12440 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 46 / Wednesday, March 9, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

(1) Notice that NARA intends to 

conduct an inspection; 

(2) Which records management 

processes or procedures NARA is 

evaluating, and any specific issues; 

(3) A beginning date for the 

inspection that is no more than 30 

business days after the date of the letter; 

and 

(4) A request for an agency point of 

contact to assist NARA as it conducts 

the inspection. 

(b) If the agency does not respond to 

NARA’s notification letter, NARA 

reports the matter to the agency’s 

Congressional oversight committee and 

to the Office of Management and 

Budget, under its 44 U.S.C. 2904(c)(8) 

statutory authority. 

§ 1239.24 How does NARA conduct an 

inspection? 

(a) The NARA inspection team leader 

coordinates with the agency point of 

contact to arrange an initial meeting 

with the agency. The initial meeting 

addresses the scope of the inspection, 

including its parameters, any surveys or 

other inspection instruments, involved 

offices, and timing of site visits. 

(b) NARA prepares a draft inspection 

report and transmits it to the agency no 

later than 45 business days after the last 

site visit or meeting. The report 

includes: 

(1) An executive summary; 

(2) Background and purpose of 

inspection; 

(3) Inspection methodology, including 

offices visited; 

(4) Findings; 

(5) Necessary corrective actions and 

other recommendations; and 

(6) Any necessary appendices. 

(c) The agency must submit its 

comments on the draft report no later 

than 45 business days after receipt. 

(d) NARA incorporates any necessary 

corrections or revisions in the final 

report and issues the report to the head 

of the agency within 45 business days. 

§ 1239.26 What are an agency’s follow-up 

obligations after it receives an inspection 

report? 

(a) The agency must submit to NARA 

a plan of corrective action that specifies 

how the agency will address each 

inspection report recommendation, 

including a timeline for completion, and 

proposed progress reporting dates. 

(b) The agency must submit the plan 

of corrective action to NARA within 60 

business days of the date of the final 

report. 

(c) NARA may take up to 60 business 

days to review and comment on the 

plan. 

(d) Once both NARA and the agency 

agree that the plan of corrective action 

is final, the agency must submit 

progress reports to NARA. 

(e) The agency submits the reports on 

a mutually agreed-upon schedule, but 

no less frequently than semi-annually, 

until it completes all actions. 

Dated: March 2, 2016. 

David S. Ferriero, 

Archivist of the United States. 

[FR Doc. 2016–05150 Filed 3–8–16; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7515–01–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R01–OAR–2015–0351; FRL–9943–38– 

Region 1] 

Air Plan Approval; Massachusetts; 

Decommissioning of Stage II Vapor 

Recovery Systems 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve a 

State Implementation Plan (SIP) 

revision submitted by the 

Commonwealth of Massachusetts 

Department of Environmental 

Protection. This revision includes 

regulatory amendments that allow 

gasoline dispensing facilities (GDFs) to 

decommission their Stage II vapor 

recovery systems as of January 2, 2015, 

and a demonstration that such removal 

is consistent with the Clean Air Act and 

EPA guidance. This revision also 

includes regulatory amendments that 

strengthen Massachusetts’ requirements 

for Stage I vapor recovery systems at 

GDFs. The intended effect of this action 

is to propose approval of Massachusetts’ 

revised vapor recovery regulations. This 

action is being taken under the Clean 

Air Act. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received on or before April 8, 2016. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R01– 

OAR–2015–0351 at http:// 

www.regulations.gov, or via email to 

arnold.anne@epa.gov. For comments 

submitted at Regulations.gov, follow the 

online instructions for submitting 

comments. Once submitted, comments 

cannot be edited or removed from 

Regulations.gov. For either manner of 

submission, the 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. The 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, please 

contact the person identified in the ‘‘For 

Further Information Contact’’ section. 

For 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: 

Ariel Garcia, Air Quality Planning Unit, 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

EPA New England Regional Office, 5 

Post Office Square, Suite 100 (mail 

code: OEP05–2), Boston, MA 02109– 

3912, telephone number: (617) 918– 

1660, fax number: (617) 918–0660, 

email: garcia.ariel@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document whenever 

‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or ‘‘our’’ is used, we mean 

EPA. 

