81 FR 34940 - Air Plan Approval; Tennessee; Revision and Removal of Stage I and II Gasoline Vapor Recovery Program
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY Federal Register Volume 81, Issue 105 (June 1, 2016)
Federal Register Volume 81, Issue 105 (June 1, 2016)
| Page Range | 34940-34944 | |
| FR Document | 2016-12805 |
[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 105 (Wednesday, June 1, 2016)] [Proposed Rules] [Pages 34940-34944] From the Federal Register Online [www.thefederalregister.org] [FR Doc No: 2016-12805] ----------------------------------------------------------------------- ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R04-OAR-2016-0011; FRL-9947-18-Region 4] Air Plan Approval; Tennessee; Revision and Removal of Stage I and II Gasoline Vapor Recovery Program AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency. ACTION: Proposed rule. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve changes to the State Implementation Plan (SIP) submitted by the State of Tennessee through the Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation (TDEC) on February 8, 2016, for parallel processing. This draft SIP revision seeks to lower applicability thresholds for certain sources subject to Federal Stage I requirements, remove the Stage II vapor control requirements, and add requirements for decommissioning gasoline dispensing facilities, as well as requirements for new and upgraded gasoline dispensing facilities in the Nashville, Tennessee Area (hereinafter also known as the ``Middle Tennessee Area''). EPA has preliminarily determined that Tennessee's February 8, 2016, draft SIP revision is approvable because it is consistent with the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act). DATES: Written comments must be received on or before July 1, 2016. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R04- OAR-2016-0011 at http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. 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. 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: Kelly Sheckler, Air Regulatory Management Section, Air Planning and Implementation Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. Ms. Sheckler's phone number is (404) 562-9222. She can also be reached via electronic mail at [email protected]. [[Page 34941]] SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. What is parallel processing? Consistent with EPA regulations found at 40 CFR part 51, Appendix V, section 2.3.1, for purposes of expediting review of a SIP submittal, parallel processing allows a state to submit a plan to EPA prior to actual adoption by the state. Generally, the state submits a copy of the proposed regulation or other revisions to EPA before conducting its public hearing. EPA reviews this proposed state action and prepares a notice of proposed rulemaking. EPA's notice of proposed rulemaking is published in the Federal Register during the same time frame that the state is holding its public process. The state and EPA then provide for concurrent public comment periods on both the state action and federal action. If the revision that is finally adopted and submitted by the state is changed in aspects other than those identified in the proposed rulemaking on the parallel process submission, EPA will evaluate those changes and if necessary and appropriate, issue another notice of proposed rulemaking. The final rulemaking action by EPA will occur only after the SIP revision has been adopted by the state and submitted formally to EPA for incorporation into the SIP. On February 8, 2016, the State of Tennessee, through TDEC, submitted a formal letter request for parallel processing of a draft SIP revision that the State was already taking through public comment. TDEC requested parallel processing so that EPA could begin to take action on its draft SIP revision in advance of the State's submission of the final SIP revision. As stated above, the final rulemaking action by EPA will occur only after the SIP revision has been: (1) Adopted by Tennessee; (2) submitted formally to EPA for incorporation into the SIP; and (3) evaluated by EPA, including any changes made by the State after the February 8, 2016, draft was submitted to EPA. II. Background for Federal Stage I and II Requirements Stage I vapor recovery is a type of emission control system that captures gasoline vapors that are released when gasoline is delivered to a storage tank. The vapors are returned to the tank truck as the storage tank is being filled with fuel, rather than released to the ambient air. Stage II and onboard refueling vapor recovery (ORVR) are two types of emission control systems that capture fuel vapors from vehicle gas tanks during refueling. Stage II systems are specifically installed at gasoline dispensing facilities and capture the refueling fuel vapors at the gasoline pump nozzle. The system carries the vapors back to the underground storage tank at the gasoline dispensing facility to prevent the vapors from escaping to the atmosphere. ORVR systems are carbon canisters installed directly on automobiles to capture the fuel vapors evacuated from the gasoline tank before they reach the nozzle. The fuel vapors captured in the carbon canisters are then combusted in the engine when the automobile is in operation. Under section 182(b)(3) of the CAA, each state was required to submit a SIP revision to implement Stage II for all ozone nonattainment areas classified as moderate, serious, severe, or extreme, primarily for the control of volatile organic compounds (VOC)--a precursor to ozone formation.\1\ However, section 202(a)(6) of the CAA states that the section 182(b)(3) Stage II requirements for moderate ozone nonattainment areas shall not apply after the promulgation of ORVR standards.