Approval of Louisiana's Petition To Relax the Summer Gasoline Volatility Standard for the Grant Parish Area, 8202-8209 [E8-2702]
Download as PDF
8202
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 30 / Wednesday, February 13, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA’s
role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of
the CAA. In this context, in the absence
of a prior existing requirement for the
State to use voluntary consensus
standards (VCS), EPA has no authority
to disapprove a SIP submission for
failure to use VCS. It would thus be
inconsistent with applicable law for
EPA, when it reviews a SIP submission,
to use VCS in place of a SIP submission
that otherwise satisfies the provisions of
the CAA. Thus, the requirements of
section 12(d) of the National
Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not
apply. This rule does not impose an
information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).
The Congressional Review Act, 5
U.S.C. section 801 et seq., as added by
the Small Business Regulatory
Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996,
generally provides that before a rule
may take effect, the agency
promulgating the rule must submit a
rule report, which includes a copy of
the rule, to each House of the Congress
and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit 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 United
States prior to publication of the rule in
the Federal Register. A major rule
cannot take effect until 60 days after it
State regulation
*
Title 7, Chapter 27
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Carbon monoxide,
Incorporation by reference,
Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen
dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and record
keeping requirements, Volatile organic
compounds.
Dated: January 14, 2008.
Alan J. Steinberg,
Regional Administrator, Region 2.
Part 52, chapter I, title 40 of the Code
of Federal Regulations is amended as
follows:
I
*
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
*
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES
*
*
*
*
(c) * * *
*
*
*
*
*
(84) Revisions to the State
Implementation Plan submitted on June
2, 2006, by the New Jersey Department
of Environmental Protection which
consists of the adoption of California’s
Zero Emission Vehicle (ZEV)
provisions.
(i) Incorporation by reference:
(A) Regulation Subchapter 29 of Title
7, Chapter 27 of the New Jersey
Administrative Code, entitled ‘‘Low
Emission Vehicle (LEV) Program,’’
sections 29.6, 29.7, and the
incorporation of California Section
1962, ‘‘Zero Emission Vehicle Standards
for 2005 and Subsequent Model
Passenger Cars, Light-Duty Trucks and
Medium-Duty Vehicles,’’ within section
29.13(g), effective on January 17, 2006.
*
*
*
January 17, 2006 ....... February 13, 2008,
[Insert Federal Register page citation].
*
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Direct final rule.
AGENCY:
Frm 00018
Fmt 4700
Comments
*
Sfmt 4700
*
*
*
In Section 29.13(g), Title 13, Chapter 1, Article 2, Section 1961.1 of the California
Code of Regulations relating to greenhouse gas emission standards, is not incorporated into the SIP.
*
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
PO 00000
I
*
Approval of Louisiana’s Petition To
Relax the Summer Gasoline Volatility
Standard for the Grant Parish Area
Jkt 214001
Identification of plan.
*
EPA approved date
[EPA–HQ–OAR–2007–0002; FRL–8529–2]
16:56 Feb 12, 2008
§ 52.1570
§ 52.1605 EPA-approved New Jersey
regulations.
40 CFR Part 80
VerDate Aug<31>2005
2. Section 52.1570 is amended by
adding paragraph (c)(84) to read as
follows:
I
1. The authority citation for part 52
continues to read as follows:
I
*
[FR Doc. E8–2553 Filed 2–12–08; 8:45 am]
Subpart FF—New Jersey
PART 52—[AMENDED]
*
*
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
3. Section 52.1605 is amended by
revising the entry for Subchapter 29
under Title 7, Chapter 27 to read as
follows:
State effective date
*
*
Subchapter 29, ‘‘Low Emission Vehicle (LEV)
Program’’.
*
is published in the Federal Register.
This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as
defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA,
petitions for judicial review of this
action must be filed in the United States
Court of Appeals for the appropriate
circuit by April 14, 2008. 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)).
*
*
SUMMARY: EPA is taking direct final
action approving the State of
Louisiana’s request to relax the federal
Reid Vapor Pressure (RVP) standard
applicable to gasoline introduced into
commerce in Grant Parish, Louisiana,
(Grant Parish) during the summer ozone
control season—June 1 to September 15
of each year. Grant Parish is a
designated attainment area under the 8hour ozone National Ambient Air
Quality Standard (‘‘NAAQS’’) and is a
redesignated attainment area under the
E:\FR\FM\13FER1.SGM
13FER1
8203
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 30 / Wednesday, February 13, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
1-hour ozone NAAQS. This action
amends our regulations to change the
summertime RVP standard for Grant
Parish from 7.8 pounds per square inch
(psi) to 9.0 psi. EPA has determined that
this change to our federal RVP
regulations is consistent with the
applicable provisions of the Clean Air
Act. Louisiana’s request is supported by
evidence that Grant Parish can
implement the 9.0 psi RVP standard and
maintain the 8-hour ozone NAAQS and
that relaxation of the applicable RVP
standard to 9.0 psi will provide
economic benefits. This action is being
taken without prior proposal because
EPA believes that this final rulemaking
is noncontroversial, for the reasons set
forth in this preamble, and due to the
limited scope of this action.
DATES: This rule is effective on April 14,
2008 without further notice, unless EPA
receives adverse comments by March
14, 2008. If EPA receives adverse
comments, we will publish a timely
withdrawal in the Federal Register
informing the public that the rule will
not take effect.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–
OAR–2007–0002, by one of the
following methods:
• https://www.regulations.gov: Follow
the on-line instructions for submitting
comments.
• E-mail: a-and-r-Docket@epa.gov
• Fax: Air and Radiation Docket—
(202) 566–9744
• Mail: Environmental Protection
Agency, EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC),
Air and Radiation Docket, Mail Code
2822T, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue,
NW., Washington, DC 20460, Attention
Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2007–
0002.
• Hand Delivery: Public Reading
Room, EPA/DC, EPA West, Room 3334,
1301 Constitution Ave., NW.,
Washington, DC 20004. Such deliveries
are only accepted during the Docket
Office’s normal hours of operations, and
special arrangements should be made
for deliveries of boxed information.
Instructions: Direct your comments to
Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2007–
0002. EPA’s policy is that all comments
received will be included in the public
docket without change and may be
made available online at
www.regulations.gov, including any
personal information provided, unless
the comment includes information
claimed to be Confidential Business
Information (CBI) or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise
protected through www.regulations.gov
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:56 Feb 12, 2008
Jkt 214001
or e-mail. The www.regulations.gov Web
site is an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system,
which means EPA will not know your
identity or contact information unless
you provide it in the body of your
comment. If you send an e-mail
comment directly to EPA without going
through www.regulations.gov, your email address will be automatically
captured and included as part of the
comment that is placed in the public
docket and made available on the
Internet. If you submit an electronic
comment, EPA recommends that you
include your name and other contact
information in the body of your
comment and with any disk or CD–ROM
you submit. If EPA cannot read your
comment due to technical difficulties
and cannot contact you for clarification,
EPA may not be able to consider your
comment. Electronic files should avoid
the use of special characters, any form
of encryption, and be free of any defects
or viruses.
Docket: All documents in the docket
are listed in the www.regulations.gov
index. Although listed in the index,
some information is not publicly
available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Certain other material, such as
copyrighted material, will be publicly
available only in hard copy. Publicly
available docket materials are available
either electronically in
www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at
the Public Reading Room, EPA/DC, EPA
West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution
Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The Public
Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to
4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday,
excluding legal holidays. The telephone
number for the Public Reading Room is
(202) 566–1744, and the telephone
number for the Air and Radiation
Docket is (202) 566–1742.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Sean Hillson, Office of Transportation
and Air Quality, Transportation and
Regional Programs Division, Mailcode
AASMCG, Environmental Protection
Agency, 2000 Traverwood Drive, Ann
Arbor, MI 48105; telephone number:
(734) 214–4789; fax number: (734) 214–
4052; e-mail address:
Hillson.Sean@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Throughout this document, whenever
‘‘we’’, ‘‘us’’, or ‘‘our’’ is used, we mean
EPA.
EPA is publishing this rule without a
prior proposal because we view this
action as noncontroversial and
anticipate no adverse comment.
However, in the ‘‘Proposed Rules’’
section of today’s Federal Register, we
are publishing a separate document that
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
will serve as the proposal to relax the
applicable volatility standard in Grant
Parish if adverse comments are received
on this direct final rule. We do not
intend to institute a second comment
period on this action. Any parties
interested in commenting must do so at
this time. For further information about
commenting on this rule, see the
ADDRESSES section of this document.
If EPA receives adverse comment, we
will publish a timely withdrawal in the
Federal Register informing the public
that this direct final rule will not take
effect. We would address all public
comments in a subsequent final rule
based on the proposed rule.
Regulated Entities: Entities potentially
affected by this rule are fuel producers
and distributors who do business in
Grant Parish. Regulated entities include:
Examples of potentially regulated
entities
NAICS
codes a
Petroleum Refineries ......................
Gasoline Marketers and Distributors ..............................................
324110
Gasoline Retail Stations .................
Gasoline Transporters ....................
a North
American
System (NAICS).
Industry
424710
424720
447110
484220
484230
Classification
This table provides only a guide for
readers regarding entities likely to be
regulated by this action. You should
carefully examine the amended
regulations in 40 CFR 80.27 to
determine whether your facility is
impacted. If you have further questions,
call the person listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section of this
preamble.
Outline
I. Introduction
II. What Is the History of Gasoline Volatility
Regulation?
