34940 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 105 / Wednesday, June 1, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

proposing to exclude from use in 

determining that Lamar continues to 

attain the PM10 NAAQS, exceedances of 

the PM10 NAAQS that were recorded at 

the Lamar Power Plant PM10 monitor on 

February 9, 2002; March 7, 2002; May 

21, 2002; June 20, 2002; April 5, 2002; 

May 22, 2008; Jan 19, 2009; April 3, 

2011; and November 5, 2011 because 

the exceedances meet the criteria for 

exceptional events caused by high wind 

natural events. Additionally, the EPA is 

proposing to exclude from use in 

determining that Lamar continues to 

attain the PM10 NAAQS, exceedances of 

the PM10 NAAQS that were recorded at 

the Municipal Complex PM10 monitor 

on May 21, 2002; June 20, 2002; April 

5, 2005; January 19, 2009; February 8, 

2013; March 18, 2012; April 2, 2012; 

April 9, 2013; May 1, 2013; May 24, 

2013; May 25, 2013; May 28, 2013; 

December 24, 2013; February 16, 2014; 

March 11, 2014; March 15, 2014; March 

18, 2014; March 29, 2014; March 30, 

2014; March 31, 2014; April 23, 2014; 

April 29, 2014; November 10, 2014; 

April 1, 2015; and April 2, 2015 because 

the exceedances meet the criteria for 

exceptional events caused by high wind 

natural events. We are also proposing to 

approve the revised maintenance plan’s 

2025 transportation conformity MVEB 

for PM10 of 764 lbs/day.

VI. Statutory and Executive Orders 

Review 

Under the CAA, the Administrator is 

required to approve a SIP submission 

that complies with the provisions of the 

Act and applicable federal regulations 

(42 U.S.C. 7410(k), 40 CFR 52.02(a)). 

Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the 

EPA’s role is to approve state choices, 

provided that they meet the criteria of 

the CAA. This proposed action merely 

proposes to approve state law as 

meeting federal requirements and does 

not propose to 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 Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993); 

• does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.); 

• is certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

U.S.C. 601 et seq.); 

• does not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Public Law 104–4); 

• does not have federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); 

• is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); 

• is not subject to requirements of 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because 

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the CAA; and, 

• does not provide the EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address, as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable and legally permissible 

methods, under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

The SIP is not approved to apply on 

any Indian reservation land or in any 

other area where the EPA or an Indian 

tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has 

jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian 

Country, the rule does not have tribal 

implications and will not impose s 

ubstantial direct costs on tribal 

governments or preempt tribal law as 

specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 

FR 67249, November 9, 2000). 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate 

matter, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Volatile Organic 

Compounds. 

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

Dated: May 19, 2016. 

Shaun L. McGrath, 

Regional Administrator, Region 8. 

[FR Doc. 2016–12804 Filed 5–31–16; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

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. 


sradovich on DSK3TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 105 / Wednesday, June 1, 2016 / Proposed Rules 34941 

1Section 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. 

2ORVR is a system employed on gasolinepowered 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. 

3Memorandum 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. 

4As 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. 

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

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 


sradovich on DSK3TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
34942 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 105 / Wednesday, June 1, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

5This guidance document is available at: http:// 

www.epa.gov/groundlevelozone/pdfs/

20120807guidance.pdf. 

6As 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. 

8Revisions to this rule were subsequently 

approved by EPA on April 14, 1997, and August 26, 

2005. 

9However, 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. 

10CAA section 193 is not relevant because 

Tennessee’s Stage II rule was not included in the 

SIP before the 1990 CAA amendments. 

11EPA, 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-twovapor-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.’’ 

12Several 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 

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

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

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. 

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. 

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. 

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


sradovich on DSK3TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 105 / Wednesday, June 1, 2016 / Proposed Rules 34943 

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-particulatematter-and-regional-yYzp0F1KBu. 