\2\ ORVR standards were promulgated by EPA on April 6, 1994. See 59 FR 16262 and 40 CFR parts 86, 88 and 600. As a result, the CAA no longer requires moderate areas to impose Stage II controls under section 182(b)(3), and such areas were able to submit SIP revisions, in compliance with section 110(l) of the CAA, to remove Stage II requirements from their SIPs. EPA's policy memoranda related to ORVR, dated March 9, 1993, and June 23, 1993, provide further guidance on removing Stage II requirements from certain areas. The policy memorandum dated March 9, 1993, states that ``[w]hen onboard rules are promulgated, a State may withdraw its Stage II rules for moderate areas from the SIP (or from consideration as a SIP revision) consistent with its obligations under sections 182(b)(3) and 202(a)(6), so long as withdrawal will not interfere with any other applicable requirement of the Act.'' \3\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ Section 182(b)(3) states that each State in which all or part of an ozone nonattainment area classified as moderate or above shall, with respect to that area, submit a SIP revision requiring owners or operators of gasoline dispensing systems to install and operate vapor recovery equipment at their facilities. Specifically, the CAA specifies that the Stage II requirements must apply to any facility that dispenses more than 10,000 gallons of gasoline per month or, in the case of an independent small business marketer (ISBM), as defined in section 324 of the CAA, any facility that dispenses more than 50,000 gallons of gasoline per month. Additionally, the CAA specifies the deadlines by which certain facilities must comply with the Stage II requirements. For facilities that are not owned or operated by an ISBM, these deadlines, calculated from the time of State adoption of the Stage II requirements, are: (1) 6 months for facilities for which construction began after November 15, 1990, (2) 1 year for facilities that dispense greater than 100,000 gallons of gasoline per month, and (3) by November 15, 1994, for all other facilities. For ISBMs, section 324(a) of the CAA provides the following three- year phase-in period: (1) 33 percent of the facilities owned by an ISBM by the end of the first year after the regulations take effect; (2) 66 percent of such facilities by the end of the second year; and (3) 100 percent of such facilities after the third year. \2\ ORVR is a system employed on gasoline-powered highway motor vehicles to capture gasoline vapors displaced from a vehicle fuel tank during refueling events. These systems are required under section 202(a)(6) of the CAA and implementation of these requirements began in the 1998 model year. Currently they are used on all gasoline-powered passenger cars, light trucks and complete heavy trucks of less than 14,000 pounds GVWR. ORVR systems typically employ a liquid file neck seal to block vapor escape to the atmosphere and otherwise share many components with the vehicles' evaporative emission control system including the onboard diagnostic system sensors. \3\ Memorandum from John S. Seitz, Director, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, to EPA Regional Air Directors, Impact of the Recent Onboard Decision on Stage II Requirements in Moderate Areas (March 9, 1993), available at: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/aqmguide/collection/cp2/19930309_seitz_onboard_impact_stage2_.pdf. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- CAA section 202(a)(6) also provides discretionary authority to the EPA Administrator to, by rule, revise or waive the section 182(b)(3) Stage II requirement for serious, severe, and extreme ozone nonattainment areas after the Administrator determines that ORVR is in widespread use throughout the motor vehicle fleet. On May 16, 2012, in a rulemaking entitled ``Air Quality: Widespread Use for Onboard Refueling Vapor Recovery and Stage II Waiver,'' EPA determined that ORVR technology is in widespread use throughout the motor vehicle fleet for purposes of controlling motor vehicle refueling emissions. See 77 FR 28772. By that action, EPA waived the requirement for states to implement Stage II gasoline vapor recovery systems at gasoline dispensing facilities in nonattainment areas classified as serious and above for the ozone NAAQS. Effective May 16, 2012, states implementing mandatory Stage II programs under section 182(b)(3) of the CAA were allowed to submit SIP revisions to remove this program. See 40 CFR 51.126(b).\4\ On April 7, 2012, EPA released the guidance entitled ``Guidance on Removing Stage II Gasoline Vapor Control Programs from [[Page 34942]] State Implementation Plans and Assessing Comparable Measures'' for states to consider in preparing their SIP revisions to remove existing Stage II programs from state implementation plans.\5\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \4\ As noted above, EPA found, pursuant to CAA section 202(a)(6), that ORVR systems are in widespread use in the motor vehicle fleet and waived the CAA section 182(b)(3) Stage II vapor recovery requirement for serious and higher ozone nonattainment areas on May 16, 2012. Thus, in its implementation rule for the 2008 ozone NAAQS, EPA removed the section 182(b)(3) Stage II requirement from the list of applicable requirements in 40 CFR 51.1100(o). See 80 FR 12264 for additional information. \5\ This guidance document is available at: http://www.epa.gov/groundlevelozone/pdfs/20120807guidance.pdf. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- III. Tennessee's Stage I and II Vapor Recovery Requirements for the Middle Tennessee Area On November 6, 1991, EPA designated and classified the Nashville Area (Davidson, Rutherford, Sumner, Williamson and Wilson counties) as a moderate ozone nonattainment area for the 1-hour ozone NAAQS. See 56 FR 56694, 56829. As mentioned above, the ``moderate'' classification triggered various statutory requirements for this Area, including the requirement pursuant to section 182(b)(3) of the CAA for the Area to require all owners and operators of gasoline dispensing systems to install and operate a system for gasoline vapor recovery of emissions from the fueling of motor vehicles known as ``Stage II.'' \6\ On November 5, 1992, May 18, 1993, and July 6, 1993, the State of Tennessee submitted SIP revisions to EPA for Stage I and II vapor recovery in the Nashville Area.\7\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \6\ As discussed above, Stage II is a system designed to capture displaced vapors that emerge from inside a vehicle's fuel tank when gasoline is dispensed into the tank. There are two basic types of Stage II systems, the balance type and the vacuum assist type. \7\ ``Gasoline Dispensing Facility, Stage 1'' under Section 7- 13, covering Nashville/Davidson County was first submitted on February 16, 1990 for EPA approval into the SIP and was approved March 11, 1991. See 56 FR 10171. The last revision for regulations related to Nashville/Davidson County was submitted on July 3, 1991, and later approved by EPA on June 26, 1992. See 57 FR 28625. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- On February 9, 1995, EPA approved Tennessee's November 5, 1992, May 18, 1993, and July 6, 1993, SIP revision containing Tennessee Air Pollution Control Regulations (TAPCR) rule 1200-03-18-.24, Gasoline Dispensing Facilities, Stage I and Stage II Vapor Recovery which regulates the emissions of VOCs from petroleum product storage and distribution network. 60 FR 7713.\8\ TAPCR 1200-03-18-.24 includes requirements for control of VOC emissions from filling of certain gasoline storage tanks in several Tennessee counties using Stage I vapor recovery systems. Subsequently, on January 10, 2008, EPA promulgated similar requirements for Stage I vapor recovery as 40 CFR part 63, subpart CCCCCC. 73 FR 1945. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \8\ Revisions to this rule were subsequently approved by EPA on April 14, 1997, and August 26, 2005. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- On November 14, 1994, TDEC submitted to EPA a request (later supplemented on August 9, 1995, and January 19, 1996) to redesignate the Middle Tennessee Area to attainment for the 1-hour ozone standard and an associated maintenance plan. The maintenance plan, as required under section 175A of the CAA, showed that nitrogen oxides and VOC emissions in the Area would remain below the 1994 ``attainment year'' levels through the greater than ten-year period from 1994-2006. In making these projections, TDEC factored in the emissions benefit of the Area's Stage II program, thereby maintaining this program as an active part of its 1-hour ozone SIP. The redesignation request and maintenance plan was approved by EPA, effective October 30, 1996. See 61 FR 55903. Subsequently, the maintenance plan was extended by TDEC to 2016, and this extension was approved by EPA, effective January 3, 2006. See 70 FR 65838. IV. Analysis of the State's Submittal On February 8, 2016, Tennessee submitted a draft SIP revision to EPA seeking modifications of the Stage II and Stage I requirements in the State. First, in relation to Stage II, TDEC seeks the removal of the Stage II vapor recovery requirements from TAPCR 1200-03-18-.24 through the addition of requirements for decommissioning, and the phase out of the Stage II vapor recovery systems over a 3-year period from January 1, 2016, to January 1, 2019, in Davidson, Rutherford, Sumner, Williamson and Wilson Counties. Second, TDEC seeks to amend the Stage I requirements for gasoline dispensing facilities by adopting by reference the Federal requirements of 40 CFR part 63, subpart CCCCCC and removing most of the State-specific language for Stage I vapor recovery.\9\ Below are additional details regarding EPA's rationale for the actions proposed in today's rulemaking in relation to Tennessee's requested changes. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \9\ However, any gasoline dispensing facility with a monthly throughput of 10,000 gallons or more of gasoline that is located in Anderson, Blount, Carter, Cheatham, Davidson, Dickson, Fayette, Hamilton, Hawkins, Haywood, Jefferson, Knox Loudon, Marion, Meigs, Montgomery, Putnam, Robertson, Rutherford, Sevier, Shelby, Sullivan, Sumner, Tipton, Unicoi, Union, Washington, Williamson, or Wilson Counties will be subject to expanded requirements under subpart CCCCCC. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- A. Analysis of Changes to Tennessee's Stage II Requirements for Middle Tennessee EPA's primary consideration in determining the approvability of Tennessee's request regarding removal of the Stage II program in the Middle Tennessee Area is whether this requested action complies with section 110(l) of the CAA.\10\ Section 110(l) requires that a revision to the SIP not interfere with any applicable requirement concerning attainment and reasonable further progress (as defined in section 171), or any other applicable requirement of the Act. EPA evaluates each section 110(l) noninterference demonstration on a case-by-case basis, considering the circumstances of each SIP revision. EPA interprets 110(l) as applying to all NAAQS that are in effect, including those that have been promulgated but for which the EPA has not yet made designations. The degree of analysis focused on any particular NAAQS in a noninterference demonstration varies depending on the nature of the emissions associated with the proposed SIP revision. EPA's analysis of Tennessee's February 8, 2016, SIP revision pursuant to section 110(l) is provided below. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \10\ CAA section 193 is not relevant because Tennessee's Stage II rule was not included in the SIP before the 1990 CAA amendments. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- In its February 8, 2016, draft SIP revision, TDEC used EPA's guidance entitled ``Guidance on Removing Stage II Gasoline Vapor Control Programs from State Implementation Plans and Assessing Comparable Measures'' to conduct a series of calculations to determine the potential impact on air quality of removing the Stage II program.\11\ Tennessee's analysis focused on VOC emissions because, as mentioned above, Stage II requirements affect VOC emissions and because VOCs are a precursor for ozone formation.\12\ [[Page 34943]] The results of TDEC's analysis are provided in the table below. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \11\ EPA, Guidance on Removing Stage II Gasoline Vapor Control Programs from State Implementation Plans and Assessing Comparable Measures, EPA-457/B-12-001 (Aug. 7, 2012), available at: https://www.epa.gov/ozone-pollution/ozone-stage-two-vapor-recovery-rule-and-guidance. This guidance document notes that ``the potential emission control losses from removing Stage II VRS are transitional and relatively small. ORVR-equipped vehicles will continue to phase in to the fleet over the coming years and will exceed 80 percent of all highway gasoline vehicles and 85 percent of all gasoline dispensed during 2015. As the number of these ORVR-equipped vehicles increase, the control attributed to Stage II VRS will decrease even further, and the potential foregone Stage II VOC emission reductions are generally expected to be no more than one percent of the VOC inventory in the area.'' \12\ Several counties in Middle Tennessee