III. What Are the EPA Rulemaking Actions
Addressing the Transition From the 1Hour to 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS?
IV. What Is the EPA Policy Regarding
Relaxation of Volatility Standards in
Ozone Nonattainment Areas That Are
Redesignated as Attainment Areas?
A. What Is the General Volatility
Relaxation Policy?
B. How Is the General Volatility Relaxation
Policy Applied to Grant Parish?
V. What Information Supports the Relaxation
of Federal RVP Requirements in Grant
Parish?
A. History
B. Louisiana’s RVP Relaxation Request and
Initial EPA Response
C. EPA Approval of the Grant Parish 8Hour Maintenance Plan
D. What Are the Section 110(l)
Requirements?
VI. Final Action and Rationale
VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
E:\FR\FM\13FER1.SGM
13FER1
8204
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 30 / Wednesday, February 13, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
I. Introduction
This rulemaking describes our final
action to approve Louisiana’s request to
relax the federal RVP standard from 7.8
psi to 9.0 psi in Grant Parish during the
summer ozone control season—June 1 to
September 15. In 1995, EPA
redesignated Grant Parish to a 1-hour
ozone NAAQS attainment area.
Currently, Grant Parish is a designated
attainment area for the 8-hour ozone
NAAQS (the 1-hour and 8-hour ozone
NAAQS will also be called the 1-hour
and 8-hour ozone standards).
This preamble is hereafter organized
into five parts. Section II provides the
history of federal gasoline volatility
regulation. Section III describes EPA’s
rulemaking actions to transition from
the 1-hour to the 8-hour ozone standard.
Section IV provides the Agency’s policy
regarding relaxation of volatility
standards in former ozone
nonattainment areas that have been
redesignated to attainment, and how
this policy is applied to Grant Parish
while taking into account the
requirements under the 8-hour ozone
standard. Section V reviews the
available information to determine if
relaxation of the RVP standard in Grant
Parish is warranted: Louisiana’s history
of federal RVP requirements; EPA’s
redesignation and designation of Grant
Parish as attainment of the 1-hour and
8-hour ozone NAAQS, respectively;
Louisiana’s relaxation request
prompting this action; and the 8-hour
maintenance plan approval to support
the request. Finally, Section VI presents
EPA’s final action in response to the
request and our rationale.
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES
II. What is the History of Gasoline
Volatility Regulation?
In 1987, EPA determined that gasoline
nationwide had become increasingly
volatile, causing an increase in
evaporative emissions from gasolinepowered vehicles and equipment.1
Evaporative emissions from gasoline,
referred to as volatile organic
compounds (VOCs), are precursors to
the formation of tropospheric ozone and
contribute to the nation’s ground-level
ozone problem. Exposure to groundlevel ozone can reduce lung function
(thereby aggravating asthma or other
respiratory conditions), increase
susceptibility to respiratory infection,
and may contribute to premature death
in people with heart and lung disease.
The most common measure of fuel
volatility that is useful in evaluating
gasoline evaporative emissions is the
Reid Vapor Pressure (RVP). Under
1 52
FR 31274 (Aug. 19, 1987).
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:56 Feb 12, 2008
Jkt 214001
section 211(c) of the Clean Air Act (CAA
or ‘‘the Act’’), we promulgated
regulations on March 22, 1989, that set
maximum limits for the RVP of gasoline
sold during the summer ozone control
season—June 1 to September 15. These
regulations were referred to as Phase I
of a two-phase nationwide 2 program,
which was designed to reduce the
volatility of commercial gasoline during
the summer ozone control season.3 On
June 11, 1990, EPA promulgated more
stringent volatility controls under Phase
II of the volatility control program.4
These requirements established
maximum RVP standards of 9.0 psi or
7.8 psi (depending on the State, the
month, and the area’s initial ozone
attainment designation with respect to
the 1-hour ozone National Ambient Air
Quality Standard or ‘‘NAAQS’’) during
the ozone control season.
The 1990 CAA Amendments
established a new section, 211(h), to
address fuel volatility. Section 211(h)
requires EPA to promulgate regulations
making it unlawful to sell, offer for sale,
dispense, supply, offer for supply,
transport, or introduce into commerce
gasoline with an RVP level in excess of
9.0 psi during the ozone control season.
It further requires EPA to establish more
stringent RVP standards in
nonattainment areas if we find such
standards ‘‘necessary to generally
achieve comparable evaporative
emissions (on a per vehicle basis) in
nonattainment areas, taking into
consideration the enforceability of such
standards, the need of an area for
emission control, and economic
factors.’’ Section 211(h) prohibits EPA
from establishing a volatility standard
more stringent than 9.0 psi in an
attainment area, except that we may
impose a lower (more stringent)
standard in any former ozone
nonattainment area redesignated to
attainment.
On December 12, 1991, EPA modified
the Phase II volatility regulations to be
consistent with section 211(h) of the
CAA.5 The modified regulations
prohibited the sale of gasoline with an
RVP above 9.0 psi in all areas
designated attainment for ozone,
beginning in 1992. For areas designated
as nonattainment, the regulations
retained the original Phase II standards
published in 1990.6
2 Hawaii, Alaska and U.S. territories were
excepted.
3 54 FR 11868 (Mar. 22, 1989).
4 55 FR 23658 (June 11, 1990).
5 56 FR 64704 (Dec. 12, 1991).
6 See 55 FR 23658 (June 11, 1990).
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
As stated in the preamble to the Phase
II volatility controls,7 and reiterated in
the proposed change to the volatility
standards published in 1991,8 we will
rely on States to initiate changes to our
volatility program that they believe will
enhance local air quality and/or
increase the economic efficiency of the
program within the statutory limits.9 In
those rulemakings, we explained that
the Governor of a State may petition the
Agency to set a volatility standard less
stringent than 7.8 psi for some month or
months in a nonattainment area. The
petition must demonstrate such a
change is appropriate because of a
particular local economic impact and
that sufficient alternative programs are
available to achieve attainment and
maintenance of the 1-hour ozone
NAAQS.
III. What are the EPA Rulemaking
Actions Addressing the Transition from
the 1-Hour to 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS?
In July 1997, EPA promulgated a
revised ozone standard which would be
measured over an 8-hour period, i.e., the
8-hour ozone NAAQS or standard.10
The 8-hour Ozone NAAQS rule was
challenged by numerous litigants and in
May 1999, the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the D.C. Circuit issued a decision
remanding, but not vacating, the 8-hour
ozone standard. In February 2001, the
Supreme Court upheld our authority to
set the ozone NAAQS and remanded the
case to the D.C. Circuit Court for
disposition of issues the Court did not
address in its initial decision.11 The
Court of Appeals addressed these
remaining issues and upheld the 8-hour
ozone NAAQS.12 In April 2004, EPA
designated and classified areas for the 8hour ozone standard.13
Also in April 2004, we promulgated
the Phase 1 Ozone Implementation rule
that addressed the revocation of the 1hour ozone NAAQS and identified the
1-hour requirements that would remain
applicable after revocation (i.e., the
‘‘anti-backsliding provisions’’).14 These
requirements varied based on areas’
7 See 55 FR 23660 (June 11, 1990) for a discussion
on procedures by which States could petition EPA
for more or less stringent volatility standards.
8 See 56 FR 24242 (May 29, 1991) and 56 FR
64706 (Dec. 12, 1991).
9 See CAA section 211(h)(1) (allowing EPA to set
a volatility standard more stringent than 9.0 psi as
necessary to achieve comparable emissions in
nonattainment areas considering enforceability, the
need of an area for emissions control and economic
factors).
10 62 FR 38856 (July 18, 1997).
11 Whitman v. Am. Trucking Ass’ns, 531 U.S. 457
(2001).
12 American Trucking Assoc. v. EPA, 195 F.3d 4
(D.C. Cir., 1999).
13 69 FR 23857 (Apr. 30, 2004).
14 69 FR 23951 (Apr. 30, 2004).
E:\FR\FM\13FER1.SGM
13FER1
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 30 / Wednesday, February 13, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
designation for the 1-hour standard and
such areas’ designation for the 8-hour
NAAQS. As part of these antibacksliding provisions, EPA required
areas that had been redesignated from
nonattainment to attainment for the 1hour standard (i.e., 1-hour ozone
‘‘maintenance’’ areas) and that were
designated attainment for the 8-hour
standard to submit a new maintenance
plan under section 110(a)(1) that would
provide for maintenance of the 8-hour
standard.15 After such a plan was
approved, anti-backsliding provisions
provided relief for such areas from
certain 1-hour maintenance plan
requirements. Although the Phase 1
Ozone implementation rule was
challenged in court and portions of the
rule were vacated, the vacated portions
of the rule are not relevant to today’s
Grant Parish volatility relaxation
rulemaking.16
In November 2005, EPA promulgated
the Phase 2 Ozone Implementation rule
that addressed various control and
planning obligations that are applicable
to areas designated nonattainment for
the 8-hour ozone NAAQS.17 This rule
has been challenged and EPA is
currently awaiting argument and a
decision.18 No part of the Phase 2 Ozone
implementation rule is relevant for
today’s Grant Parish volatility relaxation
rulemaking.
IV. What is the EPA Policy Regarding
Relaxation of Volatility Standards in
Nonattainment Areas that are
Redesignated as Attainment Areas?
A. What is the General Volatility
Relaxation Policy?
