Air Plan Approval; Tennessee; Revision and Removal of Stage I and II Gasoline Vapor Recovery Program |
|---|
|
Heather McTeer Toney
Environmental Protection Agency
1 June 2016
[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 105 (Wednesday, June 1, 2016)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 34940-34944]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[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 sheckler.kelly@epa.gov.
[[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