```

[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
```