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES
Under the amended Phase II volatility
regulations, any change in the volatility
standard for a nonattainment area that
was subsequently redesignated as an
attainment area must be accomplished
through a separate rulemaking that
revises the applicable standard for that
area.19 Thus, for former 1-hour
nonattainment areas where EPA
mandated a Phase II volatility standard
of 7.8 psi RVP in the December 12, 1991
rulemaking, the 7.8 psi RVP standard
will remain in effect, even after such an
area is redesignated as being in
attainment, until a separate rulemaking
is completed that revises the RVP
15 See 69 FR 23955 (Apr. 30, 2004), section
IV.C.2.c.v and IV.C.2.d; see also 40 CFR
51.905(a)(4).
16 S. Coast Air Quality Mgmt. Dist. v. EPA, 472
F.3d 882 (D.C. Cir. 2006 reh’g denied S. Coast Air
Quality Mgmt. Dist. v. EPA, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis
13751 (D.C. Cir. June 8, 2007).
17 70 FR 71612 (Nov. 29, 2005).
18 NRDC v. EPA, No. 06–1045 (D.C. Cir.).
19 56 FR 64706 (Dec. 12, 1991).
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:56 Feb 12, 2008
Jkt 214001
standard in that area from 7.8 psi to 9.0
psi.20
As explained in the December 12,
1991 rulemaking, the Agency believes
that relaxation of an applicable RVP
standard is best accomplished in
conjunction with the redesignation
process. In order for an ozone
nonattainment area to be redesignated
as an attainment area, section 107(d)(3)
of the Act requires the State to make a
showing, pursuant to section 175A of
the Act, that the area is capable of
maintaining attainment for the ozone
NAAQS for ten years. Depending on the
area’s circumstances, this maintenance
plan will either demonstrate that the
area is capable of maintaining
attainment for ten years without the
more stringent volatility standard or that
the more stringent volatility standard
may be necessary for the area to
maintain its attainment with the ozone
NAAQS. Therefore, in the context of a
request for redesignation, the Agency
will not relax the volatility standard
unless the State requests a relaxation
and the maintenance plan demonstrates,
to the satisfaction of the Agency, that
the area will maintain attainment for ten
years without the need for the more
stringent volatility standard.
B. How Is the General Volatility
Relaxation Policy Applied to Grant
Parish?
Under the Phase 1 Ozone
implementation rule, 1-hour ozone
maintenance areas that are designated 8hour ozone attainment areas, such as
Grant Parish, are required to develop
and submit to EPA a maintenance plan
under section 110(a)(1) of the Act.21 In
today’s rulemaking, we are determining
that 1-hour ozone maintenance areas
that are designated 8-hour ozone
attainment areas may rely on the section
110(a)(1) maintenance plan, rather than
a section 175A maintenance plan as
explained above, for purposes of
requesting relaxation of the more
stringent volatility standard. We come
20 As stated in the preamble for the Agency’s
initial Phase II volatility standards (55 FR 23609),
and in the preamble in the proposal to revise those
standards (56 FR 24244), EPA may also promulgate
a rule to revise the volatility standard in a particular
nonattainment area in order to enhance local air
quality and/or increase the economic efficiency of
the program. The Governor of a state, or his
designee, may petition EPA for a less stringent
standard if such a standard is consistent with the
requirements of the Act and if the state can
document (1) particular local economic impact that
makes the less stringent standard appropriate and
(2) sufficient alternative programs to achieve
attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS for
ozone.
21 See 69 FR 23955 (Apr. 30, 2004), section
IV.C.2.c.v and IV.C.2.d; see also 40 CFR
51.905(a)(4).
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
8205
to the conclusion that a section 110(a)(1)
maintenance plan can be used to make
a relaxation demonstration for the
following reasons: (1) Section 110(a)(1)
maintenance plans contain analogous
information and meet similar criteria as
section 175A maintenance plans,
namely a demonstration of continued
maintenance of the ozone standard for
at least 10 years using the less stringent
volatility standard and that the plan
contains contingency measures; (2)
Although the EPA general volatility
relaxation policy calls for an approved
175A maintenance plan, the
requirement to submit a section 175A
maintenance plan for the 8-hour
standard does not apply to areas
initially designated attainment for that
standard; and (3) Development of a
section 110(a)(1) maintenance plan is
consistent with the Phase 1 Ozone
Implementation rule requirements,
specifically 40 CFR 51.905(a)(4), which
is applicable to Grant Parish, and thus
use of an approved section 110(a)(1)
maintenance plan for the purpose of
relaxing the applicable RVP standard
follows logically. Therefore, in today’s
rulemaking, EPA is allowing Grant
Parish to rely on its section 110(a)(1)
maintenance plan and the
accompanying analysis set forth below
in demonstrating the approvability of
the State’s relaxation request of the
applicable RVP standard in Grant
Parish.
V. What Information Supports the
Relaxation of Federal RVP
Requirements in Grant Parish?
A. History
In the summer of 1989, the Phase I
gasoline volatility control program was
implemented throughout the country.
At that time, based on designations
issued on September 11, 1978, Grant
Parish was a designated ozone
nonattainment area.22 Under the Phase
I volatility rule, gasoline volatility
requirements throughout the entire State
of Louisiana were uniform, although
there was some variation by month.
On November 6, 1991, EPA issued
ozone nonattainment designations for
the 1-hour ozone NAAQS. Pursuant to
section 107(d)(1)(C)(i) of the CAA, the
nonattainment designation for Grant
Parish issued in 1978 continued because
Louisiana had not acquired the three
years of ambient air quality data
necessary to petition for redesignation
to attainment.23 In 1992, under Phase II
of the volatility control program, the
Grant Parish ozone nonattainment area
22 43
23 56
E:\FR\FM\13FER1.SGM
FR 40412 (Sept. 11, 1978).
FR 56694 (Nov. 6, 1991).
13FER1
8206
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 30 / Wednesday, February 13, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
(at the time) was required to use
gasoline with an RVP of 7.8 psi. In 1995,
EPA approved a request from the State
of Louisiana to redesignate Grant Parish
to attainment for the 1-hour ozone
standard and approved a maintenance
plan.24 At that time, the State of
Louisiana did not make a request for
relaxation of the gasoline volatility
standard at that time; therefore, Grant
Parish continued to use gasoline with an
RVP of 7.8 psi during the ozone control
season through the summer of 2005. In
2004, we designated Grant Parish as an
8-hour ozone attainment area.25
B. Louisiana’s RVP Relaxation Request
and Initial EPA Response
In May of 2005, the State of Louisiana
requested that the gasoline volatility
standard for Grant Parish be relaxed and
that enforcement discretion be granted
in the interim between the request and
the final rulemaking.26 This petition
from the State cited the fact that Grant
Parish is a designated 8-hour ozone
attainment area and a redesignated 1hour ozone attainment area that has not
measured a 1-hour exceedance in the 10
years since the 1995 maintenance plan
became effective. Louisiana also stated
the following justifications for the
relaxation: First, Grant Parish is
classified as rural, is not adjacent to any
urban area, and has only seen about 7%
population growth from 1990 to 2000
(17,526 to 18,698). Second, a review of
vehicle miles traveled (VMT) statistics
for Grant Parish show a downward
trend from 1990 to 1999. There was a
slight increase (2% per year) from 1999
through 2003, although Louisiana
qualifies this by stating the increase
could be a reflection of increases in
population, but is more likely due to
changes in VMT reporting in 2001.
Third, air quality data shows a general
decrease in emissions of ozone-forming
pollutants, such as volatile organic
compounds (VOCs) and nitrogen oxides
(NOX). Finally, Louisiana provides
evidence that relaxation of the RVP
requirement will result in economic
benefit to Grant Parish. Outside of the
ozone control season, bulk plant
operators are able to acquire
conventional gasoline from nearby
terminals. During the ozone control
season, however, bulk plant operators
must purchase gasoline meeting the 7.8
psi RVP standard from facilities in
Baton Rouge or Lake Charles, Louisiana.
Each of these cities is approximately
145 miles from Grant Parish, resulting
in a 290-mile roundtrip to deliver
compliant fuel. This distance increases
the transportation costs and can
increase the price of gasoline by an
estimated 2 cents per gallon.
In May of 2006, the Office of
Enforcement and Compliance Assurance
granted enforcement discretion to allow
the use of gasoline having a volatility
that is no higher than 9.0 psi during the
ozone control seasons for Grant Parish
from May 16, 2006, to September 16,
2007, or the effective date of the action
set forth in this rulemaking, whichever
is earlier.27
C. EPA Approval of the Grant Parish 8Hour Maintenance Plan
On August 23, 2006, the State of
Louisiana submitted a maintenance plan
for Grant Parish to EPA Region 6 that
ensures continued attainment of the 8-
hour ozone standard through 2014,
which is 10 years following designation
under the 8-hour standard as required
by 40 CFR 51.905(a)(4)(ii). EPA has
determined that the maintenance plan
also meets the other statutory and
regulatory requirements and is
consistent with EPA guidance;
therefore, in November 2007, EPA
published a direct final rule in the
Federal Register that approved the 8hour maintenance plan for Grant
Parish.28 No adverse comments were
received, and the rule became effective
on January 7, 2008. The State’s
maintenance plan submission, EPA’s
Technical Support Document, and
approval rulemaking action are
incorporated by reference in today’s
action.
