[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 27 (Tuesday, February 10, 1998)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 6653-6659]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-3327]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[AZ 071-009; FRL-5957-4]
Approval and Promulgation of State Implementation Plans;
Arizona--Maricopa County Ozone and PM10 Nonattainment Areas
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: EPA is taking final action approving a State Implementation
Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the State of Arizona on September 15,
1997, establishing Cleaner Burning Gasoline (CBG) fuel requirements for
gasoline distributed in the Phoenix (Maricopa County) ozone
nonattainment area. Arizona has developed these fuel requirements to
reduce emissions of volatile organic compounds (VOC) and particulates
(PM10) in accordance with the requirements of the Clean Air
Act (CAA). EPA is approving Arizona's fuel requirements into the
Arizona SIP because either they are not preempted by federal fuels
requirements, or to the extent that they are or may be preempted, EPA
finds that the requirements are necessary for the Maricopa area to
attain the national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) for ozone and
particulates. EPA intends to publish a separate document in the Federal
Register approving Arizona's opt-out from the federal reformulated
gasoline (RFG) program to be effective 90 days from the effective date
of this EPA final action.
DATES: This final rule is effective on March 12, 1998.
ADDRESSES: Copies of the SIP revision and EPA's proposed and final
[[Page 6654]]
rulemakings are available for public inspection at EPA's Region IX
office during normal business hours. Copies of the submitted rule
revisions are available for inspection at the following locations:
Planning Office (AIR-2), Air Division, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA
94105.
Arizona Department of Environmental Quality, Office of Outreach and
Information, First Floor, 3033 N. Central Avenue, Phoenix Arizona
85012.
A copy of this notice is also available on EPA Region IX's website
at http://www.epa.gov/region09.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Karina O'Connor, Air Planning Office,
AIR-2, Air Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX,
75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105, Telephone: (415) 744-
1247.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Clean Air Act Requirements
In determining the approvability of a SIP revision, EPA must
evaluate the SIP revision for consistency with the requirements of the
CAA and EPA regulations, as found in section 110 and part D of the CAA
and 40 CFR part 51 (Requirements for Preparation, Adoption, and
Submittal of Implementation Plans).
For SIP revisions addressing certain fuel measures, an additional
statutory requirement applies. CAA section 211(c)(4)(A) prohibits state
regulation respecting a fuel characteristic or component for which EPA
has adopted a control or prohibition under section 211(c)(1), unless
the state control is identical to the federal control. Section
211(c)(4)(C) provides an exception to this preemption if EPA approves
the state requirements in a SIP. Section 211(c)(4)(C) states that the
Administrator may approve preempted state fuel standards in a SIP:
. . . only if [s]he finds that the State control or prohibition is
necessary to achieve the national primary or secondary ambient air
quality standard which the plan implements. The Administrator may
find that a State control or prohibition is necessary to achieve
that standard if no other measures that would bring about timely
attainment exist, or if other measures exist and are technically
possible to implement, but are unreasonable or impracticable.
EPA's August 1997 Guidance on Use of Opt-in to RFG and Low RVP
Requirements in Ozone SIPs gives further guidance on what EPA is likely
to consider in making a finding of necessity.
Detailed discussions of the issues relating to federal preemption
and the necessity finding are discussed more fully in the proposal for
this final rule (62 FR 61942 (November 20, 1997)) and in section III
below.
II. Background
Under the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, the Phoenix area was
classified as a moderate nonattainment area for both ozone and
PM10. The moderate ozone attainment deadline was November
15, 1996; the moderate PM10 attainment deadline was December
31, 1994. In 1997, the Phoenix area was reclassified as serious for
ozone with an attainment deadline of no later than November 15, 1999.
