[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 250 (Monday, December 30, 2013)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 79340-79344]
[FR Doc No: 2013-31107]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R06-OAR-2013-0439; FRL-9904-87-Region-6]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Texas; Stage II Vapor Recovery Program and Control of Air Pollution
From Volatile Organic Compounds

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve revisions to the Texas State Implementation Plan (SIP)
submitted by the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ). The
EPA is proposing to approve revisions to regulations that control
emissions of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) at gasoline dispensing
facilities (GDFs) in Texas. The revisions address the maintenance and
removal of Stage II vapor recovery equipment at GDFs. The EPA is also
proposing to approve related revisions to the Stage II SIP narrative
that pertain to the maintenance and removal of Stage II vapor recovery
equipment and demonstrate that the absence of Stage II equipment in the
Beaumont-Port Arthur (BPA), Dallas-Fort Worth (DFW) and Houston-
Galveston Brazoria (HGB) areas, and in El Paso County would not
interfere with attainment of the national ambient air quality standards
(NAAQS) for ozone, reasonable further progress (RFP) or any other
requirement of the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act). The EPA is proposing to
approve these revisions pursuant to section 110 of the Act and the
EPA's regulations and consistent with the EPA's guidance.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before January 29, 2014.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R06-
OAR-2013-0439, by one of the following methods:
     www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line instructions.
     E-Mail: Ms. Carrie Paige at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>     Mail: Mr. Guy Donaldson, Chief, Air Planning Section (6PD-
L), Environmental Protection Agency, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200,
Dallas, Texas 75202-2733.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R06-OAR-
2013-0439. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information the
disclosure of which is restricted by statute. Do not submit information
through http://www.regulations.gov or email, if you believe that it is
CBI or otherwise protected from disclosure. The http://www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access'' system, which
means that EPA will not know your identity or contact information
unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an email
comment directly to EPA without going through http://www.regulations.gov, your email address will be automatically captured
and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket
and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic
comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact
information in the body of your comment along with any disk or CD-ROM
submitted. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical
difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be
able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of
special characters and any form of encryption and should be free of any
defects or viruses. For additional information about EPA's public
docket, visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.
    Docket: The index to the docket for this action is available
electronically at www.regulations.gov and in hard copy

at EPA Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 700, Dallas, Texas. 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 at either location
(e.g., CBI). To inspect the hard copy materials, please schedule an
appointment with the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT paragraph below or Mr. Bill Deese at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Carrie Paige, Air Planning Section
(6PD-L); telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, ``we,'' ``us,''
and ``our'' means EPA.

Table of Contents

I. Background
II. EPA's Evaluation of the Revisions
III. Proposed Action
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Background

A. What is a SIP?

    A SIP is a set of air pollution regulations, control strategies,
other means or techniques, and technical analyses developed by the
state, to ensure that the state meets the NAAQS. It is required by
section 110 and other provisions of the CAA. A SIP protects air quality
primarily by addressing air pollution at its point of origin. A SIP can
be extensive, containing state regulations or other enforceable
documents, and supporting information such as emissions inventories,
monitoring networks, and modeling demonstrations. When a state makes
changes to the regulations and control strategies in its SIP, such
revisions must be submitted to EPA for approval and incorporation into
the federally-enforceable SIP.