EPA determined that the Grant Parish
maintenance plan adequately addresses
the components of a maintenance plan:
a 2002 base year attainment inventory;
projected emission inventories for the
future years of 2008, 2011, and 2014
with a maintenance demonstration;
verification of continued attainment
with the use of either 7.8 or 9.0 psi
gasoline; and contingency measures.
Some of these components are
presented in greater detail below.
The following table 29 provides VOC
and NOX emissions data for the 2002
base attainment year inventory, as well
as projected VOC and NOX emission
inventory data for the major
anthropogenic source categories
developed using EPA-approved
technologies and methodologies and
keeping 7.8 psi RVP gasoline in place
for the years 2008, 2011, and 2014.
GRANT PARISH.—VOC AND NOX EMISSION INVENTORY BASELINE
2002
(tpd)
Emissions source
2008
(tpd)
2011
(tpd)
2014
(tpd)
Point Source VOCs .........................................................................................
Point Source NOX ............................................................................................
Non-Point (Area) Source VOCs .......................................................................
Non-point (Area) Source NOX .........................................................................
Nonroad VOCs ................................................................................................
Nonroad NOX ...................................................................................................
Onroad VOCs ..................................................................................................
Onroad NOX .....................................................................................................
0.66
1.85
1.57
0.61
5.49
1.56
1.27
1.71
0.83
1.96
1.62
0.64
4.66
1.41
0.80
1.12
0.91
2.01
1.63
0.65
4.20
1.33
0.63
0.83
0.98
2.06
1.66
0.67
3.83
1.23
0.52
0.62
Total VOCs ...............................................................................................
Total NOX .................................................................................................
8.99
5.73
7.91
5.13
7.37
4.82
6.99
4.58
24 60
FR 43020 (Aug. 18, 1995).
FR 23857 (Apr. 30, 2004).
26 Letter from Michael McDaniel, Secretary of the
Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality, to
Mayor Richard Greene, Administrator of U.S. EPA
Region 6, titled ‘‘Relaxation of the Summer
Gasoline Volatility Standard for Grant Parish’’ (May
24, 2005).
27 Letter from Granta Nakayama, Assistant
Administrator of the U.S. EPA Office of
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES
25 69
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:56 Feb 12, 2008
Jkt 214001
Enforcement and Compliance Assurance, to
Michael McDaniel, Secretary of the Louisiana
Department of Environmental Quality, titled
‘‘Enforcement Discretion Regarding the Gasoline
Volatility Standard for Grant Parish, Louisiana’’
(May 16, 2006).
28 72 FR 62579 (November 6, 2007); Docket ID:
EPA–R06–OAR–2006–0271.
29 The ‘‘Total VOCs’’ values for 2008, 2011, and
2014 in this table differ from the values in the
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
November 6, 2007, maintenance plan approval
rulemaking. These differences were due to a
typographical error by EPA in the ‘‘Onroad VOCs’’
row; those errors have been corrected here resulting
in new ‘‘Total VOCs’’ values. The changes
accurately reflect the data submitted by the state of
Louisiana and yield lower ‘‘Total VOCs’’ values in
all future years. Therefore the conclusion that Grant
Parish has demonstrated maintenance of the 8-hour
standard is still valid.
E:\FR\FM\13FER1.SGM
13FER1
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 30 / Wednesday, February 13, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
As shown in the table above, Louisiana
has demonstrated that the future year 8hour ozone emissions will be less than
the 2002 base attainment year’s
emissions. Measures that will provide
for additional 8-hour ozone emission
reductions include: (1) Implementation
of Federal VOC Emission Standards for
Automobile Refinish Coatings,
Consumer Products, and Architectural
Coatings; (2) Federal Tier 2 Motor
Vehicle Emission Standards, HeavyDuty Engine and Vehicle Standards, and
gasoline and highway diesel fuel sulfur
control requirements; (3) Federal control
of emissions from non-road diesel
engines and fuels; and (4)
implementation of the Federal Clean Air
Interstate Rule (CAIR).30
In the Grant Parish maintenance
plan’s attainment inventory, Louisiana
provided an analysis of VOC emissions
from on-road mobile sources comparing
7.8 and 9.0 psi RVP gasoline for three
projection years: 2008, 2011, and 2014.
GRANT PARISH.—RVP COMPARISON
EFFECT ON VOC EMISSIONS
Year
2002
2008
2011
2014
..........
..........
..........
..........
7.8 psi RVP
VOCs (tpd)
9.0 psi RVP
VOCs (tpd)
1.27
0.80
0.63
0.52
N/A
0.90
0.70
0.57
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES
Modeling results for this comparison
show that the overall effect on VOC
emissions from between 7.8 and 9.0 psi
RVP gasoline was 0.1 tpd or less for
each of the three projection years, and
that each of the projected VOC emission
inventories from 9.0 psi RVP gasoline is
less than the VOC emission inventory
from the 2002 attainment year
inventory. Therefore, the Grant Parish 8hour maintenance plan demonstrates
that use of the less stringent 9.0 psi RVP
gasoline will not interfere with 8-hour
ozone maintenance. In its approval of
the maintenance plan for Grant Parish,
EPA concluded that ‘‘the Grant Parish 8hour maintenance plan demonstrates
that the use of either 7.8 or 9.0 psi RVP
gasoline in the parish will allow the
area to continue to meet the 8-hour
ozone NAAQS.’’
D. What are the Section 110(l)
Requirements?
Section 110(l) requires that a revision
to the SIP not interfere with any
applicable requirement concerning
attainment and reasonable further
progress (‘‘RFP’’) (as defined in section
171), or any other applicable
requirement of the Act. The modeling in
30 70
FR 25162 (May 12, 2005).
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:56 Feb 12, 2008
Jkt 214001
the maintenance plan showed a very
small increase in VOC emissions with
the relaxed RVP standard when
comparing emissions from 7.8 and 9.0
psi RVP gasoline in future years, but the
emissions projections for the future
years using 9.0 psi RVP gasoline in
Grant Parish still reflect a decrease in
emissions from the 2002 baseline year
and a downward trend in VOC and NOX
emissions through 2014. Therefore, and
as discussed in more detail above,
Louisiana has demonstrated that EPA’s
approval of the relaxed RVP standard in
Grant Parish will not interfere with
continued maintenance of the 8-hour
ozone standard in that Parish.
VI. Final Action and Rationale
EPA is taking direct final action to
approve Louisiana’s request to relax the
federal RVP standard applicable to
summertime gasoline supplied to Grant
Parish. This action changes the
applicable RVP standard in Grant Parish
from 7.8 psi to 9.0 psi in 40 CFR
80.27(a)(2). This action will become
effective on April 14, 2008, unless
adverse comment is received by March
14, 2008.
Relaxation of the applicable RVP
standard for Grant Parish is based on the
fact that Grant Parish is a redesignated
1-hour ozone attainment area and a
designated 8-hour ozone attainment area
that has an approved section 110(a)(1) 8hr maintenance plan. This maintenance
plan demonstrates that Grant Parish can
maintain the 8-hour ozone standard for
the duration of the plan while using 9.0
psi RVP gasoline. As also discussed
earlier, this SIP revision meets the
requirements of section 110(l) of the
Act. Finally, relaxation of the applicable
standard will result in economic
benefits as increased transportation
costs associated with the delivery of 7.8
psi RVP gasoline will be eliminated.
VII. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory
Planning and Review
This action is not a ‘‘significant
regulatory action’’ under the terms of
Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735,
October 4, 1993) and is therefore not
subject to OMB review.
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
This action does not impose any new
information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction
Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., and
therefore is not subject to these
requirements.
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
8207
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
generally requires an agency to prepare
a regulatory flexibility analysis of any
rule subject to notice and comment
rulemaking requirements under the
Administrative Procedure Act or any
other statute unless the agency certifies
that the rule will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. Small entities
include small businesses, small
organizations, and small governmental
jurisdictions.
For purposes of assessing the impacts
of today’s rule on small entities, small
entity is defined as: (1) A small business
as defined by the Small Business
Administration’s (SBA) regulations at 13
CFR 121.201; (2) a small governmental
jurisdiction that is a government of a
city, county, town, school district or
special district with a population of less
than 50,000; and (3) a small
organization that is any not-for-profit
enterprise which is independently
owned and operated and is not
dominant in its field.
After considering the economic
impacts of today’s rule on small entities,
I certify that this action will not have a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities. In
determining whether a rule has a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities, the
impact of concern is any significant
adverse economic impact on small
entities, since the primary purpose of
the regulatory flexibility analyses is to
identify and address regulatory
alternatives ‘‘which minimize any
significant economic impact of the rule
on small entities.’’ 5 U.S.C. 603 and 604.
Thus, an agency may certify that a rule
will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small
entities if the rule relieves regulatory
burden, or otherwise has a positive
economic effect on all of the small
entities subject to the rule.
This action will relax the federal RVP
standard for gasoline sold in Grant
Parish, Louisiana, during the ozone
control season (June 1 to September 15),
from 7.8 psi to 9.0 psi, and is therefore
expected not to have a significant
economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. The rule does
not impose any requirements or create
impacts on small entities beyond those,
if any, already required by or resulting
from the CAA Section 211(h) Volatility
Control program.