In 1996, the Phoenix area was reclassified as serious for
PM10 with an attainment deadline of no later than December
31, 2001.1
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1 \ See 56 FR 56694 (November 6, 1991), CAA Sections 181(a)(1)
and 188(c)(1), 62 FR 60001 (November 6, 1997) and CAA Section
181(a)(1), 61 FR 21372 (May 10, 1996) and CAA Section 188(c)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On January 17, 1997, Governor Symington applied to EPA to include
the Maricopa County ozone nonattainment area in the federal
reformulated gasoline (RFG) program and the State submitted section 13
of HB 2001 to EPA as a SIP revision on April 29, 1997. Because this
State fuel requirement established a control on Reid Vapor Pressure
(RVP) of 7.0 psi, not identical to the federal fuel RVP requirements
adopted under section 211(c)(1) authority applicable to the area (i.e.,
federal conventional gasoline RVP limit of 7.8 psi, federal phase I RFG
RVP limit of 7.2 psi or federal phase II volatility limit of 7.8 psi),
Arizona's fuel requirement was preempted under section 211(c)(4)(A) of
the CAA. EPA approved Governor Symington's request to opt in to the
federal RFG program on June 3, 1997. 62 FR 30260. EPA also published a
direct final approval of Arizona's low RVP SIP revision on June 11,
1997. 62 FR 31734. In approving the RVP SIP revision, EPA found under
section 211(c)(4)(C) that the State's fuel requirement is necessary for
the Maricopa area to attain the NAAQS for ozone.
The State also enacted HB 2307 which authorized the establishment
of a more stringent State reformulated gasoline program.2
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ The State reformulated gasoline rules are codified in the
ARS as section 41-2124. Section 41-2123 of HB 2307 also contains
wintertime oxygenate requirements for fuels. The bill changed the
effective dates of the oxygenate requirements from October 15 to
November 15 through March 31 of each year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In a September 12, 1997, letter, Russell Rhoades, Director, ADEQ,
requested that EPA approve the CBG Interim Rule as a revision to the
Arizona SIP based in part on a waiver of preemption under CAA section
211(c)(4)(C). To allow the Arizona CBG program to substitute for the
federal RFG program, on September 15, 1997, the State also submitted a
separate letter to Administrator Browner, requesting to opt out of the
federal RFG program, effective June 1, 1998, contingent upon EPA
approval of the Arizona SIP revision and the associated waiver request.
Upon publication of this final approval of CBG Interim Rule, EPA will
publish a notice in the Federal Register approving Arizona's opt-out
from the federal RFG program.
For a more detailed discussion of the CBG program and EPA's
evaluation of it, and the history of fuels regulation in Arizona, see
EPA's proposed approval at 62 FR 61942.
III. Summary of Proposal
A. Arizona CBG Fuel Program
The State CBG fuel program for the Maricopa area establishes limits
on gasoline properties and gasoline emission standards which will
reduce emissions of volatile organic compounds (VOCs), oxides of
nitrogen (NOX), carbon monoxide (CO) and particulates (PM).
Under the program, a variety of different fuels will be able to meet
the fuel standards during different implementation periods. These
emissions reductions will help the Maricopa area attain the NAAQS for
both ozone and particulates.
On November 22, 1997, EPA proposed to approve the CBG SIP revision
submitted by the State of Arizona for the Phoenix ozone and
PM10 nonattainment areas under section 110(k)(3) of the CAA
as meeting the requirements of section 110(a) and part D. The proposed
approval was based upon the finding that the CBG SIP revision was
consistent with the CAA and EPA regulations and that the various CBG
requirements are either not preempted by federal fuel requirements or
are necessary for the Phoenix nonattainment area to attain the ozone
and PM10 NAAQS. Issues relating to federal preemption and
the necessity finding are discussed further below. See also 62 FR
61942.
B. Section 211(c)(4)
1. Federal Preemption
As discussed above, CAA section 211(c)(4)(A) preempts certain state
fuel regulations by prohibiting a state from prescribing or attempting
to enforce any control or prohibition respecting any characteristic or
component of a fuel or fuel additive for the purposes of motor
[[Page 6655]]
vehicle emission control, if the Administrator has prescribed under
section 211(c)(1), a control or prohibition applicable to such
characteristic or component of the fuel or fuel additive, unless the
state prohibition is identical to the prohibition or control prescribed
by the Administrator.
The CBG Interim Rule establishes three types of gasoline standards.
For 1998, the requirements for CBG Types 2 and 3 gasoline 3
apply. In addition, all Arizona CBG must meet specified fuel property
limits for that year.4 For 1999 and beyond, the requirements
for CBG Types 1 and 2 gasoline would apply. In addition, all Arizona
CBG would have to meet the fuel property limits specified for that time
period.5 These proposed types of gasoline include
performance standards as well as requirements for specific fuel
parameters. EPA's analysis in the proposal of preemption addressed the
following standards in the CBG Interim Rule: performance standard for
NOX (under gasoline Types 1, 2, and 3); parameter
specifications for sulfur, olefins, and aromatic HC (under gasoline
Type 2); performance standard for VOC (under gasoline Types 1 and 3);
parameter specification for oxygen content (under gasoline Types 1 and
3); performance standard for HC (under Type 2); and parameter
specifications for oxygen, aromatic HC, T50, and T90 (under gasoline
Type 2).6
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Under the CBG program, a variety of different fuels will be
able to meet the fuel standards during different implementation
periods. The fuel types, designations and implementation schedule
are described in the proposal at 62 FR 61942-64923.
\4\ AAC R20-2-751.01.A.
\5\ AAC R20-2-751.A.
\6\ The CBG Type 2 gasoline allows refiners to comply with a
group of fuel parameter specifications or to meet performance
standards using the Predictive Model and set individual alternative
fuel parameter specifications.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To determine whether a state fuel requirement is preempted by a
federal requirement, EPA compares the applicable federal fuel
requirements in the area with the proposed state fuel requirements. For
the purposes of this analysis, the federal fuel requirement in the
Phoenix ozone nonattainment area is federal conventional gasoline.
While Arizona has opted into the federal RFG program for the 1997
season, the State has requested to opt out of the program before the
State CBG requirements would apply. Once the State has opted out of the
federal RFG program, the applicable federal requirements would be those
for conventional gasoline. The federal requirements for conventional
gasoline include a NOX performance standard. CBG Types 1 and
3 also contain a NOX performance standard, so the CBG
NOX performance standard is preempted. The CBG Interim Rule
would allow refiners to meet the requirements for Type 2 gasoline in
lieu of the requirements for CBG Type 1 or 3 gasoline. Whether the
specifications for CBG Type 2 are preempted is less clear. The CBG Type
2 specifications include performance standards for NOX and
requirements for the fuel parameters sulfur, olefins and aromatic HCs.
The federal conventional gasoline standards do not include requirements
for these specific parameters. However, refiners are required to use an
emissions performance model that determines NOX performance
based in part on these fuel parameters.
As stated in the proposal, in this rulemaking, EPA does not need to
determine whether these types of State fuel requirements are preempted
under section 211(c)(4)(A) prior to acting on the proposed revision to
the Arizona SIP. If the sulfur, olefins and aromatic HC requirements
are not preempted, there is no bar to EPA approving them as a SIP
revision. If they are preempted, section 211(c)(4)(C) would allow EPA
to approve each requirement in a SIP if EPA determines that such
controls are necessary to achieve the NAAQS that the SIP implements.
EPA can approve such a State SIP provision as necessary if it finds
that no other measures that would bring about timely attainment exist,
or that other measures exist but are unreasonable or impracticable.
Thus, if a State shows that the reductions that would be produced by
the State's NOX performance standard are necessary under
section 211(c)(4)(C) to achieve a NAAQS, EPA could approve the
NOX performance standard as a SIP revision. Under Type 1 or
3 CBG, refiners would obtain NOX reductions through a
NOX performance standard, and under Type 2 CBG, refiners
would obtain comparable NOX reductions through sulfur,
olefins and aromatic HC requirements. If EPA finds the NOX
reductions produced by the NOX performance standard under
CBG Types 1 and 3 to be necessary, then the comparable reductions
produced by the alternative of CBG Type 2 gasoline would also be
necessary. Thus, based on EPA's finding, discussed below and in the
proposal, that NOX reductions are necessary under section
211(c)(4)(C), EPA proposed to approve the sulfur, olefins and aromatic
HC requirements as well.
The CBG Interim Rule also requires refiners to meet a VOC
performance standard and oxygen content standard (under CBG Types 1 and
3 gasoline); or a HC performance standard and oxygen content standard;
or oxygen, T50, T90, and aromatic HC requirements (under CBG Type 2
gasoline) 7. Federal conventional gasoline requirements do
not include a VOC or HC performance standard or controls on these
specific parameters. However, refiners are required to meet summertime
volatility limits, and are required to use an emissions performance
model that determines VOC performance based in part on the same fuel
parameters as those used in the CBG Interim Rule. In this rulemaking,
EPA does not need to determine whether these types of state fuel
requirements are preempted under section 211(c)(4)(A) if EPA finds that
these fuel requirements are necessary for the Phoenix nonattainment
area to meet the ozone NAAQS. Of course, if these requirements are not
preempted, there is no bar to approving them as a SIP revision. If they
are preempted, section 211(c)(4)(C) would allow EPA to approve each
requirement in a SIP if EPA determines that such controls are necessary
to achieve the NAAQS that the SIP implements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Under gasoline Type 2 using the Predictive model, refiners
are required to meet the oxygen content standard only during the
winter months.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Each type of CBG gasoline would reduce VOC emissions. Under Type 1
or 3 CBG, refiners would obtain VOC reductions through a VOC
performance standard and oxygen content standard, and under Type 2 CBG,
refiners would obtain comparable VOC reductions through either a HC
performance standard and oxygen content standard; or through oxygen,
T50, T90, and aromatic HC requirements. If EPA finds the VOC reductions
produced by the VOC performance standard and oxygen content standard
under CBG Types 1 and 3 to be necessary, then the comparable reductions
produced by either of the alternatives of CBG Type 2 gasoline would
also be necessary. Thus, based on EPA's finding, discussed in the
proposal and below, that VOC reductions are necessary under section
211(c)(4)(C), EPA proposed to approve the HC performance standard; and
the oxygen, T50, T90, and aromatic HC requirements as well.
Arizona has already demonstrated that its 7.0 psi RVP requirement
is necessary under section 211(c)(4)(C) to meet the ozone NAAQS in the
Phoenix area.8 Compliance with either the VOC performance
standard and oxygen content standard; or the HC performance standard
and the oxygen standard; or the oxygen, T50, T90, and aromatic HC
requirements would produce some additional VOC
[[Page 6656]]
reductions beyond those produced by the 7.0 psi RVP requirement. As
with the NOX performance standard and the alternative fuel
parameter requirements discussed above, refiners would obtain
comparable VOC reductions through either the VOC performance standard
and oxygen content standard; the HC performance standard and the oxygen
content standard, or the oxygen, T50, T90, and aromatic HC
requirements. Thus, if EPA finds the VOC reductions produced by the VOC
performance standard and oxygen content standard under CBG Type 1 and 3
gasoline to be necessary, then the comparable emissions reductions
produced by the alternative of CBG Type 2 gasoline would also be
necessary. EPA proposed to approve the VOC performance standard; the HC
performance standard and the oxygen content standard; and the oxygen,
T50, T90, and aromatic HC requirements because either they are not
preempted under section 211(c)(4)(C) or to the extent that they are or
may be preempted, EPA proposed, as discussed below, that they are
necessary and hence approvable under section 211(c)(4)(C).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ See 62 FR 31734 (June 11, 1997).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Finding of Necessity
EPA proposed to find that the CBG NOX performance
standards and the sulfur, olefins and aromatic HC requirements are
necessary for the Phoenix PM10 nonattainment area to meet
the PM10 NAAQS; and that the CBG VOC performance standard
and oxygen content standard; the HC performance standard and the oxygen
content standard; and the oxygen, T50, T90, and aromatic HC
requirements are necessary for the Phoenix ozone nonattainment area to
meet the ozone NAAQS.
In the proposal, EPA explained its reasoning that to make a
determination that the CBG requirements are necessary, it must consider
whether there are other reasonable and practicable measures available
that would produce sufficient emissions reductions to attain the ozone
and PM10 standards without implementation of the CBG
requirements. In considering other measures for the purpose of
demonstrating necessity under section 211(c)(4)(C), EPA agreed in the
proposal that Arizona need not submit an evaluation of alternative
fuels measures. See the proposed approval of the CBG SIP revision at 62
FR 61942 and the response to comments below for a more detailed
discussion of this issue. Thus, to determine whether the State gasoline
VOC performance standards (and the HC performance standards; and the
oxygen, T50 and T90 requirements) are necessary to meet the ozone
NAAQS, EPA must consider whether there are other reasonable and
practicable non-fuel measures available to produce the needed emission
reductions for ozone control.
IV. Response to Public Comments on the Proposal
EPA received four comment letters in response to its November 22,
1997 proposal. Comments were received from the Arizona Department of
Environmental Quality and three gasoline marketers in Maricopa County:
Chevron Products Company, Mobil Oil Corporation, and Stancil & Co.
representing Navajo Refining Company. EPA wishes to express its
appreciation to each of these individuals and organizations for taking
the time to comment on the proposal. All of the commenters supported
approval of the CBG SIP revision, however two of the commenters also
raised technical concerns to which EPA responds below.
Comment: One commenter, while urging EPA to approve the SIP
revision, indicated that they disagreed with the CBG rule being
portrayed as an important control measure for PM10 in the
proposed rulemaking. The commenter noted that the emission reductions
associated with the NOX performance standard are small in
comparison to the total amount of the PM10 inventory.
Response: EPA agrees with the commenter that the associated
particulate emission reductions are only a small part of the entire
inventory. However, for the purposes of finding necessity under section
211(c)(4)(C), the CAA does not impose a legal criterion for approval of
a measure that depends on the magnitude of reductions that the measure
would achieve, and it is not critical whether the emission reductions
associated with the measure are large or small. Rather, section
211(c)(4)(C) focuses on whether there are other measures available that
would achieve attainment of a NAAQS. As described in the proposal for
this final rule (62 FR 61942, 61946), the information submitted by ADEQ
indicates that even with implementation of all measures that are
reasonable and practicable in light of the availability of the fuel
control, the state cannot fill the projected shortfall in emission
reductions needed for attainment of the PM10 NAAQS. Also,
while the effect of the NOX performance standard on
PM10 levels is small, the NOX performance
standard will reduce PM10. Hence, EPA is today finding that
the NOX performance standards in the CBG requirements are
necessary for attainment of the PM10 standard, and EPA is
approving them as a revision to the Arizona SIP for the Phoenix
PM10 nonattainment area.9
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ In its September 12, 1997 letter, ADEQ submitted
the CBG Interim Rule as a revision to the Arizona ozone SIP only.
However, on January 21, 1998 the State also submitted the rule as a
revision to the Arizona PM10 SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment: One commenter argued that the April 1--October 31
(``summertime'') minimum oxygen requirement for the RFG-type fuel (CBG
types 1 and 3 gasoline) should not be approved as part of the CBG
regulations. The commenter stated that the federal conventional
gasoline requirements do not include a summertime oxygen requirement,
so the State of Arizona is preempted from a summertime oxygen content
standard. The commenter added that if the State were preempted, the
State must make the necessity showing for a waiver under section
211(c)(4)(C).
Response: As stated above, EPA believes it does not need to address
in today's action whether a State requirement for oxygen is preempted
under section 211(c)(4)(A). If the standard is not preempted, there is
no bar to EPA approving it in the SIP revision. If the State meets the
requirement under section 211(c)(4)(C) by showing that the requirement
is necessary to meet the ozone NAAQS, EPA does not need to address
whether a summertime oxygen requirement is preempted. If the State
demonstrates that it needs a quantity of VOC reductions during the
ozone season to reach attainment, that there are no other reasonable
and practicable measures available to produce all of those reductions,
and that the fuel (Type 1 and Type 3 CBG gasoline requirements for VOC
performance standard and oxygen content standard) will produce
additional VOC reductions during the ozone season, the State has shown
necessity for the fuel requirement. EPA finds that Arizona has made
this showing, as discussed elsewhere in this notice and the proposal at
62 FR 61942.
In addition, EPA notes that the commenter is not accurate in
stating that because the federal conventional gasoline requirements do
not include a summertime oxygen content requirement the State is
preempted from adopting such a requirement. A state is preempted from
adopting a control or prohibition respecting a fuel characteristic or
component where EPA has prescribed under section 211(c)(1) a control or
prohibition applicable to such characteristic or component, unless the
state control or prohibition is identical to the federal control or
prohibition. Thus, where there is no federal control
[[Page 6657]]
or prohibition on a fuel characteristic or component, a state is not
preempted from adopting regulations respecting that characteristic or
component. As noted above, EPA has not determined whether the Arizona
fuel requirement is preempted under this provision.
Comment: This commenter further argued that the CBG summertime
oxygen requirement is both unreasonable and impracticable and therefore
not necessary to meet the ozone NAAQS. The commenter argued that the
intent of the Clean Air Act is that all non-fuel measures with similar
or lesser cost effectiveness must be implemented prior to fuel control
measures. The commenter asserted that the State had failed to address
the cost-effectiveness or justification of this measure versus other
non-fuel control measures not implemented, such as controls on
stationary sources and full implementation of an inspection and
maintenance program for vehicles.
Response: Section 211(c)(4)(C) provides that EPA can approve an
otherwise preempted state fuel control only if there are no other
reasonable and practicable measures available to achieve the NAAQS.
Thus, EPA is directed to consider not whether the state fuel control at
issue is reasonable and practicable, but whether other control measures
are reasonable and practicable. If the state fuel control did not
reduce emissions, EPA could not find it necessary to achieve a NAAQS,
but the CAA does not otherwise direct EPA to assess the reasonableness
and practicability of the state's chosen control measure. EPA believes
that in determining whether other ozone control measures are
unreasonable or impracticable, reasonableness and practicability should
be determined in comparison to the fuel measure that the state is
proposing to adopt. This is not an abstract consideration of whether
the other measures are reasonable or practicable, but rather a
consideration of whether it would be reasonable or practicable to
require such other measures in light of the potential availability of
the preempted state fuel control. Thus, the relative cost-effectiveness
of other control measures would be one factor that EPA would consider
in determining whether they are reasonable and practicable, but it
would not necessarily be the only or deciding factor. See EPA's August
1997 ``Guidance on Use of Opt-in to RFG and Low RVP Requirements in
Ozone SIPs'' for further guidance on what EPA considers in making a
finding of necessity.
Moreover, EPA does not believe it is appropriate or necessary to
second guess the State's choice of this particular fuel control by
inquiring whether the State could have limited the oxygen content
standard to the winter season rather than applying it year-round.
Essentially, the commenter is suggesting that a wintertime oxygen
content requirement is a reasonable and practicable alternative control
measure and that EPA should evaluate that measure before concluding
that there are not sufficient reasonable and practicable other control
measures available to achieve the NAAQS. As discussed in the proposal,
EPA interprets the reference to other measures that must be evaluated
as generally not encompassing other state fuels measures. The Agency
believes that the Act does not call for a comparison between state
fuels measures to determine which measures are unreasonable or
impracticable, but rather section 211(c)(4) is intended to ensure that
a state resorts to a fuel measure only if there are no available
practicable and reasonable non-fuels measures. This interpretation
minimizes the burden on the oil industry of different state fuel
measures where non-fuel measures are available, and thereby satisfies
one of the underlying purposes of section 211(c)(4), but where the
state must turn to a fuel measure, it gives the state flexibility to
choose whatever particular fuel measure best suits its needs. Under
this interpretation, EPA retains the ability not to approve a state
fuel measure that is grossly over-burdensome, however, because the
state must show that whatever fuel measure it selects is necessary to
achieve needed emissions reductions. Thus, in demonstrating that
measures other than requiring CBG gasoline are unreasonable or
impracticable, Arizona need not address the reasonableness or
practicability of other possible state fuel measures, such as a
wintertime only oxygen content standard.
Arizona must still demonstrate that its chosen fuel control measure
achieves emissions reductions necessary for attainment of a NAAQS,
which is discussed below and in the proposal.
With regard to the other measures identified by the commenter,
Arizona believes its I/M program is as stringent as possible. EPA has
been working with ADEQ over the last year to improve its I/M program
due to problems with preconditioning. As discussed further below,
current modeling 10 by ADEQ indicates that a large reduction
in ozone precursors is needed to attain the ozone standard. Previous
modeling analysis of a full I/M 240 program indicates that the
associated emission reductions, combined with all other reasonable and
practicable measures are significantly below this amount. The current
proposed I/M program includes an alternative test cycle which will
result in improved throughput of the I/M 240 test. EPA has informally
given the alternative program conditional approval. We anticipate, that
with the collection of additional data during the summer of 1998, that
the program will be granted full approval.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ Arizona completed the Reanalysis of the Metropolitan
Phoenix Voluntary Early Ozone Plan (REOP) modeling analysis in
October of 1997. This modeling analysis indicated that a 23 percent
reduction in ozone values was needed to reach attainment. The total
impact of all control measures included in that analysis on ozone
values was 4.4 precent, significantly below the 23 percent needed to
reach attainment. Additional analysis of this modeling was completed
in November of 1997, indicating that emission reductions of ozone
precursors of at least 70 percent are needed to attain the one-hour
ozone standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regarding stationary measures, the State has provided additional
preliminary modeling 11 that indicates that Phoenix needs to
achieve sustaintial percent reductions in both VOCs and NOX
in order to reach attainment in 1999, the attainment deadline for
serious areas. The State believes that even if it implements all
possible stationary source requirements (in addition to those
stationary source measures currently in place), it will still need
additional reductions to achieve these reductions and reach attainment.
For example, the REOP modeling analysis indicates that stationary point
source emissions contribute only 4.5 percent and stationary area source
emissions contribute only 20 percent of the total VOC emission
inventory in 1999. Stationary point sources contribute 7 percent and
stationary area source contribute 3.6 percent of the total
NOX emissions in 1999. Based on all the evidence available,
even with the elimination of all of these stationary source emissions
(which is not technically feasible), substantial additional emission
reductions above 25 percent will be needed to reach attainment by 1999.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ See footnote 10
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment: One commenter stated that ADEQ used a flawed analysis in
its attempt to show that non-winter minimum-oxygen control is necessary
for ozone attainment by calculation of an ``equivalent'' VOC impact.
The commenter argues that ADEQ's inaccurate analysis resulted in an
overstatement of the VOC emissions impact of a non-winter oxygen
content control.
Response: EPA believes that this commenter is referencing ADEQ's
[[Page 6658]]
discussion and analysis regarding the relationship between carbon
monoxide (CO) reductions and VOC reductions. ADEQ stated in its SIP
submittal that one comment regarding Arizona's proposed CBG rule
challenged the summertime oxygen content standard. Thus, ADEQ developed
an analysis of the potential impact of preemption of a State oxygen
content standard on ozone attainment. ADEQ stated that because
oxygenation of gasoline reduces CO emissions and CO is an ozone
precursor, it was determined that preemption of the oxygen content
standard would reduce the potential ozone reduction benefits of the
Arizona CBG program.12
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ ADEQ Technical Support Document at page 7. This analysis is
contained in appendices K and L to the Technical Support Document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA has reviewed ADEQ's analyses 13 and believes that
these analyses are insufficient to show that a summertime oxygen
content gasoline requirement is necessary for Phoenix to achieve the
ozone NAAQS. EPA believes more in-depth analysis would need to be done
by EPA, states, and industry before EPA could make any conclusions on
this issue. Nonetheless, EPA believes ADEQ does not need this analysis
to show that the year-round oxygen content requirement is necessary
under section 211(c)(4)(C) to meet the ozone NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ Appendix K, entitled CO reductions and equivalent VOC
reductions from an increase in Gasoline Oxygen Content and Appendix
L, entitled Ozone sensitivity to CO expressed in relation to VOC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As stated above, if EPA finds the VOC reductions produced by the
VOC performance standard and oxygen content standard under CBG Types 1
and 3 to be necessary, then the comparable reductions produced by
either of the alternatives of CBG Type 2 gasoline would also be
necessary. In today's action EPA is finding that VOC reductions are
necessary under section 211(c)(4)(C) and is approving the VOC
performance standard (and oxygen content standard); the HC performance
standard (and the oxygen content standard); and the oxygen, T50, T90,
and aromatic HC requirements because either they are not preempted
under section 211(c)(4)(C) or to the extent that they are or may be
preempted, they are necessary and hence approvable under section
211(c)(4)(C).
Arizona has already demonstrated that its 7.0 psi RVP requirement
is necessary under section 211(c)(4)(C) to meet the ozone NAAQS in the
Phoenix area.14 Compliance with the VOC performance standard
and oxygen content standard (required by CBG gasoline types 1 and 3)
would produce some additional VOC reductions beyond those produced by
the 7.0 psi RVP requirement. ADEQ's modeling shows that federal RFG
would provide additional reductions of 8 percent over a baseline fuel
of conventional gasoline with a 7.0 RVP requirement. In addition, EPA's
complex model indicates that an increase in oxygen weight percent leads
to a reduction in total VOC emissions.15 Refiners would also
obtain comparable VOC reductions through the HC performance standard,
or the oxygen, T50, T90, and aromatic HC requirements. Thus, EPA is
finding in today's action that the VOC reductions produced by the VOC
performance standard and oxygen content standard under CBG Type 1 and 3
gasoline are necessary; and the comparable emissions reductions
produced by the alternative of CBG Type 2 gasoline are also necessary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ See 62 FR 31734 (June 11, 1997).
\15\ 40 CFR 80.45(c)(1) (i) and (ii)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
V. Action
EPA has evaluated the submitted SIP revision and has determined
that it is consistent with the CAA and EPA regulations. EPA has also
found that the various CBG requirements are either not preempted by
federal fuel requirements or are necessary for the Phoenix
nonattainment area to attain the ozone and PM10 NAAQS,
pursuant to the CAA. Therefore, EPA approves the Arizona CBG Interim
Rule into the Arizona SIP for the Phoenix ozone and PM10
nonattainment areas under section 110(k)(3) of the CAA as meeting the
requirements of section 110(a) and part D.
Nothing in this action should be construed as permitting or
allowing or establishing a precedent for any future implementation
plan. Each request for revision to the state implementation plan shall
be considered separately in light of specific technical, economic, and
environmental factors and in relation to relevant statutory and
regulatory requirements.
VI. Administrative Requirements
A. Executive Order 12866
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted this
regulatory action from E.O. 12866 review.
B. Regulatory Flexibility Act
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 600 et seq., 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 final rule will not have a significant impact on a substantial
number of small entities because this federal action authorizes and
approves into the Arizona SIP requirements previously adopted by the
State, and imposes no new requirements. Therefore, I certify that it
does not have a significant impact on any small entities affected.
Moreover, due to the nature of the Federal-State relationship under the
CAA, preparation of a flexibility analysis would constitute Federal
inquiry into the economic reasonableness of state action. The Clean Air
Act forbids EPA to base its actions concerning SIPs on such grounds.
Union Electric Co. v. U.S. EPA, 427 U.S. 246, 255-66 (1976); 42 U.S.C.
7410(a)(2).
C. 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
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.
EPA has determined that this action promulgated does not include a
Federal mandate that may result in estimated costs of $100 million or
more to either State, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate, or
to the private sector, in any one year. This Federal action authorizes
and approves requirements previously adopted by the State, and imposes
no new requirements. Accordingly, no additional costs to State, local,
or tribal governments, or to the private sector, will result from this
action.
D. 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
[[Page 6659]]
Representatives and the Comptroller General of the General Accounting
Office prior to publication of the rule in today's Federal Register.
This rule is not a ``major'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
E. Petitions for Judicial Review
Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by April 13, 1998. 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).)
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Hydrocarbons,
Volatile organic compounds, Nitrogen oxides, Particulate matter,
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Ozone,
PM10, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Note: Incorporation by reference of the State Implementation
Plan for the State of Arizona was approved by the Director of the
Federal Register on July 1, 1982.
Dated: January 23, 1998.
Felicia Marcus,
Regional Administrator, Region IX.
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 et seq.
Subpart D--Arizona
2. Section 52.120 is amended by adding paragraph (c)(89) and
(c)(90) to read as follows:
Sec. 52.120 Identification of plan.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(89) Plan revisions were submitted on September 12, 1997 by the
Governer's designee.
(i) Incorporation by reference
(A) Arizona Cleaner Burning Gasoline Interim rule submitted as a
revision to the Maricopa Country Ozone Nonattainment Area Plan, adopted
on September 12, 1997.
(90) Plan revisions were submitted on January 21, 1998 by the
Governer's designee.
(i) Incorporation by reference.
(A) Arizona Cleaner Burning Gasoline Interim rule submitted as a
revision to the PM-10 Maricopa County State Implementation Plan,
adopted on September 12, 1997.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 98-3327 Filed 2-9-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P