Organization of this document. The 

following outline is provided to aid in 

locating information in this preamble. 

I. Background and Purpose 

II. Summary of Massachusetts’ SIP Revision 

III. EPA’s Evaluation of Massachusetts’ SIP 

Revision 

IV. Proposed Action 

V. Incorporation by Reference 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. Background and Purpose 

On May 5, 2015, the Massachusetts 

Department of Environmental Protection 

submitted a revision to its State 

Implementation Plan (SIP). The SIP 

revision consists of Massachusetts’ 

revised regulations 310 Code of 

Massachusetts Regulations (CMR) 7.00, 

Air Pollution Control: Definitions and 

310 CMR 7.24, Organic Material Storage 

and Distribution. Specifically, in 

addition to the new and revised 

definitions in 310 CMR 7.00, the SIP 

revision consists of Massachusetts’ 

revised regulation sections: 

• 310 CMR 7.24(3), Distribution of 

Motor Vehicle Fuel; 

• 310 CMR 7.24(4), Motor Vehicle 

Fuel Tank Trucks; and 

• 310 CMR 7.24(6), Dispensing of 

Motor Vehicle Fuel. 

These sections of Massachusetts’ 310 

CMR 7.24 have been revised to allow 

the decommissioning of Stage II vapor 


Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 46 / Wednesday, March 9, 2016 / Proposed Rules 12441 

1 In areas where certain types of vacuum-assist 

Stage II vapor recovery systems are used, the 

differences in operational design characteristics 

between ORVR and some configurations of these 

Stage II vapor recovery systems result in the 

reduction of overall control system efficiency 

compared to what could have been achieved 

relative to the individual control efficiencies of 

either ORVR or Stage II emissions from the vehicle 

fuel tank. 

recovery systems and to strengthen 

Stage I vapor recovery requirements. 

The SIP submittal also includes a 

demonstration that removal of Stage II 

vapor recovery systems in 

Massachusetts is consistent with the 

Clean Air Act and EPA guidance. 

Stage II and onboard refueling vapor 

recovery (ORVR) systems are two types 

of emission control systems that capture 

fuel vapors from vehicle gas tanks 

during refueling. Stage II vapor recovery 

systems are installed at gasoline 

dispensing facilities (GDFs) and capture 

the refueling fuel vapors at the gasoline 

pump. The system carries the vapors 

back to the underground storage tank at 

the GDF 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. 

Stage II vapor recovery systems and 

vehicle ORVR systems were initially 

both required by the 1990 Amendments 

to the Clean Air Act (CAA). Section 

182(b)(3) of the CAA requires moderate 

and above ozone nonattainment areas to 

implement Stage II vapor recovery 

programs. Also, under CAA section 

184(b)(2), states in the Ozone Transport 

Region (OTR) are required to implement 

Stage II or comparable measures. CAA 

section 202(a)(6) required EPA to 

promulgate regulations for ORVR for 

light-duty vehicles (passenger cars). 

EPA adopted these requirements in 

1994, at which point moderate ozone 

nonattainment areas were no longer 

subject to the CAA section 182(b)(3) 

Stage II vapor recovery requirements. 

ORVR equipment has been phased in for 

new passenger vehicles beginning with 

model year 1998, and starting with 

model year 2001 for light-duty trucks 

and most heavy-duty gasoline powered 

vehicles. ORVR equipment has been 

installed on nearly all new gasolinepowered light-duty vehicles, light-duty 

trucks, and heavy-duty vehicles since 

2006. 