are currently designated nonattainment for the 1997 Annual fine particulate matter (PM2.5 ) standard. While VOC is one of the precursors for particulate matter (NAAQS) formation, studies have indicated that, in the southeast, emissions of direct PM2.5 and the precursor sulfur oxides are more significant to ambient summertime PM2.5 concentrations than emissions of nitrogen oxides and anthropogenic VOC. See, e.g., Quantifying the sources of ozone, fine particulate matter, and regional haze in the Southeastern United States, Journal of Environmental Engineering (June 24, 2009), available at: https://www.deepdyve.com/lp/elsevier/quantifying-the-sources-of-ozone-fine-particulate-matter-and-regional-yYzp0F1KBu. Table 1--VOC Emissions per Ozone Season From Stage II Controls ------------------------------------------------------------------------ VOC emissions Year reduction (tons per year) ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 2010................................................. 510.60 2011................................................. 397.39 2012................................................. 281.97 2013................................................. 188.45 2014................................................. 107.28 2015................................................. 38.62 2016................................................. -20.50 2017................................................. -67.19 2018................................................. -106.81 2019................................................. -137.24 2020................................................. -154.83 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ The removal of Stage II vapor recovery systems in the five-county Middle Tennessee area starting in 2016 will result in a VOC emission decrease, with emission reduction benefits increasing over time. Conversely, as Table 1 shows, if Stage II requirements are kept in place, an increase in VOC emissions will occur beyond 2015, and it will become detrimental to air quality in the five-county Middle Tennessee area to keep Stage II systems in operation.\13\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \13\ The emissions-reduction disbenefit associated with continued implementation of Stage II requirements is due to the incompatibility of some Stage II and ORVR systems. Compatibility problems can result in an increase in emissions from the underground storage tank (UST) vent pipe and other system fugitive emissions related to the refueling of ORVR vehicles with some types of vacuum assist-type Stage II systems. This occurs during refueling an ORVR vehicle when the vacuum assist system draws fresh air into the UST rather than an air vapor mixture from the vehicle fuel tank. Vapor flow from the vehicle fuel tank is blocked by the liquid seal in the fill pipe which forms at a level deeper in the fill pipe than can be reached by the end of the nozzle spout. The fresh air drawn into the UST enhances gasoline evaporation in the UST which increases pressure in the UST. Unless it is lost as a fugitive emission, any tank pressure in excess of the rating of the pressure/vacuum valve is vented to the atmosphere over the course of a day. See EPA, Guidance on Removing Stage II Gasoline Vapor Control Programs from State Implementation Plans and Assessing Comparable Measures, EPA- 457/B-12-001 (Aug. 7, 2012), available at: https://www.epa.gov/ozone-pollution/ozone-stage-two-vapor-recovery-rule-and-guidance. Thus, as ORVR technology is phased in, the amount of emission control that is gained through Stage II systems decreases. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- The affected sources covered by Tennessee's Stage II vapor recovery requirements are sources of VOCs. Other criteria pollutants (carbon monoxide, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide, particulate matter, and lead) are not emitted by gasoline dispensing facilities and will not be affected by the removal of Stage II controls. The proposed revisions to TAPCR 1200-03-18-.24 include that gasoline dispensing facilities located in Davidson, Rutherford, Sumner, Williamson, and Wilson counties shall decommission and remove the systems no later than 3 years from the effective date of this rule. Tennessee noted in its submission that procedures to decommission and remove systems will be conducted in accordance with Petroleum Equipment Institute (PEI) guidance, ``Recommended Practices for Installation and Testing of Vapor Recovery Systems at Vehicle Refueling Sites,'' PEI/ RP300-09. EPA is proposing to determine that TDEC's technical analysis is consistent with EPA's guidance on removing Stage II requirements from a SIP, including those provisions related to the decommissioning and phasing out of the Stage II requirements for the Middle Tennessee Area. EPA is also making the preliminary determination that Tennessee's SIP revision is consistent with the CAA and with EPA's regulations related to removal of Stage II requirements from the SIP and that these changes will not interfere with any applicable requirement concerning attainment or any other applicable requirement of the CAA, and therefore satisfy section 110(l). B. Analysis of Changes to Tennessee's Stage I Requirements Tennessee's Stage I requirements are in TAPCR 1200-03-18-.24, and provide for the control of VOC emissions from filling stations of certain gasoline storage tanks in Blount, Carter, Cheatham, Davidson, Dickinson, Fayette, Hamilton, Hawkins, Haywood, Jefferson, Knox, Loudon, Marion, Meigs, Montgomery, Putnam, Robertson, Rutherford, Sullivan, Sumner, Tipton, Unicoi, Union, Washington, Williamson, and Wilson Counties. EPA promulgated similar requirements for Stage I vapor recovery at 40 CFR part 63, subpart CCCCCC. To eliminate overlap of State and Federal requirements, Tennessee proposes to adopt by reference 40 CFR part 63, subpart CCCCCC and remove the Stage I SIP requirements of TAPCR 1200-03-18-.24. Tennessee provided a section 110(l) demonstration that includes a comparison demonstrating the equivalence of State and Federal Stage I requirements, i.e., showing that the State requirements will be as stringent as or more stringent than the comparable Federal requirements. Tennessee's submittal proposes to lower the applicability threshold of the Federal requirements to apply to smaller facilities based on monthly throughput, rather