B. What is Stage II Vapor Recovery?

    When an automobile or other vehicle is brought into a gas station
to be refueled, the empty portion of the gas tank on the vehicle
contains gasoline vapors, which belong to a class of compounds known as
VOCs. When liquid gasoline is pumped into the partially empty gas tank
the vapors are forced out of the tank as the tank fills with liquid
gasoline. Where air pollution control technology is not used, these
vapors are emitted into the air. In the atmosphere, these VOCs can, in
the presence of sunlight, react with nitrogen oxides (NOX)
and VOCs from other sources to form ozone. The Stage II system consists
of special nozzles and coaxial hoses at each gas pump that capture
vapors from the vehicle's fuel tank and route them to underground or
aboveground storage tank(s) during the refueling process.
    The 1990 CAA Amendments require owners or operators of GDFs in
serious, severe or extreme ozone nonattainment areas to install and
operate a system for recovery of gas vapor from the fueling of
vehicles. This requirement only applies to facilities that sell more
than a specified number of gallons per month and is set forth in
section 182(b)(3)(A)-(C) and section 324(a)-(c) of the CAA. States were
required to adopt rules for this requirement no later than two years
after the enactment of the 1990 CAA Amendments. As a consequence of
these provisions, GDF owners or operators in moderate or worse
nonattainment areas have installed these vapor control systems, known
as ``Stage II controls.'' \1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Stage I vapor recovery systems are installed on the
transport tanker trucks that deliver gasoline to the service
stations. Stage I systems direct vapors from the underground storage
tank at the service station back into the tanker truck as the
underground tank is filled with liquid gasoline from the tanker
truck.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The first Stage II SIP for Texas was submitted by the State to EPA
on September 30, 1992. The SIP required owners and operators of GDFs to
install and operate Stage II vapor recovery equipment in the four Texas
ozone nonattainment areas classified as moderate or worse. The EPA
approved these rules on April 15, 1994 (59 FR 17940). The four areas
where Stage II is required are comprised of 16 counties: Beaumont-Port
Arthur (BPA), including Hardin, Jefferson and Orange counties; Dallas-
Fort Worth (DFW), including Collin, Dallas, Denton and Tarrant
counties; El Paso County; and Houston-Galveston-Brazoria (HGB),
including Brazoria, Chambers, Fort Bend, Galveston, Harris, Liberty,
Montgomery, and Waller counties. In this rulemaking, where we refer to
all 16 of these counties, we will note such as ``the 16 counties.'' For
additional information on Stage II, including the history of Stage II
in Texas, please see the technical support document (TSD) in the docket
for this action.

C. What is Onboard Refueling Vapor Recovery (ORVR)?

    In addition to Stage II controls, the 1990 CAA Amendments required
another method of controlling vehicle refueling emissions. Section
202(a)(6) of the Act requires an onboard system of capturing vehicle
refueling emissions, referred to as an ORVR system. The ORVR system
captures fuel vapors from the vehicle gas tank during refueling. The
gas tank and fill pipe are designed so that when refueling the vehicle,
fuel vapors in the gas tank travel into a special canister, which
adsorbs the vapor. When the engine is in operation, it draws the
gasoline vapors into the engine to be used as fuel. In fact, the per-
vehicle vapor recovery efficiency of ORVR exceeds that of Stage II. The
EPA began the phase-in of ORVR by requiring that 40 percent of
passenger cars manufactured in model year 1998 be equipped with ORVR,
increasing to 100 percent by model year 2000. The phase-in of ORVR
included other vehicle types and ORVR has been a required control on
nearly all new gasoline-powered highway vehicles since 2006.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ For more detailed information on the phase-in of ORVR,
please see the discussion in EPA's proposed rule for the Widespread
Use for Onboard Refueling Vapor Recovery and Stage II Waiver,
published on July 15, 2011 (76 FR 41731).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Each year, non-ORVR vehicles continue to be replaced with ORVR
vehicles. Stage II and ORVR emission control systems are redundant, and
on May 16, 2012, the EPA determined that emission reductions from ORVR
are essentially equal to and will soon surpass the emission reductions
achieved by Stage II alone (see 77 FR 28772). In the May 16, 2012
action, we found that ORVR vehicles are in ``widespread use'' and
waived the Stage II requirement in order to ensure that refueling vapor
control regulations are beneficial without being unnecessarily
burdensome to American business. Effective May 16, 2012, a state
previously required to implement a Stage II program may take
appropriate action to remove the program from its SIP (77 FR 28772,
codified at 40 CFR 51.126).

