[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 132 (Tuesday, July 9, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 35960-35962]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-17318]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 80
[FRL-5532-6]
RIN 2060-AD27
Regulation of Fuels and Fuel Additives; Standards for
Reformulated Gasoline
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Petition for reconsideration; request for comment.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: EPA requests comment on a petition submitted to EPA by the
American Petroleum Institute (API). The petition, submitted pursuant to
section 553(e) of the Administrative Procedure Act, requests
reconsideration of the Phase II reformulated gasoline reduction
standard for oxides of nitrogen (NOX).
DATES: Comments must be received on or before September 9, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Interested parties may submit written comments (in
triplicate, if possible) to: EPA Air and Radiation Docket, Attention
Docket No. A-96-27, room M-1500 (mail code 6102), 401 M St., SW,
Washington, D.C. 20460. The docket may be inspected at this location
from 8:30 a.m. until 5:30 p.m. weekdays. The docket may also be reached
by telephone at (202) 260-7548. As provided in 40 CFR part 2, a
reasonable fee may be charged by EPA for photocopying.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Debbie Wood, Office of Mobile Sources,
Fuels and Energy Division, (202) 233-9000.
[[Page 35961]]
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Introduction and Background
On February 16, 1994, EPA published a final rule establishing
emission reduction and other performance standards for reformulated
gasoline (RFG), including provisions for the certification of RFG and
enforcement of RFG standards, and establishing certain requirements
regarding unreformulated or conventional gasoline (59 FR 7716). The
purpose of the RFG program is to improve air quality by requiring that
gasoline be reformulated to reduce emissions from motor vehicles of
toxics and tropospheric ozone-forming compounds, as specified by
section 211(k)(1) of the Clean Air Act (CAA or the Act). Section 211(k)
mandates that RFG be sold in the nine largest metropolitan areas with
the most severe summertime ozone levels; RFG must also be sold in other
ozone nonattainment areas that choose to participate or ``opt in'' to
the program. The Act further prohibits conventional gasoline sold in
the rest of the country from becoming any more polluting than it was in
1990 by requiring that each refiner's and importer's gasoline be as
clean, on average, as it was in 1990; this statutory prohibition has
resulted in requirements referred to as the ``anti-dumping'' program.
The Act mandates certain requirements for the RFG program. Section
211(k)(1) directs EPA to issue regulations that:
* * * require the greatest reduction in emissions of ozone forming
volatile organic compounds (during the high ozone season) and
emissions of toxic air pollutants (during the entire year)
achievable through the reformulation of conventional gasoline,
taking into consideration the cost of achieving such emission
reductions, any nonair-quality and other air-quality related health
and environmental impacts and energy requirements.
Section 211(k)(3) specifies the minimum requirement for reduction of
volatile organic compounds (VOC) and toxics for 1995 through 1999, or
Phase I of the RFG program; the section specifies that EPA must require
the more stringent of a formula fuel or an emission reduction
performance standard, measured on a mass basis, equal to 15 percent of
baseline emissions. Baseline emissions are the emissions of 1990 model
year technology vehicles operated on a specified baseline gasoline.
Section 211(k)(2) compositional specifications for RFG include a 2.0
weight percent oxygen minimum and a 1.0 volume percent benzene maximum.
Section 211(k)(2) also specifies that NOX emissions may not
increase in RFG.
For the year 2000 and beyond, or Phase II of the RFG program, the
Act specifies that the VOC and toxics performance standards must be no
less than either a formula fuel or a 25 percent reduction from baseline
emissions, whichever is more stringent. EPA can adjust these standards
upward or downward taking into account such factors as feasibility and
cost, but in no case can they be less than 20 percent.
Shortly after passage of the CAA Amendments in 1990, EPA entered
into a regulatory negotiation with interested parties to develop
specific proposals for implementing both the RFG and anti-dumping
programs. In August 1991, the negotiating committee reached consensus
on a program outline, addressing emission content standards for Phase I
(1995-2000), emission models, certification, use of averaging and
credits, and other important program elements.