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public
E:\FR\FM\13FER1.SGM
13FER1
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES
8208
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 30 / Wednesday, February 13, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
Law 104–4, establishes requirements for
Federal agencies to assess the effects of
their regulatory actions on State, local,
and tribal governments and the private
sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA,
EPA generally must prepare a written
statement, including a cost-benefit
analysis, for proposed and final rules
with ‘‘Federal mandates’’ that may
result in expenditures to State, local,
and tribal governments, in the aggregate,
or to the private sector of $100 million
or more in any one year. Before
promulgating an EPA rule for which a
written statement is needed, section 205
of the UMRA generally requires EPA to
identify and consider a reasonable
number of regulatory alternatives and
adopt the least costly, most cost
effective or least burdensome alternative
that achieves the objectives of the rule.
The provisions of section 205 do not
apply when they are inconsistent with
applicable law. Moreover, section 205
allows EPA to adopt an alternative other
than the least costly, most cost-effective
or least burdensome alternative if the
Administrator publishes with the final
rule an explanation why that alternative
was not adopted. Before EPA establishes
any regulatory requirements that may
significantly or uniquely affect small
governments, including tribal
governments, it must have developed
under section 203 of the UMRA a small
government agency plan. The plan must
provide for notifying affected small
governments, enabling officials of
affected small governments to have
meaningful and timely input in the
development of EPA regulatory
proposals with significant Federal
intergovernmental mandates, and
informing, educating, and advising
small governments on compliance with
the regulatory requirements.
EPA has determined that this rule
does not contain a Federal mandate that
may result in expenditures of $100
million or more for State, local, and
tribal governments, in the aggregate, or
the private sector in any one year.
Today’s rule merely relaxes the Federal
RVP standard for gasoline in the Grant
Parish area, and thus avoids imposing
the costs that the existing Federal
regulations would otherwise impose.
Today’s rule, therefore, is not subject to
the requirements of sections 202 and
205 of the UMRA.
EPA has determined that this rule
contains no regulatory requirements that
might significantly or uniquely affect
small governments. As discussed above,
the rule relaxes an existing standard and
affects only the gasoline industry.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:56 Feb 12, 2008
Jkt 214001
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
Executive Order 13132, entitled
‘‘Federalism’’ (64 FR 43255 August 10,
1999), requires EPA to develop an
accountable process to ensure
‘‘meaningful and timely input by State
and local officials in the development of
regulatory policies that have federalism
implications.’’ ‘‘Policies that have
federalism implications’’ is defined in
the Executive Order to include
regulations that have ‘‘substantial direct
effects on the States, on the relationship
between the national government and
the States, or on the distribution of
power and responsibilities among the
various levels of government.’’
This final rule does not have
federalism implications. It will not have
substantial direct effects on the States,
on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various
levels of government, as specified in
Executive Order 13132. Thus, Executive
Order 13132 does not apply to this rule.
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation
and Coordination With Indian Tribal
Governments
Executive Order 13175, entitled
‘‘Consultation and Coordination with
Indian Tribal Governments’’ (65 FR
67249, November 9, 2000), requires EPA
to develop an accountable process to
ensure ‘‘meaningful and timely input by
tribal officials in the development of
regulatory policies that have tribal
implications.’’ This rule does not have
tribal implications, as specified in
Executive Order 13175. This rule would
relax the applicable RVP standard in
Grant Parish, LA, during the ozone
control season (June 1st to September
15th) from 7.8 psi to 9.0 psi. It applies
only to Grant Parish, LA. Thus,
Executive Order 13175 does not apply
to this rule.
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of
Children From Environmental Health
and Safety Risks
Executive Order 13045, ‘‘Protection of
Children from Environmental Health
Risks and Safety Risks’’ (62 FR 19885,
Apr. 23, 1997) applies to any rule that:
(1) Is determined to be ‘‘economically
significant’’ as defined under Executive
Order 12866, and (2) concerns an
environmental health or safety risk that
EPA has reason to believe may have a
disproportionate effect on children. If
the regulatory action meets both criteria,
the Agency must evaluate the
environmental health or safety effects of
the planned rule on children, and
explain why the planned regulation is
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
preferable to other potentially effective
and reasonably feasible alternatives
considered by the Agency.
This rule is not subject to the
Executive Order because it is not
economically significant as defined in
Executive Order 12866, and because the
Agency does not have reason to believe
the environmental health or safety risks
addressed by this action present a
disproportionate risk to children. As
previously discussed, the Grant Parish
area has continued to meet the 1-hour
ozone standard since 1995 and has met
the 8-hour ozone standard since initial
designations were issued in 2004. The
maintenance plan approved on
November 6, 2007 shows maintenance
of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS for the
entire maintenance time period of 2002
through 2014 with the 9.0 psi RVP
standard.
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use
This rule is not subject to Executive
Order 13211, ‘‘Actions Concerning
Regulations That Significantly Affect
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use’’ (66
FR 28355, May 22, 2001) because it is
not a significant regulatory action under
Executive Order 12866.
I. National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act
Section 12(d) of the National
Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (‘‘NTTAA’’), Public Law No.
104–113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272
note) directs EPA to use voluntary
consensus standards in its regulatory
activities unless to do so would be
inconsistent with applicable law or
otherwise impractical. Voluntary
consensus standards are technical
standards (e.g., materials specifications,
test methods, sampling procedures, and
business practices) that are developed or
adopted by voluntary consensus
standards bodies. The NTTAA directs
EPA to provide Congress, through OMB,
explanations when the Agency decides
not to use available and applicable
voluntary consensus standards.
This action does not involve technical
standards. Therefore, EPA did not
consider the use of any voluntary
consensus standards.
J. Executive Order 12898: Federal
Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and
Low-Income Populations
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629,
Feb. 16, 1994) establishes federal
executive policy on environmental
justice. Its main provision directs
federal agencies, to the greatest extent
E:\FR\FM\13FER1.SGM
13FER1
8209
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 30 / Wednesday, February 13, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
practicable and permitted by law, to
make environmental justice part of their
mission by identifying and addressing,
as appropriate, disproportionately high
and adverse human health or
environmental effects of their programs,
policies, and activities on minority
populations and low-income
populations in the United States.
EPA has determined that this final
rule will not have disproportionately
high and adverse human health or
environmental effects on minority or
low-income populations because it does
not affect the applicable 8-hour ozone
NAAQS which establish the level of
protection provided to human health or
the environment. This rule will relax
the applicable volatility standard of
gasoline during the summer possibly
resulting in slightly higher mobile
source emissions. However, the State of
Louisiana has demonstrated in a
maintenance plan that this action will
not interfere with attainment of the 8hour ozone NAAQS and therefore
disproportionately high and adverse
human health or environmental effects
on minority or low-income populations
are not an anticipated result.
K. Congressional Review Act
The Congressional Review Act, 5
U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small
Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides
that before a rule may take effect, the
agency promulgating the rule must
submit a rule report, which includes a
copy of the rule, to each House of the
Congress and to the Comptroller General
of the United States. EPA will submit 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 United
States prior to publication of the rule in
the Federal Register. A ‘‘major rule’’
cannot take effect until 60 days after it
is published in the Federal Register.
This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as
defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(a). This rule
will be effective April 14, 2008.
VIII. Legal Authority and Statutory
Provisions
Authority for this action is in sections
211(h) and 301(a) of the Clean Air Act,
42 U.S.C. 7545(h) and 7601(a).
Air pollution control, Fuel additives,
Gasoline, Incorporation by reference,
Motor vehicle and motor vehicle
engines, Motor vehicle pollution,
Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
Dated: February 7, 2008.
Stephen L. Johnson,
Administrator.
Title 40, chapter I, part 80 of the Code
of Federal Regulations is amended as
follows:
I
PART 80—[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 80
continues to read as follows:
I
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7414, 7545 and
7601(a).
2. In § 80.27(a)(2)(ii), the table is
amended by revising the entry for
Louisiana and adding a new footnote 4
to read as follows:
I
§ 80.27 Controls and prohibitions on
gasoline volatility.
(a) * * *
(2) * * *
(ii) * * *
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 80
Environmental protection,
Administrative practice and procedures,
APPLICABLE STANDARDS1 1992 AND SUBSEQUENT YEARS
State
*
May
*
*
*
*
*
July
*
Louisiana:
Grant Parish 4 ....................................................................................
All other volatility nonattainment areas .............................................
*
June
9.0
9.0
*
August
*
9.0
7.8
*
9.0
7.8
*
September
9.0
7.8
*
9.0
7.8
*
1 Standards
*
4 The
*
are expressed in pounds per square inch (psi).
*
*
*
*
standard for Grant Parish from June 1 until September 15 in 1992 through 2007 was 7.8 psi.
*
*
*
*
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 81
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES
[EPA–R09–2007–OAR–1109; FRL–8528–4]
Determination of Nonattainment and
Reclassification of the Imperial
County, 8-Hour Ozone Nonattainment
Area
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:56 Feb 12, 2008
Jkt 214001
This rule finalizes EPA’s
finding of nonattainment and
reclassification of the Imperial County
8-hour ozone nonattainment area
(Imperial County). EPA finds that
Imperial County has failed to attain the
8-hour ozone national ambient air
quality standard (‘‘NAAQS’’ or
‘‘standard’’) by June 15, 2007, the
attainment deadline set forth in the
Clean Air Act (CAA) and Code of
Federal Regulations (CFR) for marginal
nonattainment areas. As a result, on the
effective date of this rule, Imperial
County will be reclassified by operation
of law as a moderate 8-hour ozone
nonattainment area. The moderate area
attainment date for the reclassified
Imperial County will be ‘‘as
SUMMARY:
[FR Doc. E8–2702 Filed 2–12–08; 8:45 am]
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
*
*
*
*
expeditiously as practicable,’’ but no
later than June 15, 2010. Once
reclassified, California must submit
State Implementation Plan (SIP)
revisions that meet the 8-hour ozone
nonattainment requirements for
moderate areas, as required by the CAA.