than the equivalent Federal requirements for the subject counties listed above. Thus the State rule (1200-03-18-.24(1)) is more stringent than the Federal Rule. EPA has preliminarily determined that these changes to Tennessee's Stage I requirements will not interfere with any applicable requirement concerning attainment or any other applicable requirement of the CAA, and therefore satisfy section 110(l), because they remove obsolete language due, in part, to superseding Federal requirements in 40 CFR part 63, subpart CCCCCC. V. Incorporation by Reference In this rule, EPA is proposing to include in a final EPA rule regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, EPA is proposing to incorporate by reference TDEC Regulation TAPCR 1200-03-18-.24, Gasoline Dispensing Facilities. EPA has made, and will continue to make, these documents generally available electronically through www.regulations.gov and/or in hard copy at the EPA Region 4 office (see the ADDRESSES section of this preamble for more information). VI. Proposed Action EPA is proposing to approve Tennessee's February 8, 2016, draft SIP revision that changes Tennessee Gasoline Dispensing Facilities, Stage I and II Vapor Recovery, TAPCR rule 1200-03-18-.24. to: (1) Allow for the removal of the Stage II requirement and the orderly decommissioning of Stage II equipment; and (2) incorporate by reference Federal rule 40 CFR part 63, subpart CCCCCC, and remove certain non-state-specific requirements for the Stage I. EPA is proposing this approval because the Agency has made the preliminary determination that Tennessee's February 8, 2016, draft SIP revision related to the State's Stage I and II rule is consistent with the CAA and with EPA's regulations and guidance. VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable federal regulations. [[Page 34944]] See 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 proposed action merely proposes to approve state law as meeting federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this proposed action:Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011); 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 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, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications 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. List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds. Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. Dated: May 19, 2106. Heather McTeer Toney, Regional Administrator, Region 4. [FR Doc. 2016-12805 Filed 5-31-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
![34940 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 105 / Wednesday, June 1, 2016 / Proposed Rules
proposing to exclude from use in in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection
determining that Lamar continues to of 1995 (Public Law 104–4); Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve
attain the PM10 NAAQS, exceedances of • does not have federalism changes to the State Implementation
the PM10 NAAQS that were recorded at implications as specified in Executive Plan (SIP) submitted by the State of
the Lamar Power Plant PM10 monitor on Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, Tennessee through the Tennessee
February 9, 2002; March 7, 2002; May 1999); Department of Environment and
21, 2002; June 20, 2002; April 5, 2002; • is not an economically significant Conservation (TDEC) on February 8,
May 22, 2008; Jan 19, 2009; April 3, regulatory action based on health or 2016, for parallel processing. This draft
2011; and November 5, 2011 because safety risks subject to Executive Order SIP revision seeks to lower applicability
the exceedances meet the criteria for 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); thresholds for certain sources subject to
exceptional events caused by high wind • is not a significant regulatory action Federal Stage I requirements, remove
natural events. Additionally, the EPA is subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR the Stage II vapor control requirements,
proposing to exclude from use in 28355, May 22, 2001); and add requirements for
determining that Lamar continues to • is not subject to requirements of decommissioning gasoline dispensing
attain the PM10 NAAQS, exceedances of Section 12(d) of the National facilities, as well as requirements for
the PM10 NAAQS that were recorded at Technology Transfer and Advancement new and upgraded gasoline dispensing
the Municipal Complex PM10 monitor Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because facilities in the Nashville, Tennessee
on May 21, 2002; June 20, 2002; April application of those requirements would Area (hereinafter also known as the
5, 2005; January 19, 2009; February 8, be inconsistent with the CAA; and, ‘‘Middle Tennessee Area’’). EPA has
2013; March 18, 2012; April 2, 2012; • does not provide the EPA with the preliminarily determined that
April 9, 2013; May 1, 2013; May 24, discretionary authority to address, as Tennessee’s February 8, 2016, draft SIP
2013; May 25, 2013; May 28, 2013; appropriate, disproportionate human revision is approvable because it is
December 24, 2013; February 16, 2014; health or environmental effects, using consistent with the Clean Air Act (CAA
March 11, 2014; March 15, 2014; March practicable and legally permissible or Act).
18, 2014; March 29, 2014; March 30, methods, under Executive Order 12898 DATES: Written comments must be
2014; March 31, 2014; April 23, 2014; (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). received on or before July 1, 2016.
April 29, 2014; November 10, 2014; The SIP is not approved to apply on
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
April 1, 2015; and April 2, 2015 because any Indian reservation land or in any
other area where the EPA or an Indian identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R04–
the exceedances meet the criteria for OAR–2016–0011 at http://
exceptional events caused by high wind tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has
jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
natural events. We are also proposing to instructions for submitting comments.
approve the revised maintenance plan’s Country, the rule does not have tribal
implications and will not impose s Once submitted, comments cannot be
2025 transportation conformity MVEB edited or removed from Regulations.gov.