During the phase-in of ORVR controls, 

Stage II has provided volatile organic 

compound (VOC) reductions in ozone 

nonattainment areas and certain 

attainment areas of the OTR. Congress 

recognized that ORVR systems and 

Stage II vapor recovery systems would 

eventually become largely redundant 

technologies, and provided authority to 

EPA to allow states to remove Stage II 

vapor recovery programs from their SIPs 

after EPA finds that ORVR is in 

‘‘widespread use.’’ Effective May 16, 

2012, the date the final rule was 

published in the Federal Register (see 

77 FR 28772), EPA determined that 

ORVR systems are in widespread use 

nationwide for control of gasoline 

emissions during refueling of vehicles at 

GDFs. Currently, more than 85 percent 

of gasoline refueling nationwide occurs 

with ORVR-equipped vehicles. Thus, 

Stage II vapor recovery programs have 

become largely redundant control 

systems and Stage II vapor recovery 

systems achieve an ever declining 

emissions benefit as more ORVRequipped vehicles continue to enter the 

on-road motor vehicle fleet.1 In the May 

16, 2012 rulemaking, EPA also exercised 

its authority under CAA section 

202(a)(6) to waive certain federal 

statutory requirements for Stage II vapor 

recovery systems at GDFs. This decision 

exempts all new ozone nonattainment 

areas classified serious or above from 

the requirement to adopt Stage II vapor 

recovery programs. Finally, EPA’s May 

16, 2012 rulemaking also noted that any 

state currently implementing Stage II 

vapor recovery programs may submit 

SIP revisions that would allow for the 

phase-out of Stage II vapor recovery 

systems. 

Stage I vapor recovery systems are 

systems that capture vapors displaced 

from storage tanks at GDFs during 

gasoline tank truck deliveries. When 

gasoline is delivered into an 

aboveground or underground storage 

tank, vapors that were taking up space 

in the storage tank are displaced by the 

gasoline entering the storage tank. The 

Stage I vapor recovery systems route 

these displaced vapors into the delivery 

truck’s tank. Some vapors are vented 

when the storage tank exceeds a 

specified pressure threshold, however 

the Stage I vapor recovery systems 

greatly reduce the possibility of these 

displaced vapors being released into the 

atmosphere. 

Stage I vapor recovery systems have 

been in place since the 1970s. EPA has 

issued the following guidance regarding 

Stage I systems: ‘‘Design Criteria for 

Stage I Vapor Control Systems— 

Gasoline Service Stations’’ (November 

1975, EPA Online Publication 

450R75102), which is regarded as the 

control techniques guideline (CTG) for 

the control of VOC emissions from this 

source category; and the EPA document 

‘‘Model Volatile Organic Compound 

Rules for Reasonably Available Control 

Technology’’ (Staff Working Draft, June 

1992) contains a model Stage I 

regulation. 

In more recent years, the California 

Air Resources Board (CARB) has 

required Stage I vapor recovery systems 

capable of achieving vapor control 

efficiencies higher than those achieved 

by traditional systems. These systems 

are commonly referred to as Enhanced 

Vapor Recovery (EVR) systems. 

II. Summary of Massachusetts’ SIP 

Revision 

The Massachusetts Stage II vapor 

recovery program requirements, 

codified in 310 Code of Massachusetts 

Regulations (CMR) 7.24(6), Dispensing 

of Motor Vehicle Fuel, were initially 

approved into the Massachusetts SIP on 

December 14, 1992 (57 FR 58993). 

Massachusetts’ rule required gasoline 

dispensing facilities throughout the 

state to install Stage II vapor recovery 

systems. 

On May 5, 2015, Massachusetts 

submitted a SIP revision consisting of 

its revised 310 CMR 7.24(6), Dispensing 

of Motor Vehicle Fuel. This SIP revision 

includes regulatory amendments that 

allow GDFs to decommission their Stage 

II vapor recovery systems as of January 

2, 2015 and requires that all GDFs 

equipped with Stage II vapor recovery 

systems, decommission their Stage II 

vapor recovery systems by January 2, 

2017. 

A Massachusetts GDF equipped with 

a Stage II vapor recovery system, and 

having an annual throughput of less 

than 500,000 gallons, may apply for an 

extension to decommission its Stage II 

vapor recovery system based on 

financial hardship or extenuating 

circumstances. Massachusetts DEP may 

grant an owner, lessee, operator or 

controller of a GDF making such 

request, an extension of up to two years 

after January 2, 2017. Any GDF 

receiving such an extension, is then 

required to continue to operate and 

maintain its Stage II vapor recovery 

systems in accordance with 

Massachusetts’ regulations, until the 

time when such Stage II vapor recovery 

system is ever decommissioned. 