EPA has determined that the State must
submit these SIP revisions by December
31, 2008.
DATES: Effective Date: March 14, 2008.
ADDRESSES: EPA has established docket
number EPA–R09–2007–OAR–1109 for
this action. The index to the docket is
available electronically at https://
www.regulations.gov and in hard copy
at U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street,
San Francisco, CA 94105–3901. While
E:\FR\FM\13FER1.SGM
13FER1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 30 (Wednesday, February 13, 2008)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 8202-8209]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-2702]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 80
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0002; FRL-8529-2]
Approval of Louisiana's Petition To Relax the Summer Gasoline
Volatility Standard for the Grant Parish Area
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Direct final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: EPA is taking direct final action approving the State of
Louisiana's request to relax the federal Reid Vapor Pressure (RVP)
standard applicable to gasoline introduced into commerce in Grant
Parish, Louisiana, (Grant Parish) during the summer ozone control
season--June 1 to September 15 of each year. Grant Parish is a
designated attainment area under the 8-hour ozone National Ambient Air
Quality Standard (``NAAQS'') and is a redesignated attainment area
under the
[[Page 8203]]
1-hour ozone NAAQS. This action amends our regulations to change the
summertime RVP standard for Grant Parish from 7.8 pounds per square
inch (psi) to 9.0 psi. EPA has determined that this change to our
federal RVP regulations is consistent with the applicable provisions of
the Clean Air Act. Louisiana's request is supported by evidence that
Grant Parish can implement the 9.0 psi RVP standard and maintain the 8-
hour ozone NAAQS and that relaxation of the applicable RVP standard to
9.0 psi will provide economic benefits. This action is being taken
without prior proposal because EPA believes that this final rulemaking
is noncontroversial, for the reasons set forth in this preamble, and
due to the limited scope of this action.
DATES: This rule is effective on April 14, 2008 without further notice,
unless EPA receives adverse comments by March 14, 2008. If EPA receives
adverse comments, we will publish a timely withdrawal in the Federal
Register informing the public that the rule will not take effect.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2007-0002, by one of the following methods:
https://www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line
instructions for submitting comments.
E-mail: a-and-r-Docket@epa.gov
Fax: Air and Radiation Docket--(202) 566-9744
Mail: Environmental Protection Agency, EPA Docket Center
(EPA/DC), Air and Radiation Docket, Mail Code 2822T, 1200 Pennsylvania
Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460, Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2007-0002.
Hand Delivery: Public Reading Room, EPA/DC, EPA West, Room
3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20004. Such
deliveries are only accepted during the Docket Office's normal hours of
operations, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of
boxed information.
Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2007-0002. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at
www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided,
unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to
be CBI or otherwise protected through www.regulations.gov or e-mail.
The www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access'' system,
which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information
unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an e-
mail comment directly to EPA without going through www.regulations.gov,
your e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part
of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available
on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends
that you include your name and other contact information in the body of
your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read
your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for
clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic
files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of
encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses.
Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy.
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically
in www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Public Reading Room, EPA/
DC, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC.
The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday
through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the
Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the
Air and Radiation Docket is (202) 566-1742.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sean Hillson, Office of Transportation
and Air Quality, Transportation and Regional Programs Division,
Mailcode AASMCG, Environmental Protection Agency, 2000 Traverwood
Drive, Ann Arbor, MI 48105; telephone number: (734) 214-4789; fax
number: (734) 214-4052; e-mail address: Hillson.Sean@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, whenever ``we'',
``us'', or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA.
EPA is publishing this rule without a prior proposal because we
view this action as noncontroversial and anticipate no adverse comment.
However, in the ``Proposed Rules'' section of today's Federal Register,
we are publishing a separate document that will serve as the proposal
to relax the applicable volatility standard in Grant Parish if adverse
comments are received on this direct final rule. We do not intend to
institute a second comment period on this action. Any parties
interested in commenting must do so at this time. For further
information about commenting on this rule, see the ADDRESSES section of
this document.
If EPA receives adverse comment, we will publish a timely
withdrawal in the Federal Register informing the public that this
direct final rule will not take effect. We would address all public
comments in a subsequent final rule based on the proposed rule.
Regulated Entities: Entities potentially affected by this rule are
fuel producers and distributors who do business in Grant Parish.
Regulated entities include:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NAICS
Examples of potentially regulated entities codes
\a\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Petroleum Refineries.......................................... 324110
Gasoline Marketers and Distributors........................... 424710
424720
Gasoline Retail Stations...................................... 447110
Gasoline Transporters......................................... 484220
484230
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ North American Industry Classification System (NAICS).
This table provides only a guide for readers regarding entities
likely to be regulated by this action. You should carefully examine the
amended regulations in 40 CFR 80.27 to determine whether your facility
is impacted. If you have further questions, call the person listed in
the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble.
Outline
I. Introduction
II. What Is the History of Gasoline Volatility Regulation?
III. What Are the EPA Rulemaking Actions Addressing the Transition
From the 1-Hour to 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS?
IV. What Is the EPA Policy Regarding Relaxation of Volatility
Standards in Ozone Nonattainment Areas That Are Redesignated as
Attainment Areas?
A. What Is the General Volatility Relaxation Policy?
B. How Is the General Volatility Relaxation Policy Applied to
Grant Parish?
V. What Information Supports the Relaxation of Federal RVP
Requirements in Grant Parish?
A. History
B. Louisiana's RVP Relaxation Request and Initial EPA Response
C. EPA Approval of the Grant Parish 8-Hour Maintenance Plan
D. What Are the Section 110(l) Requirements?
VI. Final Action and Rationale
VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
[[Page 8204]]
I. Introduction
This rulemaking describes our final action to approve Louisiana's
request to relax the federal RVP standard from 7.8 psi to 9.0 psi in
Grant Parish during the summer ozone control season--June 1 to
September 15. In 1995, EPA redesignated Grant Parish to a 1-hour ozone
NAAQS attainment area. Currently, Grant Parish is a designated
attainment area for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS (the 1-hour and 8-hour ozone
NAAQS will also be called the 1-hour and 8-hour ozone standards).
This preamble is hereafter organized into five parts. Section II
provides the history of federal gasoline volatility regulation. Section
III describes EPA's rulemaking actions to transition from the 1-hour to
the 8-hour ozone standard. Section IV provides the Agency's policy
regarding relaxation of volatility standards in former ozone
nonattainment areas that have been redesignated to attainment, and how
this policy is applied to Grant Parish while taking into account the
requirements under the 8-hour ozone standard. Section V reviews the
available information to determine if relaxation of the RVP standard in
Grant Parish is warranted: Louisiana's history of federal RVP
requirements; EPA's redesignation and designation of Grant Parish as
attainment of the 1-hour and 8-hour ozone NAAQS, respectively;
Louisiana's relaxation request prompting this action; and the 8-hour
maintenance plan approval to support the request. Finally, Section VI
presents EPA's final action in response to the request and our
rationale.
II. What is the History of Gasoline Volatility Regulation?
In 1987, EPA determined that gasoline nationwide had become
increasingly volatile, causing an increase in evaporative emissions
from gasoline-powered vehicles and equipment.\1\ Evaporative emissions
from gasoline, referred to as volatile organic compounds (VOCs), are
precursors to the formation of tropospheric ozone and contribute to the
nation's ground-level ozone problem. Exposure to ground-level ozone can
reduce lung function (thereby aggravating asthma or other respiratory
conditions), increase susceptibility to respiratory infection, and may
contribute to premature death in people with heart and lung disease.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ 52 FR 31274 (Aug. 19, 1987).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The most common measure of fuel volatility that is useful in
evaluating gasoline evaporative emissions is the Reid Vapor Pressure
(RVP). Under section 211(c) of the Clean Air Act (CAA or ``the Act''),
we promulgated regulations on March 22, 1989, that set maximum limits
for the RVP of gasoline sold during the summer ozone control season--
June 1 to September 15. These regulations were referred to as Phase I
of a two-phase nationwide \2\ program, which was designed to reduce the
volatility of commercial gasoline during the summer ozone control
season.\3\ On June 11, 1990, EPA promulgated more stringent volatility
controls under Phase II of the volatility control program.\4\ These
requirements established maximum RVP standards of 9.0 psi or 7.8 psi
(depending on the State, the month, and the area's initial ozone
attainment designation with respect to the 1-hour ozone National
Ambient Air Quality Standard or ``NAAQS'') during the ozone control
season.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Hawaii, Alaska and U.S. territories were excepted.
\3\ 54 FR 11868 (Mar. 22, 1989).
\4\ 55 FR 23658 (June 11, 1990).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The 1990 CAA Amendments established a new section, 211(h), to
address fuel volatility. Section 211(h) requires EPA to promulgate
regulations making it unlawful to sell, offer for sale, dispense,
supply, offer for supply, transport, or introduce into commerce
gasoline with an RVP level in excess of 9.0 psi during the ozone
control season. It further requires EPA to establish more stringent RVP
standards in nonattainment areas if we find such standards ``necessary
to generally achieve comparable evaporative emissions (on a per vehicle
basis) in nonattainment areas, taking into consideration the
enforceability of such standards, the need of an area for emission
control, and economic factors.'' Section 211(h) prohibits EPA from
establishing a volatility standard more stringent than 9.0 psi in an
attainment area, except that we may impose a lower (more stringent)
standard in any former ozone nonattainment area redesignated to
attainment.