for PM10 of 764 lbs/day. ubstantial direct costs on tribal
governments or preempt tribal law as EPA may publish any comment received
VI. Statutory and Executive Orders specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 to its public docket. Do not submit
Review FR 67249, November 9, 2000). electronically any information you
Under the CAA, the Administrator is consider to be Confidential Business
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 Information (CBI) or other information
required to approve a SIP submission
that complies with the provisions of the Environmental protection, Air whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Act and applicable federal regulations pollution control, Incorporation by Multimedia submissions (audio, video,
(42 U.S.C. 7410(k), 40 CFR 52.02(a)). reference, Intergovernmental relations, etc.) must be accompanied by a written
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate comment. The written comment is
EPA’s role is to approve state choices, matter, Reporting and recordkeeping considered the official comment and
provided that they meet the criteria of requirements, Volatile Organic should include discussion of all points
the CAA. This proposed action merely Compounds. you wish to make. EPA will generally
proposes to approve state law as not consider comments or comment
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
meeting federal requirements and does contents located outside of the primary
Dated: May 19, 2016. submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or
not propose to impose additional
Shaun L. McGrath, other file sharing system). For
requirements beyond those imposed by
state law. For that reason, this proposed Regional Administrator, Region 8. additional submission methods, the full
action: [FR Doc. 2016–12804 Filed 5–31–16; 8:45 am] EPA public comment policy,
• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory BILLING CODE 6560–50–P information about CBI or multimedia
action’’ subject to review by the Office submissions, and general guidance on
of Management and Budget under making effective comments, please visit
Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/
October 4, 1993); AGENCY commenting-epa-dockets.
• does not impose an information FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
40 CFR Part 52 Kelly Sheckler, Air Regulatory
collection burden under the provisions
of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 [EPA–R04–OAR–2016–0011; FRL–9947–18– Management Section, Air Planning and
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.); Region 4] Implementation Branch, Air, Pesticides
sradovich on DSK3TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
• is certified as not having a and Toxics Management Division, U.S.
significant economic impact on a Air Plan Approval; Tennessee; Environmental Protection Agency,
substantial number of small entities Revision and Removal of Stage I and Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW.,
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 II Gasoline Vapor Recovery Program Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. Ms.
U.S.C. 601 et seq.); AGENCY: Environmental Protection Sheckler’s phone number is (404) 562–
• does not contain any unfunded Agency. 9222. She can also be reached via
mandate or significantly or uniquely electronic mail at sheckler.kelly@
ACTION: Proposed rule.
affect small governments, as described epa.gov.
VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:32 May 31, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\01JNP1.SGM 01JNP1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/81_FR_35045/page/1.svg)
![Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 105 / Wednesday, June 1, 2016 / Proposed Rules 34941
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: are specifically installed at gasoline longer requires moderate areas to
dispensing facilities and capture the impose Stage II controls under section
I. What is parallel processing?
refueling fuel vapors at the gasoline 182(b)(3), and such areas were able to
Consistent with EPA regulations pump nozzle. The system carries the submit SIP revisions, in compliance
found at 40 CFR part 51, Appendix V, vapors back to the underground storage with section 110(l) of the CAA, to
section 2.3.1, for purposes of expediting tank at the gasoline dispensing facility remove Stage II requirements from their
review of a SIP submittal, parallel to prevent the vapors from escaping to SIPs. EPA’s policy memoranda related
processing allows a state to submit a the atmosphere. ORVR systems are to ORVR, dated March 9, 1993, and June
plan to EPA prior to actual adoption by carbon canisters installed directly on 23, 1993, provide further guidance on
the state. Generally, the state submits a automobiles to capture the fuel vapors removing Stage II requirements from
copy of the proposed regulation or other evacuated from the gasoline tank before certain areas. The policy memorandum
revisions to EPA before conducting its they reach the nozzle. The fuel vapors dated March 9, 1993, states that ‘‘[w]hen
public hearing. EPA reviews this captured in the carbon canisters are onboard rules are promulgated, a State
proposed state action and prepares a then combusted in the engine when the may withdraw its Stage II rules for
notice of proposed rulemaking. EPA’s automobile is in operation. moderate areas from the SIP (or from
notice of proposed rulemaking is Under section 182(b)(3) of the CAA, consideration as a SIP revision)
published in the Federal Register each state was required to submit a SIP consistent with its obligations under
during the same time frame that the revision to implement Stage II for all sections 182(b)(3) and 202(a)(6), so long
state is holding its public process. The ozone nonattainment areas classified as as withdrawal will not interfere with
state and EPA then provide for moderate, serious, severe, or extreme, any other applicable requirement of the
concurrent public comment periods on primarily for the control of volatile Act.’’ 3
both the state action and federal action. organic compounds (VOC)—a precursor CAA section 202(a)(6) also provides
If the revision that is finally adopted discretionary authority to the EPA
to ozone formation.1 However, section
and submitted by the state is changed in Administrator to, by rule, revise or
202(a)(6) of the CAA states that the
aspects other than those identified in waive the section 182(b)(3) Stage II
section 182(b)(3) Stage II requirements
the proposed rulemaking on the parallel requirement for serious, severe, and
for moderate ozone nonattainment areas
process submission, EPA will evaluate extreme ozone nonattainment areas after
shall not apply after the promulgation of
those changes and if necessary and the Administrator determines that
ORVR standards.2 ORVR standards were
appropriate, issue another notice of ORVR is in widespread use throughout
promulgated by EPA on April 6, 1994.