Massachusetts’ May 5, 2015 SIP 

revision also includes amended 

regulation 310 CMR 7.24(3), Distribution 

of Motor Vehicle Fuel, which includes 

requirements for GDFs to upgrade their 

Stage I vapor recovery systems to CARBcertified Stage I EVR systems or a Stage 

I vapor recovery system composed of 

EVR system components (Stage I EVR 

component systems). As of January 2, 

2015, a Stage I EVR system or a Stage 


Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
12442 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 46 / Wednesday, March 9, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

2Air Program Support for Stage I and Stage II 

Programs in Massachusetts Final Report, Eastern 

Research Group, Inc. and de la Torre-Klausmeier 

Consulting, December 12, 2012, includes an 

analysis of vehicle registration data, from the 

Massachusetts motor vehicle inspection and 

maintenance program database, illustrating that 

76% of motor vehicles inspected in 2011 

throughout Massachusetts had ORVR controls. This 

is much more accelerated than EPA’s end of 2011 

calendar year national estimate of 67.1% of vehicles 

in the national motor vehicle fleet are equipped 

with ORVR. 

3 Ibid. In 2013, 84.9% of gasoline dispensed in 

Massachusetts was dispensed to ORVR-equipped 

vehicles. This is slightly more accelerated than 

EPA’s end of 2013 calendar year national estimate 

of 81.0% of fuel dispensed to ORVR-equipped 

vehicles. 

4EPA’s most recent approval of 310 CMR 7.24(3) 

was on September 3, 1999 (see 64 FR 48297). 

I EVR component system is required 

upon facility start-up for facilities 

beginning operation. Also as of January 

2, 2015, any component of a pre-existing 

Stage I vapor recovery system that is 

replaced, is required to be replaced with 

a CARB-certified Stage I EVR 

component. The Massachusetts 

regulations further require that all Stage 

I systems be CARB-certified Stage I EVR 

systems or Stage I EVR component 

systems by January 2, 2022 (seven years 

from the effective date of these amended 

regulations). Furthermore, the revised 

Stage I regulations require GDFs with a 

monthly throughput of 100,000 gallons 

or more to maintain Stage I systems that 

meet the same management practices 

required by EPA’s National Emissions 

Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants 

(NESHAP) for Source Category: Gasoline 

Dispensing Facilities, 40 CFR part 63, 

subpart CCCCCC. 

In addition, Massachusetts’ May 5, 

2015 SIP revision also includes new and 

amended definitions in 310 CMR 7.00, 

Air Pollution Control, that relate to 

Stage I and Stage II vapor recovery 

systems and includes minor clarifying 

amendments to 310 CMR 7.24(4), Motor 

Vehicle Fuel Tank Trucks. 

The May 5, 2015 SIP revision also 

includes a narrative demonstration 

supporting the discontinuation of the 

Massachusetts Stage II vapor recovery 

program. This demonstration consists of 

an analysis that the Stage II vapor 

recovery controls provide only de 

minimis emission reductions due to the 

prevalence of ORVR-equipped vehicles. 

III. EPA’s Evaluation of Massachusetts’ 

SIP Revision 

EPA has reviewed Massachusetts 

revised 310 CMR 7.00, 7.24(3), 7.24(4), 

and 7.24(6) regulations, as well as the 

accompanying SIP narrative, and has 

concluded that Massachusetts’ May 5, 

2015 SIP revision is consistent with 

EPA’s widespread use rule (77 FR 

28772; May 16, 2012) and EPA’s 

‘‘Guidance on Removing Stage II 

Gasoline Vapor Control Programs from 

State Implementation Plans and 

Assessing Comparable Measures’’ (EPA– 

457/B–12–001; August 7, 2012), 

hereafter referred to as EPA’s Guidance 

Document. 

Massachusetts’ May 5, 2015 SIP 

revision includes a CAA section 

184(b)(2) ‘‘comparable measures’’ 

demonstration and a CAA section 110(l) 

anti-back sliding demonstration based 

on equations in EPA’s Guidance 

Document. According to these 

calculations, the potential loss of 

refueling emission reductions from 

removing Stage II vapor recovery 

systems in 2013 is 5.12 percent, thus 

meeting the 10 percent de minimis 

recommendation in EPA’s Guidance 

Document. The fact that the 

Massachusetts’ demonstration is based 

on 2013, while the regulation allows 

decommissioning of Stage II systems 

beginning in 2015, represents a 

conservative estimate as the potential 

loss of emission reductions decreases 

over time as more and more ORVR 

systems are phased-in. 