On December 12, 1991, EPA modified the Phase II volatility
regulations to be consistent with section 211(h) of the CAA.\5\ The
modified regulations prohibited the sale of gasoline with an RVP above
9.0 psi in all areas designated attainment for ozone, beginning in
1992. For areas designated as nonattainment, the regulations retained
the original Phase II standards published in 1990.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ 56 FR 64704 (Dec. 12, 1991).
\6\ See 55 FR 23658 (June 11, 1990).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As stated in the preamble to the Phase II volatility controls,\7\
and reiterated in the proposed change to the volatility standards
published in 1991,\8\ we will rely on States to initiate changes to our
volatility program that they believe will enhance local air quality
and/or increase the economic efficiency of the program within the
statutory limits.\9\ In those rulemakings, we explained that the
Governor of a State may petition the Agency to set a volatility
standard less stringent than 7.8 psi for some month or months in a
nonattainment area. The petition must demonstrate such a change is
appropriate because of a particular local economic impact and that
sufficient alternative programs are available to achieve attainment and
maintenance of the 1-hour ozone NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ See 55 FR 23660 (June 11, 1990) for a discussion on
procedures by which States could petition EPA for more or less
stringent volatility standards.
\8\ See 56 FR 24242 (May 29, 1991) and 56 FR 64706 (Dec. 12,
1991).
\9\ See CAA section 211(h)(1) (allowing EPA to set a volatility
standard more stringent than 9.0 psi as necessary to achieve
comparable emissions in nonattainment areas considering
enforceability, the need of an area for emissions control and
economic factors).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
III. What are the EPA Rulemaking Actions Addressing the Transition from
the 1-Hour to 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS?
In July 1997, EPA promulgated a revised ozone standard which would
be measured over an 8-hour period, i.e., the 8-hour ozone NAAQS or
standard.\10\ The 8-hour Ozone NAAQS rule was challenged by numerous
litigants and in May 1999, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C.
Circuit issued a decision remanding, but not vacating, the 8-hour ozone
standard. In February 2001, the Supreme Court upheld our authority to
set the ozone NAAQS and remanded the case to the D.C. Circuit Court for
disposition of issues the Court did not address in its initial
decision.\11\ The Court of Appeals addressed these remaining issues and
upheld the 8-hour ozone NAAQS.\12\ In April 2004, EPA designated and
classified areas for the 8-hour ozone standard.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ 62 FR 38856 (July 18, 1997).
\11\ Whitman v. Am. Trucking Ass'ns, 531 U.S. 457 (2001).
\12\ American Trucking Assoc. v. EPA, 195 F.3d 4 (D.C. Cir.,
1999).
\13\ 69 FR 23857 (Apr. 30, 2004).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Also in April 2004, we promulgated the Phase 1 Ozone Implementation
rule that addressed the revocation of the 1-hour ozone NAAQS and
identified the 1-hour requirements that would remain applicable after
revocation (i.e., the ``anti-backsliding provisions'').\14\ These
requirements varied based on areas'
[[Page 8205]]
designation for the 1-hour standard and such areas' designation for the
8-hour NAAQS. As part of these anti-backsliding provisions, EPA
required areas that had been redesignated from nonattainment to
attainment for the 1-hour standard (i.e., 1-hour ozone ``maintenance''
areas) and that were designated attainment for the 8-hour standard to
submit a new maintenance plan under section 110(a)(1) that would
provide for maintenance of the 8-hour standard.\15\ After such a plan
was approved, anti-backsliding provisions provided relief for such
areas from certain 1-hour maintenance plan requirements. Although the
Phase 1 Ozone implementation rule was challenged in court and portions
of the rule were vacated, the vacated portions of the rule are not
relevant to today's Grant Parish volatility relaxation rulemaking.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ 69 FR 23951 (Apr. 30, 2004).
\15\ See 69 FR 23955 (Apr. 30, 2004), section IV.C.2.c.v and
IV.C.2.d; see also 40 CFR 51.905(a)(4).
\16\ S. Coast Air Quality Mgmt. Dist. v. EPA, 472 F.3d 882 (D.C.
Cir. 2006 reh'g denied S. Coast Air Quality Mgmt. Dist. v. EPA, 2007
U.S. App. Lexis 13751 (D.C. Cir. June 8, 2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In November 2005, EPA promulgated the Phase 2 Ozone Implementation
rule that addressed various control and planning obligations that are
applicable to areas designated nonattainment for the 8-hour ozone
NAAQS.\17\ This rule has been challenged and EPA is currently awaiting
argument and a decision.\18\ No part of the Phase 2 Ozone
implementation rule is relevant for today's Grant Parish volatility
relaxation rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ 70 FR 71612 (Nov. 29, 2005).
\18\ NRDC v. EPA, No. 06-1045 (D.C. Cir.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
IV. What is the EPA Policy Regarding Relaxation of Volatility Standards
in Nonattainment Areas that are Redesignated as Attainment Areas?
A. What is the General Volatility Relaxation Policy?
Under the amended Phase II volatility regulations, any change in
the volatility standard for a nonattainment area that was subsequently
redesignated as an attainment area must be accomplished through a
separate rulemaking that revises the applicable standard for that
area.\19\ Thus, for former 1-hour nonattainment areas where EPA
mandated a Phase II volatility standard of 7.8 psi RVP in the December
12, 1991 rulemaking, the 7.8 psi RVP standard will remain in effect,
even after such an area is redesignated as being in attainment, until a
separate rulemaking is completed that revises the RVP standard in that
area from 7.8 psi to 9.0 psi.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ 56 FR 64706 (Dec. 12, 1991).
\20\ As stated in the preamble for the Agency's initial Phase II
volatility standards (55 FR 23609), and in the preamble in the
proposal to revise those standards (56 FR 24244), EPA may also
promulgate a rule to revise the volatility standard in a particular
nonattainment area in order to enhance local air quality and/or
increase the economic efficiency of the program. The Governor of a
state, or his designee, may petition EPA for a less stringent
standard if such a standard is consistent with the requirements of
the Act and if the state can document (1) particular local economic
impact that makes the less stringent standard appropriate and (2)
sufficient alternative programs to achieve attainment and
maintenance of the NAAQS for ozone.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As explained in the December 12, 1991 rulemaking, the Agency
believes that relaxation of an applicable RVP standard is best
accomplished in conjunction with the redesignation process. In order
for an ozone nonattainment area to be redesignated as an attainment
area, section 107(d)(3) of the Act requires the State to make a
showing, pursuant to section 175A of the Act, that the area is capable
of maintaining attainment for the ozone NAAQS for ten years. Depending
on the area's circumstances, this maintenance plan will either
demonstrate that the area is capable of maintaining attainment for ten
years without the more stringent volatility standard or that the more
stringent volatility standard may be necessary for the area to maintain
its attainment with the ozone NAAQS. Therefore, in the context of a
request for redesignation, the Agency will not relax the volatility
standard unless the State requests a relaxation and the maintenance
plan demonstrates, to the satisfaction of the Agency, that the area
will maintain attainment for ten years without the need for the more
stringent volatility standard.
B. How Is the General Volatility Relaxation Policy Applied to Grant
Parish?
Under the Phase 1 Ozone implementation rule, 1-hour ozone
maintenance areas that are designated 8-hour ozone attainment areas,
such as Grant Parish, are required to develop and submit to EPA a
maintenance plan under section 110(a)(1) of the Act.\21\ In today's
rulemaking, we are determining that 1-hour ozone maintenance areas that
are designated 8-hour ozone attainment areas may rely on the section
110(a)(1) maintenance plan, rather than a section 175A maintenance plan
as explained above, for purposes of requesting relaxation of the more
stringent volatility standard. We come to the conclusion that a section
110(a)(1) maintenance plan can be used to make a relaxation
demonstration for the following reasons: (1) Section 110(a)(1)
maintenance plans contain analogous information and meet similar
criteria as section 175A maintenance plans, namely a demonstration of
continued maintenance of the ozone standard for at least 10 years using
the less stringent volatility standard and that the plan contains
contingency measures; (2) Although the EPA general volatility
relaxation policy calls for an approved 175A maintenance plan, the
requirement to submit a section 175A maintenance plan for the 8-hour
standard does not apply to areas initially designated attainment for
that standard; and (3) Development of a section 110(a)(1) maintenance
plan is consistent with the Phase 1 Ozone Implementation rule
requirements, specifically 40 CFR 51.905(a)(4), which is applicable to
Grant Parish, and thus use of an approved section 110(a)(1) maintenance
plan for the purpose of relaxing the applicable RVP standard follows
logically. Therefore, in today's rulemaking, EPA is allowing Grant
Parish to rely on its section 110(a)(1) maintenance plan and the
accompanying analysis set forth below in demonstrating the
approvability of the State's relaxation request of the applicable RVP
standard in Grant Parish.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ See 69 FR 23955 (Apr. 30, 2004), section IV.C.2.c.v and
IV.C.2.d; see also 40 CFR 51.905(a)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
V. What Information Supports the Relaxation of Federal RVP Requirements
in Grant Parish?