D. What did the State submit?

    On October 31, 2013, the TCEQ submitted revisions to Title 30 of
the Texas Administrative Code, Chapter 115 (denoted 30 TAC 115 or
Chapter 115) and corresponding revisions to the Texas Stage II SIP.
Chapter 115 addresses control of air pollution from VOCs. The revisions
to Chapter 115 specify that new GDFs would not be required to install
Stage II equipment and provide removal (also defined as
decommissioning) procedures that existing GDFs in the 16 counties must
complete by August 31, 2018. The GDFs electing to retain Stage II
equipment for some time until August 31, 2018, would be required to
maintain such equipment pursuant to the rules in the approved SIP. The
revisions to the Stage II SIP narrative describe the removal of Stage

II equipment at GDFs and require maintenance of the Stage II equipment
until decommissioning occurs. The revisions to the SIP narrative also
include a demonstration that the removal of, or failure to install,
Stage II equipment in the 16 counties is consistent with section 110(l)
of the Act. Section 110(l) precludes the Administrator from approving a
SIP revision if it would interfere with applicable CAA requirements,
including attainment and maintenance of the ozone NAAQS.
    In addition to the October 31, 2013 submittal, there are two
submittals that address revisions to the State's Stage II rules and
related SIP, dated November 14, 2002 and June 27, 2007, on which EPA
has not taken action.
    The revisions in the November 14, 2002 submittal addressed the
Stage II rules at 30 TAC 115 (Division 4) and the Stage II SIP
narrative. The EPA approved the revisions to Chapter 115 (see 70 FR
15769, March 29, 2005) but evidently overlooked the SIP narrative. EPA
is not taking action on the 2002 Stage II SIP narrative because it is
superseded by the October 31, 2013 submittal.
    The revisions submitted on June 27, 2007, revise Chapter 115 to add
exemption language for fleets having 95% or more vehicles with ORVR.
EPA is not taking action on the June 27, 2007 revisions because they
would be superseded by the revisions in the October 31, 2013 submittal.
In addition, in the TCEQ's submittal dated October 31, 2013, the TCEQ
adopted the withdrawal of the June 27, 2007 submittal from the EPA.

II. EPA's Evaluation of the Revisions

A. Revisions to 30 TAC 115 and the Stage II SIP Narrative

    The TCEQ submitted revisions to 30 TAC 115 sections 240-247 and
249. The revised language details the requirements for decommissioning
equipment and the requirements for operating the Stage II equipment
until it is decommissioned. We have reviewed the revisions and believe
the revisions are consistent with 77 FR 28772 and 40 CFR 51.126, EPA's
Guidance on Removing Stage II Gasoline Vapor Control Programs from
State Implementation Plans and Assessing Comparable Measures \3\ (EPA's
Guidance on Removing Stage II), and the recommended installation and
decommissioning procedures published by the Petroleum Equipment
Institute (PEI RP300-93).\4\ For a line-by-line evaluation of these
revisions, please see the TSD. We are proposing approval of the
revisions to sections 115.240-115.247 and 115.249.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ EPA document number EPA-457/B-12-001, dated August 7, 2012
and available electronically at www.epa.gov/glo/pdfs/20120807guidance.pdf. This guidance is also in the docket for
today's action.
    \4\ The EPA regulations do not require the use of a particular
issue of code. The PEI and several states have recommended practices
or specific requirements for decommissioning Stage II systems. The
PEI guidance referred to as PEI RP300-93 was developed by industry
experts with a focus on regulatory compliance and safety. The EPA's
Guidance on Removing Stage II is included in the docket for this
rulemaking. The PEI document is protected by copyright and is
available at www.pei.org/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The TCEQ is also revising the Stage II SIP narrative, which
provides an accounting and description of the Stage II program
components. The appendix also explains why the revisions to allow
decommissioning of Stage II equipment meet the requirements of the
Clean Air Act, Section 110(l). These revisions are consistent with the
EPA's Stage II Waiver at 77 FR 28772 and 40 CFR 51.126, the EPA's
Guidance on Removing Stage II, and the PEI RP300-93.