proposed rulemaking. The final the motor vehicle fleet. On May 16,
See 59 FR 16262 and 40 CFR parts 86,
rulemaking action by EPA will occur 2012, in a rulemaking entitled ‘‘Air
88 and 600. As a result, the CAA no
only after the SIP revision has been Quality: Widespread Use for Onboard
adopted by the state and submitted 1 Section 182(b)(3) states that each State in which Refueling Vapor Recovery and Stage II
formally to EPA for incorporation into all or part of an ozone nonattainment area classified Waiver,’’ EPA determined that ORVR
the SIP. as moderate or above shall, with respect to that technology is in widespread use
On February 8, 2016, the State of area, submit a SIP revision requiring owners or throughout the motor vehicle fleet for
Tennessee, through TDEC, submitted a operators of gasoline dispensing systems to install
and operate vapor recovery equipment at their purposes of controlling motor vehicle
formal letter request for parallel facilities. Specifically, the CAA specifies that the refueling emissions. See 77 FR 28772.
processing of a draft SIP revision that Stage II requirements must apply to any facility that By that action, EPA waived the
the State was already taking through dispenses more than 10,000 gallons of gasoline per requirement for states to implement
public comment. TDEC requested month or, in the case of an independent small
business marketer (ISBM), as defined in section 324 Stage II gasoline vapor recovery systems
parallel processing so that EPA could of the CAA, any facility that dispenses more than at gasoline dispensing facilities in
begin to take action on its draft SIP 50,000 gallons of gasoline per month. Additionally, nonattainment areas classified as
revision in advance of the State’s the CAA specifies the deadlines by which certain serious and above for the ozone
submission of the final SIP revision. As facilities must comply with the Stage II
requirements. For facilities that are not owned or NAAQS. Effective May 16, 2012, states
stated above, the final rulemaking action operated by an ISBM, these deadlines, calculated implementing mandatory Stage II
by EPA will occur only after the SIP from the time of State adoption of the Stage II programs under section 182(b)(3) of the
revision has been: (1) Adopted by requirements, are: (1) 6 months for facilities for CAA were allowed to submit SIP
Tennessee; (2) submitted formally to which construction began after November 15, 1990,
(2) 1 year for facilities that dispense greater than revisions to remove this program. See 40
EPA for incorporation into the SIP; and 100,000 gallons of gasoline per month, and (3) by CFR 51.126(b).4 On April 7, 2012, EPA
(3) evaluated by EPA, including any November 15, 1994, for all other facilities. For released the guidance entitled
changes made by the State after the ISBMs, section 324(a) of the CAA provides the ‘‘Guidance on Removing Stage II
February 8, 2016, draft was submitted to following three-year phase-in period: (1) 33 percent
of the facilities owned by an ISBM by the end of Gasoline Vapor Control Programs from
EPA. the first year after the regulations take effect; (2) 66
percent of such facilities by the end of the second 3 Memorandum from John S. Seitz, Director,
II. Background for Federal Stage I and year; and (3) 100 percent of such facilities after the Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, to
II Requirements third year. EPA Regional Air Directors, Impact of the Recent
Stage I vapor recovery is a type of 2 ORVR is a system employed on gasoline- Onboard Decision on Stage II Requirements in
powered highway motor vehicles to capture Moderate Areas (March 9, 1993), available at: http://
emission control system that captures gasoline vapors displaced from a vehicle fuel tank www.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/aqmguide/collection/cp2/
gasoline vapors that are released when during refueling events. These systems are required 19930309_seitz_onboard_impact_stage2_.pdf.
gasoline is delivered to a storage tank. under section 202(a)(6) of the CAA and 4 As noted above, EPA found, pursuant to CAA
sradovich on DSK3TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
The vapors are returned to the tank implementation of these requirements began in the section 202(a)(6), that ORVR systems are in
1998 model year. Currently they are used on all widespread use in the motor vehicle fleet and
truck as the storage tank is being filled gasoline-powered passenger cars, light trucks and waived the CAA section 182(b)(3) Stage II vapor
with fuel, rather than released to the complete heavy trucks of less than 14,000 pounds recovery requirement for serious and higher ozone
ambient air. Stage II and onboard GVWR. ORVR systems typically employ a liquid nonattainment areas on May 16, 2012. Thus, in its
refueling vapor recovery (ORVR) are two file neck seal to block vapor escape to the implementation rule for the 2008 ozone NAAQS,
atmosphere and otherwise share many components EPA removed the section 182(b)(3) Stage II
types of emission control systems that with the vehicles’ evaporative emission control requirement from the list of applicable
capture fuel vapors from vehicle gas system including the onboard diagnostic system requirements in 40 CFR 51.1100(o). See 80 FR
tanks during refueling. Stage II systems sensors. 12264 for additional information.
VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:32 May 31, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\01JNP1.SGM 01JNP1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/81_FR_35045/page/2.svg)
![34944 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 105 / Wednesday, June 1, 2016 / Proposed Rules
See 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 DATES: Written comments must be
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, Environmental protection, Air received on or before June 16, 2016.
EPA’s role is to approve state choices, pollution control, Incorporation by ADDRESSES: You may submit comments
provided that they meet the criteria of reference, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, on the proposed rule, identified by
the CAA. Accordingly, this proposed Reporting and recordkeeping ‘‘NOAA–NMFS–2016–0042’’ by either
action merely proposes to approve state requirements, Volatile organic of the following methods:
law as meeting federal requirements and compounds. • Electronic Submission: Submit all
does not impose additional electronic public comments via the
requirements beyond those imposed by Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. Federal e-Rulemaking Portal. Go to
state law. For that reason, this proposed Dated: May 19, 2106. www.regulations.gov/
action: Heather McTeer Toney, #!docketDetail;D=NOAA-NMFS-2016-
• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory Regional Administrator, Region 4. 0042, click the ‘‘Comment Now!’’ icon,
action’’ subject to review by the Office [FR Doc. 2016–12805 Filed 5–31–16; 8:45 am] complete the required fields, and enter
of Management and Budget under BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
or attach your comments.
Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, • Mail: Submit written comments to
October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, Rick DeVictor, Southeast Regional
January 21, 2011); Office, NMFS, 263 13th Avenue South,
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
St. Petersburg, FL 33701.
• does not impose an information Instructions: Comments sent by any
collection burden under the provisions National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration other method, to any other address or
of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 individual, or received after the end of
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.); the comment period, may not be
• is certified as not having a 50 CFR Part 622
considered by NMFS. All comments
significant economic impact on a [Docket No. 160225143–6143–01] received are a part of the public record
substantial number of small entities RIN 0648–BF61 and will generally be posted for public
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 viewing on www.regulations.gov
U.S.C. 601 et seq.); Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of without change. All personal identifying
• does not contain any unfunded Mexico, and South Atlantic; Snapper- information (e.g., name, address, etc.),
mandate or significantly or uniquely Grouper Fishery Off the Southern confidential business information, or
affect small governments, as described Atlantic States; Regulatory otherwise sensitive information
in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act Amendment 25 submitted voluntarily by the sender will
of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); be publicly accessible. NMFS will
AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries accept anonymous comments (enter ‘‘N/
• does not have Federalism Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
implications as specified in Executive A’’ in required fields if you wish to
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), remain anonymous).
Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, Commerce.
1999); Electronic copies of Regulatory
ACTION: Proposed rule; request for Amendment 25, which includes an
• is not an economically significant comments. environmental assessment, a Regulatory
regulatory action based on health or Flexibility Act analysis, regulatory
safety risks subject to Executive Order SUMMARY: NMFS proposes regulations to
implement Regulatory Amendment 25 impact review, and fishery impact
13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); statement, may be obtained from
• is not a significant regulatory action for the Fishery Management Plan (FMP)
for the Snapper-Grouper Fishery of the www.regulations.gov or the Southeast
subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR Regional Office Web site at http://
28355, May 22, 2001); South Atlantic Region (Regulatory
Amendment 25) as prepared and sero.nmfs.noaa.gov/sustainable_
• is not subject to requirements of submitted by the South Atlantic Fishery fisheries/s_atl/sg/2015/reg_am25/
Section 12(d) of the National Management Council (Council). If index.html.
Technology Transfer and Advancement implemented, this proposed rule would FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rick
Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because revise the commercial and recreational DeVictor, NMFS, SERO, telephone: 727–
application of those requirements would annual catch limits (ACLs), the 551–5720 or email: rick.devictor@
be inconsistent with the CAA; and commercial trip limit, and the noaa.gov.
• does not provide EPA with the recreational bag limit for blueline SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The
discretionary authority to address, as tilefish. Additionally, this proposed rule snapper-grouper fishery of the South
appropriate, disproportionate human would revise the black sea bass Atlantic Region is managed under the
health or environmental effects, using recreational bag limit and the the FMP and includes blueline tilefish,
practicable and legally permissible commercial and recreational fishing black sea bass, and yellowtail snapper.
methods, under Executive Order 12898 years for yellowtail snapper. The The FMP was prepared by the Council
(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). purpose of this proposed rule for and is implemented through regulations
In addition, the SIP is not approved blueline tilefish is to increase the at 50 CFR part 622 under the authority
to apply on any Indian reservation land optimum yield (OY) and ACLs based on of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery
or in any other area where EPA or an a revised acceptable biological catch Conservation and Management Act
sradovich on DSK3TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Indian tribe has demonstrated that a (ABC) recommendation from the (Magnuson-Stevens Act).
tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Council’s Scientific and Statistical
Indian country, the rule does not have Committee (SSC). The purpose of this Background
tribal implications as specified by proposed rule is also to achieve OY for The Magnuson-Stevens Act requires
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, black sea bass and adjust the fishing NMFS and regional fishery management
November 9, 2000), nor will it impose year for yellowtail snapper to better councils to prevent overfishing and
substantial direct costs on tribal protect the species while allowing for achieve, on a continuing basis, OY from
governments or preempt tribal law. economic benefits to fishers. federally managed fish stocks. These
VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:32 May 31, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\01JNP1.SGM 01JNP1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/81_FR_35045/page/5.svg)
Document Created: 2018-02-08 07:27:23
Document Modified: 2018-02-08 07:27:23
| Category | Regulatory Information | |
| Collection | Federal Register | |
| sudoc Class | AE 2.7: GS 4.107: AE 2.106: | |
| Publisher | Office of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Administration | |
| Section | Proposed Rules | |
| Action | Proposed rule. | |
| Dates | Written comments must be received on or before July 1, 2016. | |
| Contact | Kelly Sheckler, Air Regulatory Management Section, Air Planning and Implementation Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. Ms. Sheckler's phone number is (404) 562-9222. She can also be reached via electronic mail at [email protected] | |
| FR Citation | 81 FR 34940 | |
| CFR Associated | Environmental Protection; Air Pollution Control; Incorporation by Reference; Nitrogen Dioxide; Ozone; Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements and Volatile Organic Compounds |
2025 Federal Register | Disclaimer | Privacy Policy
USC | CFR | eCFR