estimated burden: 5,143 hours (per year). Burden is defined
at 5 CFR 1320.03(b).
    Total estimated cost: $100,026 (per year), includes no annualized
capital or operation & maintenance costs.
    Changes in Estimates: There is an increase of 542 hours in the
total estimated respondent burden compared with the ICR currently
approved by OMB. This increase reflects the fact that tips and
complaints are being filed at a higher rate than originally
anticipated, a strong indication of the success of this program. There
has been no change in the information being reported or the estimated
burden per respondent.

    Dated: October 15, 2015.
Henry Barnet,
Director, Office of Criminal Enforcement, Forensics and Training.
[FR Doc. 2015-27892 Filed 10-30-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 220 (Monday, November 16, 2015)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 70689-70694]
[FR Doc No: 2015-28909]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

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 Phoenix-Mesa 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

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
Phoenix-Mesa 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,<PHONE_NUMBER>, email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Under 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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, eight-hour average (``2015 8-hour ozone standard''). 80
FR 65292 (October 26, 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    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 Phoenix-Mesa 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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\

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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Gasoline dispensing pump vapor control devices, commonly
referred to as ``Stage II'' vapor recovery, are systems that control
VOC vapor 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    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 vacuum-assist
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 Phoenix-Mesa ozone nonattainment area is an
area where the vast majority of Stage II systems that have been
installed use vacuum assist technologies.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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.
    \9\ See Table A-1 of the Stage II Guidance.
    \10\ Table 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%.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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-area-specific 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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ Effective 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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

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

    \12\ The 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     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 phase-out of Stage II
controls by the end of the 2018 ozone season will support longer-term
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

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 Phoenix-Mesa area. Based on the
small magnitude of this impact, its temporary nature, and the avoidance
of the long-term 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 area-wide 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 phase-out 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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ Approval 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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).

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

0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart D--Arizona

0
2. Section 52.120 is amended by adding paragraph (c)(171) to read as
follows:

Sec.  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


[Federal Register: June 30, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 125)]
[Notices]
[Page 37785]
[DOCID:fr30jn10-47]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. PR10-38-000]

Louisville Gas and Electric Company; Notice of Baseline Filing

June 23, 2010.
    Take notice that on June 21, 2010, Louisville Gas and Electric
Company submitted a baseline filing of its FERC Operating Statement for
services provided under Section 311 of the Natural Gas Policy Act of
1978 (``NGPA'').
    Any person desiring to participate in this rate proceeding must
file a motion to intervene or to protest this filing must file in
accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice
and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Protests will be considered
by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken,
but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any
person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or
motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests
must be filed on or before the date as indicated below. Anyone filing
an intervention or protest must serve a copy of that document on the
Applicant. Anyone filing an intervention or protest on or before the
intervention or protest date need not serve motions to intervene or
protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://
www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an
original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For
TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern time on Friday, July 2, 2010.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-15832 Filed 6-29-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P