B. Section 110(l) Analysis

    Our primary consideration for determining the approvability of the
TCEQ's revisions to remove Stage II vapor control requirements from the
SIP and provide for decommissioning of all Stage II equipment by August
31, 2018 in the BPA, DFW and HGB areas and El Paso County is whether
these revisions comply with section 110(l) of the Act. Section 110(l)
of the Act provides that the EPA cannot approve a SIP revision if that
revision interferes with any applicable requirement regarding
attainment, reasonable further progress (RFP) or any requirement
established in the CAA. The EPA can, however, approve a SIP revision
that removes or modifies control measures in the SIP once the State
makes a ``noninterference'' demonstration that such removal or
modification will not interfere with attainment of the NAAQS, RFP or
any other CAA requirement. As such, Texas must make a demonstration of
noninterference in the 16 counties in order to remove the Stage II
requirements from its SIP.
    The TCEQ estimated the impacts on air quality from decommissioning
Stage II in Texas by using the equations in the EPA's Guidance on
Removing Stage II. The TCEQ assumed there would not be any Stage II
equipment in place and calculated emissions based on the national
average for replacement of older vehicles with newer, ORVR-equipped
models (fleet turnover). We note that the State is not requiring or
expecting decommissioning to occur at all GDFs in the 16 counties in
the first year following approval of the SIP revision, but assumed an
absence of Stage II equipment as a worst-case scenario. The TCEQ
compared the estimated impacts against future emission inventories
already established in RFP and maintenance plans for these 16 counties.
For each area, the calculations show that there would be increases in
VOC emissions from Stage II decommissioning and we refer to these
increases as a ``loss in benefit.'' Our evaluation of each of the four
areas is provided below. For more detail regarding each area, please
see the TSD.
1. The Beaumont-Port Arthur Area
    The BPA area was redesignated as attainment for the 1997 8-hour
ozone standard on October 20, 2010, (75 FR 64675). The approved
maintenance plan for the redesignated area (see 78 FR 7672, February 4,
2013) \5\ demonstrates attainment of the 1997 ozone NAAQS through 2021.
We compared the loss in benefit from decommissioning against the VOC
emissions approved in the BPA maintenance plan (78 FR 7672) for 2014
and 2021. For each of the future years 2014, 2017 and 2021, the loss in
benefit is estimated to be 0.166 tpd, 0.109 tpd and 0.059 tpd
respectively. In the approved maintenance plan, the VOC emissions for
the future years 2014, 2017 and 2021 are greater than the base year
(2005) emissions, thus these future years show a shortfall in emissions
reductions. Adding the loss in benefit from decommissioning, the
shortfall from 2005 to 2021 increases to an estimated 12.24 tpd or
5.8%. However, the approved maintenance plan provides a drop in
NOX emissions for the years 2014, 2017 and 2021 and the
decrease from 2005 to 2021 is 7.3%, which offsets the 5.8% shortfall in
VOC emissions reductions. These numbers indicate that with
decommissioning of Stage II equipment, emissions in the BPA area would
continue to decline. Furthermore, the TCEQ calculated the loss in
benefit through 2030 and the losses shrink each year.\6\ The dwindling
of loss in VOC benefits is expected over time, as non-ORVR vehicles
continue to be replaced with ORVR vehicles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The action at 78 FR 7672 approved the replacement of the BPA
motor vehicle emission budgets with new budgets based on the
MOVES2010a emissions model.
    \6\ See Table 12-1 in the TCEQ proposal dated April 23, 2013, in
the docket for this rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, the photochemical modeling analysis in the approved
maintenance plan (75 FR 64675) showed that the formation of ozone in
the BPA area is more sensitive to NOX