In addition, Massachusetts’ May 5, 

2015 SIP revision also includes 

calculations illustrating that the overall 

emissions effect of removing the Stage II 

vapor recovery program would be an 

increase of about 463 tons of VOC in 

2013. EPA’s 2011 National Emissions 

Inventory database, Version 2, 

illustrates that Massachusetts’ statewide 

anthropogenic VOC emissions were 

about 147,213 tons (see www.epa.gov/ 

ttn/chief/net/2011inventory.html). 

Therefore the 463 annual tons of VOC 

emissions increase calculated by 

Massachusetts are only about 0.3 

percent of the total anthropogenic VOC 

emissions in Massachusetts. Also, as 

noted above, these foregone emissions 

reductions in the near term continue to 

diminish rapidly over time as ORVR 

phase-in continues. Thus, EPA believes 

that the resulting temporary increases in 

VOC emissions will not interfere with 

attainment or maintenance of the ozone 

National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

(NAAQS). 

Furthermore, Appendix Table A–1 of 

EPA’s Guidance Document illustrates 

that by the end of 2016 (Massachusetts’ 

requires that all GDFs decommission 

their Stage II vapor recovery systems by 

January 2, 2017), about 85% of the 

vehicles in the national motor vehicle 

fleet will be equipped with ORVR. The 

number of ORVR-equipped vehicles in 

Massachusetts will likely be even higher 

due to Massachusetts having a more 

accelerated motor vehicle fleet turnover 

when compared to the national motor 

vehicle fleet.2 Appendix Table A–1 of 

EPA’s Guidance Document also 

illustrates that by the end of 2016, 

almost 89% of gasoline dispensed 

nationally will be to ORVR-equipped 

vehicles, which is also likely to be 

higher in Massachusetts due to a newer 

motor vehicle fleet.3 At that point in 

time, since a vast majority of 

Massachusetts vehicles being refueled at 

gasoline dispensing facilities will be 

equipped with ORVR systems, the 

ORVR systems will be controlling the 

VOC emissions, making Stage II vapor 

recovery systems a redundant, and 

potentially incompatible, emissions 

control technology in Massachusetts. 

Therefore, removing the Stage II systems 

is not expected to result in a significant 

emissions increase, but is expected to 

avoid emissions increases resulting from 

the incompatibility of some Stage II 

systems with ORVR controls. 

With respect to Stage I vapor recovery 

requirements, Massachusetts’ revised 

regulation 310 CMR 7.24(3) is more 

stringent than the previously approved 

version of the rule,4 thus meeting the 

CAA section 110(l) anti-back sliding 

requirements. As noted above, the 

revised rule requires upgrades to a 

CARB-certified EVR Stage I system or a 

Stage I system made up of EVR 

components by January 2, 2022, with an 

earlier January 2, 2015 compliance date 

in the case of a new facility or when 

system components are being replaced. 

CARB-certified Stage I EVR systems 

have been certified to achieve a 98 

percent reduction in VOC emissions, as 

compared to 95 percent for pre-EVR 

Stage I systems. Thus, when pre-EVR 

Stage I systems in Massachusetts are 

replaced with CARB-certified Stage I 

EVR systems, a greater emission 

reduction will be achieved. Also, when 

a component of a pre-EVR Stage I 

systems is replaced with a CARBcertified Stage I EVR component, a 

somewhat greater reduction is expected 

to be achieved. These additional 

reductions will further mitigate any 

temporary declining emissions 

increases, which are already de 

minimis, resulting from removal of 

Stage II vapor recovery systems. 

Finally, we note that the 

Massachusetts regulation contains the 

following language: ‘‘The provisions 

and requirements of 310 CMR 7.24(3)(a) 

and (b) are subject to the enforcement 

provisions specified in 310 CMR 7.52.’’ 

EPA notes that this language, which also 

appears in other parts of the State’s 

regulation with respect to enforcement 

of other specific regulatory provisions, 

and which EPA is proposing to approve 

into the Massachusetts SIP, is not 


Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 46 / Wednesday, March 9, 2016 / Proposed Rules 12443 

intended to, and does not as a matter of 

law, preclude enforcement of the SIP 

provisions in question through any 

other means authorized by federal law, 

including, but not limited to, the CAA. 