The regulatory negotiation conducted by EPA did not, however,
address Phase II VOC and toxics standards, nor did it address a
reduction in NOX emissions beyond the statutory cap imposed under
section 211(k)(2)(A). The final rule promulgated by EPA closely
followed the outline agreed to in the negotiated rulemaking. The final
rule also adopted a NOX reduction performance standard for Phase
II RFG, relying on authority under section 211(c)(1)(A).
In proposing and promulgating a NOX reduction standard, EPA
analyzed the costs and benefits, along with other relevant factors,
including EPA's view that NOX reductions are important to achieve
attainment of the ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS)
in many nonattainment areas. In the final rule, EPA discussed recent
studies which indicate that NOX control is an effective ozone
control strategy for the northeast as well as the Lake Michigan area
(59 FR 7751). EPA also noted that there are non-ozone benefits from
NOX control, such as reduced acid rain and improved visibility (59
FR 7751). In considering the feasibility of section 202 motor vehicle
controls prior to regulating fuels, EPA cited several reasons for the
promulgation of a NOX reduction standard (59 FR 7752): (1)
Significant emission reductions would be achieved right away, in the
summer of 2000, with no delay based on fleet turnover time. (2) A
NOX reduction standard for gasoline would act to reduce emissions
from all mobile sources that use gasoline, whether on-highway or
nonroad. (3) The fuel control is specifically aimed at areas of the
country that are in nonattainment for ozone, and is limited in time to
that part of the year when ozone is of most concern. (4) The expected
increase in vehicle miles traveled over time leads EPA to believe that
this fuel control is needed to continue to achieve the in-use NOX
emission reductions necessary for many areas of the country to reach
attainment for ozone. (5) The performance standard adopted minimizes
any concern that a fuel control could interfere in the production
process by directing refiners on how to make their product.
EPA estimates that the Phase II NOX emission reduction
standard of 6.8 percent on average will reduce summertime NOX
emissions from gasoline-powered mobile sources by approximately 22,000
tons annually. Cost-effectiveness is estimated at $5,000 per ton of
NOX reduction.
In December 1995, API submitted a petition to EPA requesting
reconsideration of the Phase II RFG NOX standard or, at a minimum,
suspension of the effective date of the standard. API bases its request
for reconsideration on three arguments: (1) The standard is
inconsistent with the CAA Amendments of 1990 and the 1991 negotiated
rulemaking. (2) Air quality benefits of the standard are overstated.
(3) The standard is not a cost-effective strategy for ozone control.
These arguments were also submitted to EPA by API as comments during
the RFG rulemaking; the final rule preamble discusses these arguments
and explains EPA's reasons for promulgating the NOX reduction
standard (see 59 FR 7716, 7744-7756).
An initial review of the API petition indicates that it presents no
compelling new evidence or argument that would warrant revisiting the
decision made in promulgating the Phase II NOX reduction standard.
However, to ensure that our conclusions on the appropriateness of the
NOX reduction standard remain well-founded, EPA will review any
relevant and available new information on costs and benefits that has
been developed since promulgation of the final rule. EPA solicits
comment on the issues raised in the petition. The arguments presented
in the API petition are summarized below. A complete copy of the API
petition may be found in the docket for this notice.
II. Summary of API Petition
A. Consistency With CAA and Negotiated Rulemaking
API's first argument is that EPA's Phase II RFG NOG5X standard is
inconsistent with the CAA Amendments of 1990 and the 1991 negotiated
rulemaking. API cites provisions of the Act that specifically require
reductions in various pollutants, and contrasts that
[[Page 35962]]
with the ``no NOX increase'' approach taken toward RFG in section
211(k). API also notes that the 1991 negotiated rulemaking agreement
does not address a Phase II NOX reduction, and that the focus of
debate was whether de minimis increases in NOX would satisfy the
no NOX increase standard. For discussion of these arguments in the
RFG final rule, see, for example, 59 FR 7744-7745.
B. Air Quality Benefits
API's second argument is that the ozone benefits of the Phase II
RFG NOX standard are overstated. API argues that the primary basis
for the Phase II NOX standard is ozone attainment, and cites data
from EPA's Trends Report (U.S. EPA, National Air Quality and Emissions
Trends Report 1993, EPA 454/R-94-026, October 1994 at 6.) that progress
toward ozone attainment has been made. API also notes that the Act
imposes substantial obligations on states to attain ozone standards.
API claims that in promulgating the Phase II RFG NOX standard,
EPA emphasized those parts of studies (such as Rethinking the Ozone
Problem in Urban and Regional Air Pollution, National Research Council,
National Academy Press, Washington, D.C. 1991) that showed NOX to
be an effective ozone control strategy, while discounting those which
indicate that NOX control can be counterproductive.
API discusses EPA's authority under CAA section 182 to grant
waivers from certain CAA local NOX reduction requirements. The
petition states that the section 182(f) waiver requirement recognizes
that local NOX reductions may not be necessary or helpful to
attainment of the ozone standard. Although the overwhelming majority of
section 182(f) waivers have been granted because additional NOX
reductions are not needed for attainment of the ozone NAAQS, the
petition notes that, in a few cases, photochemical modeling has
indicated that increased NOX reductions may exacerbate peak ozone
in an urban core. The petition cites three cases where modeling has
shown that increased NOX reductions may exacerbate peak ozone
concentrations: Chicago, Milwaukee, and Houston, three of the nine
cities required to use RFG. API notes the conditional nature of section
182(f) waivers.
API argues that given continued progress toward ozone NAAQS
attainment, imposition of Phase II NOX reductions applicable in
all RFG areas is ``plainly incongruous'' with the granting of waivers
under section 182(f). API also argues that EPA's claim that air quality
benefits in addition to reduced ozone will result from the Phase II
NOX standard (e.g., less acid rain, reduced nitrate deposition,
and improved visibility), is speculative. These arguments are discussed
in the RFG final rule at, for example, 59 FR 7746 and 7751.
C. Cost-effectiveness
API argues that EPA has understated the impact of the Phase II
NOX reduction standard on costs and refiner flexibility. API
claims that if more accurate sulfur removal (``desulfurization'') costs
were employed, EPA's cost per ton of NOX removed would increase to
over $10,000. Moreover, API argues that EPA's cost effectiveness
analysis does not take into account that NOX reductions in some
areas do not contribute to ozone attainment; API claims that if the
benefit of NOX reductions in Chicago, Milwaukee and Houston, which
have been granted conditional section 182(f) waivers, is reduced to
zero or less, EPA's cost-effectiveness estimate would rise from $5,000
to $7,500 per ton.
API also argues that EPA should have included a more extensive
array of stationary source NOX control measures that compare
favorably to EPA's cost-effectiveness estimate, particularly if that
estimate is changed in light of API's arguments on desulfurization
costs and reduced ozone benefits.
Finally, API argues that major stationary sources offer more
potential for overall reduction in air pollution, and that the cost-
effectiveness of Phase II NOX controls is higher than stationary
combustion sources with lower potential for overall NOX reduction.
API argues that, unlike mobile source control, major stationary source
control can be targeted to avoid the cost of NOX control where it
is not needed and any adverse effect on ozone because of atmospheric
chemistry. API's arguments are discussed in the RFG final rule at, for
example, 59 FR 7752-7754.
III. Request for Comment
EPA requests comment on all the issues raised in API's petition for
reconsideration. EPA is also interested in the potential impact of a
delay in implementation or elimination of the Phase II RFG NOX
standard on state implementation plans for attaining compliance with
the ozone NAAQS. EPA solicits new information on costs and air quality
benefits associated with the Phase II RFG NOX reduction standard,
including non-ozone air quality benefits.
IV. Conclusion
After considering all public comments and any other relevant
information available to EPA, the agency will make a decision regarding
API's petition for reconsideration.
Dated: June 28, 1996.
Mary D. Nichols,
Assistant Administrator, Office of Air and Radiation.
[FR Doc. 96-17318 Filed 7-8-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P