emissions than to VOC emissions. Specifically, the modeling showed that
to decrease the ozone design value in the BPA area, reducing
NOX emissions is 3.76 times as effective as reducing VOC
emissions.\7\ Based on this analysis and with the surplus of
NOX emissions reductions projected through 2021, we would
not expect the loss in benefit from Stage II decommissioning to
contribute to future violations of the ozone standard in the BPA area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See the docket for 75 FR 64675 and specifically the TSD and
proposed rule; the docket ID is EPA-R06-OAR-2008-0932.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We are proposing to find that the absence of Stage II vapor
recovery equipment in the BPA area will not interfere with any
applicable requirement regarding attainment and RFP, or any other
applicable requirement of the CAA.
2. The DFW Area
    The TCEQ estimated that the loss in benefit from decommissioning
Stage II equipment in the DFW area would be 2.425 tpd in 2012, 1.594
tpd in 2014, and the estimated losses in benefit continue to decrease
as more non-ORVR cars are removed from the fleet. The TCEQ estimates
the loss of benefit in 2030 would only be 0.322 tpd. The estimated loss
of 1.594 tpd of VOC reduction in 2014, which is when we anticipate
decommissioning could begin, assumes that Stage II is completely absent
in Collin, Dallas, Denton and Tarrant counties. We understand there are
a limited number of contractors qualified to perform decommissioning
and owners and operators with relatively newer Stage II equipment would
prefer to maintain such equipment through its useful life. Therefore,
we expect decommissioning will proceed at an orderly and gradual pace
and as such, the actual loss in projected emission reductions will be
less than the State has estimated for 2014. Modeling provided by TCEQ
indicates very little sensitivity of ozone levels to small changes in
VOC emissions (i.e., an estimated increase of up to 0.01 ppb had the
decommissioning been completed in 2012).
    In addition and as described in more detail elsewhere in this
action, the TCEQ acquired 2011 vehicle registration data showing that
by the end of 2012 approximately 78.5% of the vehicles registered in
Collin, Dallas, Denton, and Tarrant counties were equipped with ORVR.
Using national default fuel economy values, the TCEQ estimated that
83.6% of the gasoline dispensed in these counties in 2012 was to ORVR-
equipped vehicles. These numbers are at least five percentage points
higher than the projected penetration of ORVR in the national vehicle
fleet for 2012, as presented by EPA in the Stage II waiver (77 FR
28772, 28778). The EPA determined that at least 75% of ORVR coverage is
substantial enough to be viewed as ``widespread'' (77 FR 28772). The
TCEQ does not have to demonstrate that ORVR is in widespread use in the
DFW area because EPA's action at 77 FR 28772 provides a nationwide
determination of widespread use effective May 16, 2012. However, the
results of the TCEQ's findings are consistent with the Stage II waiver
and support the revisions to decommission Stage II equipment in the DFW
area.
    Finally, Stage II was required for implementation in only four of
the DFW nonattainment counties and ORVR is required nationwide. Because
ORVR is more efficient than Stage II and ORVR is in widespread use, and
because the DFW area ozone levels are more sensitive to NOX
emissions, we would not expect the loss in benefit from decommissioning
in the four counties to contribute to future violations of the ozone