13The 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 results of TDEC’s analysis are 

provided in the table below. 

TABLE 1—VOC EMISSIONS PER

OZONE SEASON FROM STAGE II 

CONTROLS

Year 

VOC emissions 

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

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. 


sradovich on DSK3TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
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). 

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 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Part 622 

[Docket No. 160225143–6143–01] 

RIN 0648–BF61 

Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of 

Mexico, and South Atlantic; SnapperGrouper Fishery Off the Southern 

Atlantic States; Regulatory 

Amendment 25 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Proposed rule; request for 

comments. 

SUMMARY: NMFS proposes regulations to 

implement Regulatory Amendment 25 

for the Fishery Management Plan (FMP) 

for the Snapper-Grouper Fishery of the 

South Atlantic Region (Regulatory 

Amendment 25) as prepared and 

submitted by the South Atlantic Fishery 

Management Council (Council). If 

implemented, this proposed rule would 

revise the commercial and recreational 

annual catch limits (ACLs), the 

commercial trip limit, and the 

recreational bag limit for blueline 

tilefish. Additionally, this proposed rule 

would revise the black sea bass 

recreational bag limit and the the 

commercial and recreational fishing 

years for yellowtail snapper. The 

purpose of this proposed rule for 

blueline tilefish is to increase the 

optimum yield (OY) and ACLs based on 

a revised acceptable biological catch 

(ABC) recommendation from the 

Council’s Scientific and Statistical 

Committee (SSC). The purpose of this 

proposed rule is also to achieve OY for 

black sea bass and adjust the fishing 

year for yellowtail snapper to better 

protect the species while allowing for 

economic benefits to fishers. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received on or before June 16, 2016. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

on the proposed rule, identified by 

‘‘NOAA–NMFS–2016–0042’’ by either 

of the following methods: 

• Electronic Submission: Submit all 

electronic public comments via the 

Federal e-Rulemaking Portal. Go to 

www.regulations.gov/

#!docketDetail;D=NOAA-NMFS-2016- 

0042, click the ‘‘Comment Now!’’ icon, 

complete the required fields, and enter 

or attach your comments. 

• Mail: Submit written comments to 

Rick DeVictor, Southeast Regional 

Office, NMFS, 263 13th Avenue South, 

St. Petersburg, FL 33701. 

Instructions: Comments sent by any 

other method, to any other address or 

individual, or received after the end of 

the comment period, may not be 

considered by NMFS. All comments 

received are a part of the public record 

and will generally be posted for public 

viewing on www.regulations.gov 

without change. All personal identifying 

information (e.g., name, address, etc.), 

confidential business information, or 

otherwise sensitive information 

submitted voluntarily by the sender will 

be publicly accessible. NMFS will 

accept anonymous comments (enter ‘‘N/ 

A’’ in required fields if you wish to 

remain anonymous). 

Electronic copies of Regulatory 

Amendment 25, which includes an 

environmental assessment, a Regulatory 

Flexibility Act analysis, regulatory 

impact review, and fishery impact 

statement, may be obtained from 

www.regulations.gov or the Southeast 

Regional Office Web site at http://

sero.nmfs.noaa.gov/sustainable_

fisheries/s_atl/sg/2015/reg_am25/

index.html. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rick 

DeVictor, NMFS, SERO, telephone: 727– 

551–5720 or email: rick.devictor@

noaa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

snapper-grouper fishery of the South 

Atlantic Region is managed under the 

FMP and includes blueline tilefish, 

black sea bass, and yellowtail snapper. 

The FMP was prepared by the Council 

and is implemented through regulations 

at 50 CFR part 622 under the authority 

of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery 

Conservation and Management Act 

(Magnuson-Stevens Act). 

Background 

The Magnuson-Stevens Act requires 

NMFS and regional fishery management 

councils to prevent overfishing and 

achieve, on a continuing basis, OY from 

federally managed fish stocks. These 


sradovich on DSK3TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS