[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