IV. Proposed Action 

EPA is proposing to approve 

Massachusetts’ May 5, 2015 SIP 

revision. Specifically, EPA is proposing 

to approve Massachusetts revised 

regulations 310 CMR 7.24(3), 

Distribution of Motor Vehicle Fuel, 310 

CMR 7.24(4), Motor Vehicle Fuel Tank 

Trucks, and 310 CMR 7.24(6), 

Dispensing of Motor Vehicle Fuel, as 

well as new and revised definitions, in 

310 CMR 7.00, Air Pollution Control, 

that relate to Stage I and Stage II vapor 

recovery systems, and incorporate these 

regulations into the Massachusetts SIP. 

EPA is proposing to approve this SIP 

revision because it meets all applicable 

requirements of the CAA and EPA 

guidance, and it will not interfere with 

any applicable requirement concerning 

NAAQS attainment and reasonable 

further progress or with any other 

applicable requirement of the Clean Air 

Act. 

Massachusetts’ May 5, 2015 SIP 

revision satisfies the ‘‘comparable 

measures’’ requirement of CAA section 

184(b)(2), because as stated in EPA’s 

Guidance Document, ‘‘the comparable 

measures requirement is satisfied if 

phasing out a Stage II control program 

in a particular area is estimated to have 

no, or a de minimis, incremental loss of 

area-wide emissions control.’’ As noted 

above, Massachusetts’ SIP revision met 

de minimis criteria outlined in EPA’s 

Guidance Document. In addition, since 

the resulting temporary emissions 

increase from the removal of Stage II 

controls are de minimis, the anti-back 

sliding requirements of CAA section 

110(l) have also been satisfied. 

EPA is soliciting public comments on 

the issues discussed in this document or 

on other relevant matters. These 

comments will be considered before 

taking final action. Interested parties 

may participate in the Federal 

rulemaking procedure by submitting 

written comments to this proposed rule 

by following the instructions listed in 

the ADDRESSES section of this Federal 

Register. 

V. Incorporation by Reference 

In this rule, the 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, the EPA is 

proposing to incorporate by reference 

Massachusetts’ 310 CMR 7.00, Air 

Pollution Control: Definitions; 310 CMR 

7.24(3), Distribution of Motor Vehicle 

Fuel; 310 CMR 7.24(4), Motor Vehicle 

Fuel Tank Trucks; and 310 CMR 7.24(6) 

Dispensing of Motor Vehicle Fuel. The 

EPA has made, and will continue to 

make, these documents generally 

available electronically through http:// 

www.regulations.gov and at the 

appropriate EPA office (see the 

ADDRESSES section of this preamble for 

more information). 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the Clean Air Act, the 

Administrator is required to approve a 

SIP submission that complies with the 

provisions of the Act and applicable 

Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 

40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP 

submissions, EPA’s role is to approve 

state choices, provided that they meet 

the criteria of the Clean Air Act. 

Accordingly, this proposed action 

merely approves 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 Order 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 Clean Air Act; 

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 and 

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 

substantial 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, Carbon monoxide, 

Incorporation by reference, 

Intergovernmental relations, Lead, 

Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate 

matter, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile 

organic compounds. 

Dated: February 19, 2016. 

Deborah A. Szaro, 

Acting Regional Administrator, EPA New 

England. 

[FR Doc. 2016–05027 Filed 3–8–16; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Motor Carrier Safety 

Administration 

49 CFR Part 395 

[Docket No. FMCSA–2015–0489] 

Commercial Driver’s License 

Standards: Application for Exemption; 

State of Idaho, Idaho Transportation 

Department (ITD) 

AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety 

Administration (FMCSA), DOT. 

ACTION: Notice of application for 

exemption; request for comments. 

SUMMARY: FMCSA announces that the 

Division of Motor Vehicles, Idaho 

Transportation Department (ITD), has 

applied for an exemption from 

provisions of 49 CFR 383.75(a)(8)(v) that 

require third-party commercial driver 

license (CDL) testers to initiate and 

maintain a bond in an amount 

determined by the State to be sufficient 

to pay for re-testing drivers in the event 

that the third party or one or more of its 

examiners is involved in fraudulent 

activities related to conducting skills 

testing of CDL applicants. FMCSA 

requests public comment on IDT’s 

application for exemption. 


Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS