[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 86 (Monday, May 5, 1997)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 24341-24343]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-11633]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[MI50-01-7257; FRL-5819-5]


Promulgation of Reid Vapor Pressure Standard; Michigan

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: In this action, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is 
approving a revision to the Michigan State Implementation Plan (SIP) 
establishing a summertime gasoline Reid vapor pressure (RVP) limit of 
7.8 pounds per square inch (psi) for gasoline sold in Wayne, Oakland, 
Macomb, Washtenaw, Livingston, St. Clair, and Monroe counties in 
Michigan (Detroit--Ann Arbor consolidated metropolitan statistical area 
(CMSA)). The marketing of less volatile gasoline

[[Page 24342]]

reduces excessive evaporation of fuel during the summer months. 
Evaporated gasoline combines with other pollutants on hot summer days 
to form ground-level ozone, commonly referred to as smog. Ozone 
pollution is of particular concern because of its harmful effects on 
lung tissue and breathing passages.
    On August 30, 1996, the EPA published a Notice of Proposed 
Rulemaking (NPRM) proposing to approve the SIP revision. During the 
comment period EPA received comments from one commentator, which were 
adverse.
    This document summarizes the comments received, EPA's responses and 
finalizes the approval of Michigan's SIP revision to establish a RVP 
limit of 7.8 psi for gasoline sold in the Detroit--Ann Arbor CMSA.

EFFECTIVE DATE: This rule will become effective on May 5, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Copies of the documents relevant to this action are 
available at the below address for public inspection during normal 
business hours.
    United States Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, Air and 
Radiation Division, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), 77 West Jackson 
Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois, 60604.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Brad J. Beeson at (312) 353-4779.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    In April 1995, the Detroit-Ann Arbor CMSA was redesignated as an 
attainment area for ozone. At the time the area was redesignated to 
attainment, EPA approved, as a revision to the Michigan SIP, 
contingency measures including a 7.8 psi RVP fuels program. During the 
summer of 1995 monitors in the Detroit-Ann Arbor CMSA recorded several 
violations of the ozone standard. Therefore, the State is required to 
implement an ozone contingency measure.
    On January 6, 1996, Michigan Governor John Engler sent a letter to 
EPA advising EPA the State had selected the 7.8 psi (low-RVP) fuels 
program as one of the contingency measures to be implemented in the 
Detroit area. On May 16, 1996, the State submitted the low-RVP portion 
of their fuels program to EPA for approval. The program would require 
gasoline sold in the Detroit-Ann Arbor CMSA to a standard of 7.8 psi 
from June 1 to September 15. See 61 FR 45926 (August 30, 1996) for 
further details of the program. The EPA reviewed the SIP revision 
submitted by the State to determine completeness in accordance with the 
completeness criteria set out at 40 CFR Part 51, Appendix V (1991), as 
amended by 57 FR 42216 (August 26, 1991). On May 24, 1996, EPA found 
the State's SIP submittal complete.
    State governments are preempted under Section 211(c)(4)(A) of the 
Clean Air Act from mandating a gasoline volatility standard not 
identical to any Federal standard promulgated under Section 211(c)(1) 
that is applicable to the same characteristic. However, under Section 
211(c)(4)(C) a State can require, through a SIP revision, a more 
stringent RVP standard for a particular area if the EPA finds that the 
more stringent standard is necessary to achieve the National Ambient 
Air Quality Standard for ozone. The EPA can approve a preempted state 
fuel requirement as necessary; only if no other measures would bring 
about timely attainment, or if other measures exist but are 
unreasonable or impracticable. In addition to demonstrating necessity 
as part of the Section 211(c)(4)(C) waiver process, under Section 110 
the State must also submit an adequate description of the low-RVP 
program and associated enforcement procedures. If EPA finds that a 
State has shown necessity and has provided an adequate description of 
the program, EPA may approve the SIP revision requiring the lower State 
RVP standard for the selected areas.
    On August 30, 1996, EPA proposed approval of the State's SIP 
revision to establish a low-RVP program in the Detroit-Ann Arbor CMSA. 
As detailed in the proposed approval at 61 FR 45926, EPA found the 
State's demonstration sufficient to satisfy the necessity requirement 
of Section 211(c)(4)(C) of the Act. Additionally, EPA found that the 
State's description of the program and associated enforcement 
procedures were sufficient for approval.

II. Public Comment and EPA Response

    During the comment period comments were received from only one 
commentator. The following summarizes each comment and provides EPA's 
response.

Comment

    The first comment questioned whether implementation of a low-RVP 
program alone would be sufficient to reduce ozone and ozone precursor 
emissions in the Detroit-Ann Arbor area. In support of this position, 
the commentator cites recent air quality monitoring data showing 
exceedances of the 120 parts per billion one-hour standard. The data 
includes ozone monitoring values from monitors in Detroit as well as 
Southern Ontario, Canada, which is directly downwind of Detroit.

EPA Response

    The State is obligated under its maintenance plan to implement 
further emission control measures if the low-RVP program is not 
effective in reducing violations of the ozone standard. Implementation 
of a low-RVP program was only one of several measures the State has in 
its contingency plan. Therefore, there are other measures in the 
State's contingency plan which could be and must be implemented if the 
low-RVP program is not effective.

Comment

    The last comment concerns whether consensus was reached by the 
Michigan Contingency Measure Workgroup in selecting a low-RVP program 
as a contingency measure. The commentator states that ``the workgroup 
which was convened to consider and select contingency measures did not 
result in consensus recommendations.''

EPA Response

    Websters' Dictionary defines consensus as a general agreement, or a 
judgment arrived at by most of those concerned. In the recommendation 
section of the Workgroup's final report a low-RVP program is listed as 
one of the recommended contingency measures. The report further states 
that most of the participants concurred with recommended contingency 
measures. While the recommendation for a low-RVP program was not 
unanimous, the recommendation was clearly supported by a majority of 
the Workgroup. The EPA concludes that the Workgroup reached consensus 
on the recommendation of low-RVP as a contingency measure.

III. Action

    The EPA is approving a revision to Michigan's SIP to establish a 
summertime gasoline RVP limit of 7.8 psi for gasoline sold in Wayne, 
Oakland, Macomb, Washtenaw, Livingston, St. Clair, and Monroe counties.

IV. Administrative Requirements

A. Applicability to Future SIP Decisions

    Nothing in this action should be construed as permitting, allowing 
or establishing a precedent for any future request for revision to any 
SIP. The EPA shall consider each request for revision to the SIP in 
light of specific technical, economic, and environmental factors and in 
relation to relevant statutory and regulatory requirements.

[[Page 24343]]

B. Executive Order 12866

    This action has been classified as a Table 3 action for signature 
by the Regional Administrator under the procedures published in the 
Federal Register on January 19, 1989 (54 FR 2214-2225), as revised by a 
July 10, 1995 memorandum from Mary Nichols, Assistant Administrator for 
Air and Radiation. The Office of Management and Budget has exempted 
this regulatory action from E.O. 12866 review.

C. Regulatory Flexibility

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 600 et seq., the EPA 
must prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis assessing the impact of 
any proposed or final rule on small entities (5 U.S.C. 603 and 604). 
Alternatively, EPA may certify that the rule will not have a 
significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small 
entities include small businesses, small not-for-profit enterprises, 
and government entities with jurisdiction over populations of less than 
50,000.
    This approval does not create any new requirements, but simply 
approves pre-existing requirements under state law. Therefore, I 
certify that this action does not have a significant impact on any 
small entities affected. Moreover, due to the nature of the Federal-
State relationship under the Act, preparation of the regulatory 
flexibility analysis would constitute Federal inquiry into the economic 
reasonableness of the State action. The Act forbids EPA to base its 
actions concerning SIPs on such grounds. Union Electric Co. v. EPA, 427 
U.S. 246, 256-66 (1976).

D. Unfunded Mandates

    Under Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 
(``Unfunded Mandates Act''), signed into law on March 22, 1995, EPA 
must prepare a budgetary impact statement to accompany any proposed or 
final rule that includes a Federal mandate that may result in estimated 
costs to state, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate; or to 
the private sector, of $100 million or more. Under Section 205, EPA 
must select the most cost-effective and least burdensome alternative 
that achieves the objectives of the rule and is consistent with 
statutory requirements. Section 203 requires EPA to establish a plan 
for informing and advising any small governments that may be 
significantly or uniquely impacted by the rule.
    This Federal action approves pre-existing requirements under state 
or local law, and imposes no new Federal requirements. Accordingly, no 
additional costs to state, local, or tribal governments, or the private 
sector, result from this action.

E. Petitions for Judicial Review

    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Act, petitions for judicial review 
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for 
the appropriate circuit by July 7, 1997. Filing a petition for 
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect 
the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial review, nor does 
it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be 
filed and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. 
This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its 
requirements (see section 307(b)(2)).

F. Submission to Congress and the General Accounting Office

    Under 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A) as added by the Small Business 
Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, EPA submitted a report 
containing this rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate, 
the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the 
General Accounting Office prior to publication of the rule in the 
Federal Register. This rule is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 
U.S.C. 804(2).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Hydrocarbons, 
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Ozone, 
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: April 4, 1997.
Valdas V. Adamkus,
Regional Administrator.

    Part 52, Chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is 
amended as follows:

PART 52--[AMENDED]

    1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q.

Subpart X--Michigan

    2. Section 52.1170 is amended by adding paragraph (c)(108) to read 
as follows:


Sec. 52.1170  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (108) On May 16, 1996, the State of Michigan submitted a revision 
to the Michigan State Implementation Plan (SIP). This revision is for 
the purpose of establishing a gasoline Reid vapor pressure (RVP) limit 
of 7.8 pounds per square inch (psi) for gasoline sold in Wayne, 
Oakland, Macomb, Washtenaw, Livingston, St. Clair, and Monroe counties 
in Michigan.
    (i) Incorporation by reference.
    (A) House Bill No. 4898; signed and effective November 13, 1993.
    (B) Michigan Complied Laws, Motor Fuels Quality Act, Chapter 290, 
Sections 642, 643, 645, 646, 647, and 649; all effective November 13, 
1993.
    (C) Michigan Complied Laws, Weights and Measures Act of 1964, 
Chapter 290, Sections 613, 615; all effective August 28, 1964.
    (ii) Additional materials.
    (A) Letter from Michigan Governor John Engler to Regional 
Administrator Valdas Adamkus, dated January 5, 1996.
    (B) Letter from Michigan Director of Environmental Quality Russell 
Harding to Regional Administrator Valdas Adamkus, dated May 14, 1996.
    (C) State report titled ``Evaluation of Air Quality Contingency 
Measures for Implementation in Southeast Michigan,'' submitted to the 
EPA on May 14, 1996.

[FR Doc. 97-11633 Filed 5-2-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P