standard or interfere with RFP or other applicable CAA requirements.
    We are proposing to find that the absence of Stage II vapor
recovery equipment in the DFW area will not interfere with any
applicable requirement regarding attainment and RFP, or any other
applicable requirement of the CAA.
3. El Paso County
    El Paso County has an approved maintenance plan for the 1997 8-hour
ozone NAAQS, which demonstrates attainment of the 1997 ozone NAAQS from
2004 through 2014 (see 74 FR 2387, January 15, 2009). We compared the
loss in benefit from decommissioning against the VOC emissions in the
approved maintenance plan for 2014. For 2014, the loss in benefit is
estimated to be 0.224 tpd. In the approved maintenance plan, the VOC
emissions for 2014 are estimated to be 44.61 tpd, which are lower than
the base year emissions of 52.44 tpd. The resultant surplus of 7.83 tpd
offsets the estimated loss in benefit from decommissioning. The
approved maintenance plan also shows a surplus in NOX
emission reductions through 2014. These numbers indicate that with
decommissioning of Stage II equipment, emissions of VOC in El Paso
County would continue to decline through 2014. The TCEQ calculated the
loss in benefit through 2030 and the losses get smaller each year.
    We are proposing to find that the absence of Stage II vapor
recovery equipment in El Paso County will not interfere with any
applicable requirement regarding attainment and RFP, or any other
applicable requirement of the CAA.
4. The Houston-Galveston-Brazoria Area
    The TCEQ estimated that the loss in benefit from decommissioning
Stage II equipment in the HGB area would be 2.361 tpd in 2012, 1.539
tpd in 2014, 0.667 tpd in 2018, and the estimated losses in benefit
continue to decrease through 2030, when the TCEQ estimates the loss of
benefit would only be 0.298 tpd. The estimated loss of 1.539 tpd of VOC
reduction in 2014, which is when we anticipate decommissioning could
begin, assumes that Stage II is completely absent in the eight HGB area
counties. As stated earlier however, we expect decommissioning will
proceed gradually and as such, the actual loss in projected emission
reductions will be less than the State has estimated for 2014. Modeling
provided by TCEQ indicates very little sensitivity of ozone levels to
these small changes in VOC emissions (i.e., an estimated increase of up
to 0.02 ppb had the decommissioning been completed in 2012 and an
estimated increase of up to 0.01 ppb in 2018).
    In addition, the TCEQ acquired 2011 vehicle registration data
showing that by the end of 2012 approximately 77.4% of the vehicles
registered in the eight HGB counties were equipped with ORVR. Using
national default fuel economy values, the TCEQ estimated that 82.7% of
the gasoline dispensed in these counties in 2012 was to ORVR-equipped
vehicles. These numbers are at least five percentage points higher than
the projected penetration of ORVR in the national vehicle fleet for
2012 (77 FR 28772, 28778). The results of the TCEQ's findings are
therefore consistent with the Stage II waiver and support the revisions
to decommission Stage II equipment in the HGB area.
    We would not expect the loss in benefit from decommissioning in the
HGB area to contribute to future violations of the ozone standard or
interfere with RFP or other applicable CAA requirements.
    We are proposing to find that the absence of Stage II vapor
recovery equipment in the HGA area will not interfere with any
applicable requirement regarding attainment and RFP, or any other
applicable requirement of the CAA.

C. The Fraction of ORVR-Equipped Vehicles Where Stage II is Required in
Texas

    The TCEQ reviewed vehicle registration data to determine what
portion of the on-road vehicles in the 16 counties are equipped with
ORVR and what portion of the gasoline dispensed in these areas goes
into ORVR-equipped vehicles. For these calculations, the TCEQ obtained
2011 vehicle registration data from the Texas Department of Motor
Vehicles for each of the 16 counties. The results indicate that by the
end of 2012 more than 75% of gasoline was dispensed to ORVR-equipped
vehicles in each of the four areas where Stage II is required. In
addition, by the end of 2013 at least 75% of the vehicle population in
each of these four areas is expected to be ORVR-equipped. We determined
that at least 75% of ORVR coverage (percent of gasoline that will be
dispensed into ORVR-equipped vehicles) is substantial enough to
constitute widespread use (77 FR 28772). The TCEQ does not have to
demonstrate that ORVR is in widespread use because EPA's action at 77
FR 28772 provides a nationwide determination of widespread use
effective May 16, 2012. However, the TCEQ's findings do demonstrate
that ORVR is in widespread use in all four areas and thus lend support
to the revisions to decommission Stage II equipment.

III. Proposed Action

    The EPA is proposing to approve revisions to the Texas SIP that
control emissions of VOCs and pertain to the maintenance and removal of
Stage II vapor recovery equipment submitted on October 31, 2013. We are
proposing to approve revisions to the following sections within 30 TAC
115: 115.240, 115.241, 115.242, 115.243, 115.244, 115.245, 115.246,
115.247, and 115.249. The EPA is also proposing to approve related
revisions to the Stage II SIP narrative that address the maintenance
and removal of Stage II equipment, and demonstrate that the removal of,
or failure to install Stage II equipment in the BPA, DFW, and HGB
areas, and in El Paso County, meets section 110(l) of the Act. The EPA
is proposing to approve these revisions in accordance with section 110
of the Act and EPA's regulations and consistent with EPA guidance.

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, EPA's role is to approve state
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. 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 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 (Public Law 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 CAA; and
     Does not provide 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 rule does not have tribal implications as specified
by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the
SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in the state,
and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct costs on
tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

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.

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

    Dated: December 16, 2013.
Ron Curry,
Regional Administrator, Region 6.
[FR Doc. 2013-31107 Filed 12-27-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 229 (Monday, November 30, 2015)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 74722-74723]
[FR Doc No: 2015-30010]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2015-1014; Directorate Identifier 2015-NE-14-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Rolls-Royce Deutschland Ltd & Co KG
Turbofan Engines

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Proposed rule; withdrawal.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is withdrawing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
The NPRM proposed a new airworthiness directive (AD) that had applied
to all Rolls-Royce Deutschland Ltd & Co KG (RRD) Tay 650-15 and Tay
651-54 turbofan engines. The proposed action would have required
reducing the cyclic life limits for certain high-pressure turbine (HPT)
disks. Accordingly, we withdraw the proposed rule.

DATES: The proposed rule published in the Federal Register on June 8,
2015 (80 FR 32315, June 8, 2015) is withdrawn as of November 30, 2015.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Philip Haberlen, Aerospace Engineer,
Engine Certification Office, FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 12
New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>;
fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The FAA proposed to amend 14 CFR part 39
with

a proposed AD (80 FR 32315, June 8, 2015). The proposed AD had applied
to Rolls-Royce Deutschland Ltd & Co KG (RRD) Tay 650-15 and Tay 651-54
turbofan engines. The NPRM proposed to reduce the cyclic life limits
for certain HPT disks. The proposed action was prompted by an analysis
that showed the need to reduce the cyclic life limits for certain HPT
disks. The proposed actions intended to prevent failure of the HPT
disk, which could result in uncontained disk release, damage to the
engine, and damage to the airplane.
    Since we issued the NPRM (80 FR 32315, June 8, 2015), additional
information became available after the public comment period closed on
August 7, 2015.
    Upon further consideration, we hereby withdraw the proposed rule
because we will propose to supersede AD 2006-18-14 (71 FR 52988,
September 8, 2006).
    Withdrawal of the NPRM (80 FR 32315, June 8, 2015) constitutes only
such action, and does not preclude the agency from issuing another
notice in the future, nor does it commit the agency to any course of
action in the future.
    Since this action only withdraws a notice of proposed rulemaking,
it is neither a proposed nor a final rule. Therefore, Executive Order
12866, the Regulatory Flexibility Act, or DOT Regulatory Policies and
Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979) do not cover this
withdrawal.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by
reference, Safety.

The Withdrawal

    Accordingly, the notice of proposed rulemaking, Docket No. FAA-
2015-1014; Directorate Identifier 2015-NE-14-AD, published in the
Federal Register on June 8, 2015 (80 FR 32315), is withdrawn.

    Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts, on November 20, 2015.
Colleen M. D'Alessandro,
Directorate Manager, Engine & Propeller Directorate, Aircraft
Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2015-30010 Filed 11-27-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P