A. History
In the summer of 1989, the Phase I gasoline volatility control
program was implemented throughout the country. At that time, based on
designations issued on September 11, 1978, Grant Parish was a
designated ozone nonattainment area.\22\ Under the Phase I volatility
rule, gasoline volatility requirements throughout the entire State of
Louisiana were uniform, although there was some variation by month.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ 43 FR 40412 (Sept. 11, 1978).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On November 6, 1991, EPA issued ozone nonattainment designations
for the 1-hour ozone NAAQS. Pursuant to section 107(d)(1)(C)(i) of the
CAA, the nonattainment designation for Grant Parish issued in 1978
continued because Louisiana had not acquired the three years of ambient
air quality data necessary to petition for redesignation to
attainment.\23\ In 1992, under Phase II of the volatility control
program, the Grant Parish ozone nonattainment area
[[Page 8206]]
(at the time) was required to use gasoline with an RVP of 7.8 psi. In
1995, EPA approved a request from the State of Louisiana to redesignate
Grant Parish to attainment for the 1-hour ozone standard and approved a
maintenance plan.\24\ At that time, the State of Louisiana did not make
a request for relaxation of the gasoline volatility standard at that
time; therefore, Grant Parish continued to use gasoline with an RVP of
7.8 psi during the ozone control season through the summer of 2005. In
2004, we designated Grant Parish as an 8-hour ozone attainment
area.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ 56 FR 56694 (Nov. 6, 1991).
\24\ 60 FR 43020 (Aug. 18, 1995).
\25\ 69 FR 23857 (Apr. 30, 2004).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Louisiana's RVP Relaxation Request and Initial EPA Response
In May of 2005, the State of Louisiana requested that the gasoline
volatility standard for Grant Parish be relaxed and that enforcement
discretion be granted in the interim between the request and the final
rulemaking.\26\ This petition from the State cited the fact that Grant
Parish is a designated 8-hour ozone attainment area and a redesignated
1-hour ozone attainment area that has not measured a 1-hour exceedance
in the 10 years since the 1995 maintenance plan became effective.
Louisiana also stated the following justifications for the relaxation:
First, Grant Parish is classified as rural, is not adjacent to any
urban area, and has only seen about 7% population growth from 1990 to
2000 (17,526 to 18,698). Second, a review of vehicle miles traveled
(VMT) statistics for Grant Parish show a downward trend from 1990 to
1999. There was a slight increase (2% per year) from 1999 through 2003,
although Louisiana qualifies this by stating the increase could be a
reflection of increases in population, but is more likely due to
changes in VMT reporting in 2001. Third, air quality data shows a
general decrease in emissions of ozone-forming pollutants, such as
volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and nitrogen oxides (NOX).
Finally, Louisiana provides evidence that relaxation of the RVP
requirement will result in economic benefit to Grant Parish. Outside of
the ozone control season, bulk plant operators are able to acquire
conventional gasoline from nearby terminals. During the ozone control
season, however, bulk plant operators must purchase gasoline meeting
the 7.8 psi RVP standard from facilities in Baton Rouge or Lake
Charles, Louisiana. Each of these cities is approximately 145 miles
from Grant Parish, resulting in a 290-mile roundtrip to deliver
compliant fuel. This distance increases the transportation costs and
can increase the price of gasoline by an estimated 2 cents per gallon.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ Letter from Michael McDaniel, Secretary of the Louisiana
Department of Environmental Quality, to Mayor Richard Greene,
Administrator of U.S. EPA Region 6, titled ``Relaxation of the
Summer Gasoline Volatility Standard for Grant Parish'' (May 24,
2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In May of 2006, the Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance
granted enforcement discretion to allow the use of gasoline having a
volatility that is no higher than 9.0 psi during the ozone control
seasons for Grant Parish from May 16, 2006, to September 16, 2007, or
the effective date of the action set forth in this rulemaking,
whichever is earlier.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ Letter from Granta Nakayama, Assistant Administrator of the
U.S. EPA Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance, to Michael
McDaniel, Secretary of the Louisiana Department of Environmental
Quality, titled ``Enforcement Discretion Regarding the Gasoline
Volatility Standard for Grant Parish, Louisiana'' (May 16, 2006).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. EPA Approval of the Grant Parish 8-Hour Maintenance Plan
On August 23, 2006, the State of Louisiana submitted a maintenance
plan for Grant Parish to EPA Region 6 that ensures continued attainment
of the 8-hour ozone standard through 2014, which is 10 years following
designation under the 8-hour standard as required by 40 CFR
51.905(a)(4)(ii). EPA has determined that the maintenance plan also
meets the other statutory and regulatory requirements and is consistent
with EPA guidance; therefore, in November 2007, EPA published a direct
final rule in the Federal Register that approved the 8-hour maintenance
plan for Grant Parish.\28\ No adverse comments were received, and the
rule became effective on January 7, 2008. The State's maintenance plan
submission, EPA's Technical Support Document, and approval rulemaking
action are incorporated by reference in today's action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ 72 FR 62579 (November 6, 2007); Docket ID: EPA-R06-OAR-
2006-0271.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA determined that the Grant Parish maintenance plan adequately
addresses the components of a maintenance plan: a 2002 base year
attainment inventory; projected emission inventories for the future
years of 2008, 2011, and 2014 with a maintenance demonstration;
verification of continued attainment with the use of either 7.8 or 9.0
psi gasoline; and contingency measures. Some of these components are
presented in greater detail below.
The following table \29\ provides VOC and NOX emissions
data for the 2002 base attainment year inventory, as well as projected
VOC and NOX emission inventory data for the major
anthropogenic source categories developed using EPA-approved
technologies and methodologies and keeping 7.8 psi RVP gasoline in
place for the years 2008, 2011, and 2014.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\29\ The ``Total VOCs'' values for 2008, 2011, and 2014 in this
table differ from the values in the November 6, 2007, maintenance
plan approval rulemaking. These differences were due to a
typographical error by EPA in the ``Onroad VOCs'' row; those errors
have been corrected here resulting in new ``Total VOCs'' values. The
changes accurately reflect the data submitted by the state of
Louisiana and yield lower ``Total VOCs'' values in all future years.
Therefore the conclusion that Grant Parish has demonstrated
maintenance of the 8-hour standard is still valid.
Grant Parish.--VOC and NOX Emission Inventory Baseline
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Emissions source 2002 (tpd) 2008 (tpd) 2011 (tpd) 2014 (tpd)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point Source VOCs............................... 0.66 0.83 0.91 0.98
Point Source NOX................................ 1.85 1.96 2.01 2.06
Non-Point (Area) Source VOCs.................... 1.57 1.62 1.63 1.66
Non-point (Area) Source NOX..................... 0.61 0.64 0.65 0.67
Nonroad VOCs.................................... 5.49 4.66 4.20 3.83
Nonroad NOX..................................... 1.56 1.41 1.33 1.23
Onroad VOCs..................................... 1.27 0.80 0.63 0.52
Onroad NOX...................................... 1.71 1.12 0.83 0.62
---------------------------------------------------------------
Total VOCs.................................. 8.99 7.91 7.37 6.99
Total NOX................................... 5.73 5.13 4.82 4.58
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 8207]]
As shown in the table above, Louisiana has demonstrated that the future
year 8-hour ozone emissions will be less than the 2002 base attainment
year's emissions. Measures that will provide for additional 8-hour
ozone emission reductions include: (1) Implementation of Federal VOC
Emission Standards for Automobile Refinish Coatings, Consumer Products,
and Architectural Coatings; (2) Federal Tier 2 Motor Vehicle Emission
Standards, Heavy-Duty Engine and Vehicle Standards, and gasoline and
highway diesel fuel sulfur control requirements; (3) Federal control of
emissions from non-road diesel engines and fuels; and (4)
implementation of the Federal Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR).\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\30\ 70 FR 25162 (May 12, 2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the Grant Parish maintenance plan's attainment inventory,
Louisiana provided an analysis of VOC emissions from on-road mobile
sources comparing 7.8 and 9.0 psi RVP gasoline for three projection
years: 2008, 2011, and 2014.
Grant Parish.--RVP Comparison Effect on VOC Emissions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
7.8 psi RVP 9.0 psi RVP
Year VOCs (tpd) VOCs (tpd)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2002.................................... 1.27 N/A
2008.................................... 0.80 0.90
2011.................................... 0.63 0.70
2014.................................... 0.52 0.57
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Modeling results for this comparison show that the overall effect on
VOC emissions from between 7.8 and 9.0 psi RVP gasoline was 0.1 tpd or
less for each of the three projection years, and that each of the
projected VOC emission inventories from 9.0 psi RVP gasoline is less
than the VOC emission inventory from the 2002 attainment year
inventory. Therefore, the Grant Parish 8-hour maintenance plan
demonstrates that use of the less stringent 9.0 psi RVP gasoline will
not interfere with 8-hour ozone maintenance. In its approval of the
maintenance plan for Grant Parish, EPA concluded that ``the Grant
Parish 8-hour maintenance plan demonstrates that the use of either 7.8
or 9.0 psi RVP gasoline in the parish will allow the area to continue
to meet the 8-hour ozone NAAQS.''
D. What are the Section 110(l) Requirements?
Section 110(l) requires that a revision to the SIP not interfere
with any applicable requirement concerning attainment and reasonable
further progress (``RFP'') (as defined in section 171), or any other
applicable requirement of the Act. The modeling in the maintenance plan
showed a very small increase in VOC emissions with the relaxed RVP
standard when comparing emissions from 7.8 and 9.0 psi RVP gasoline in
future years, but the emissions projections for the future years using
9.0 psi RVP gasoline in Grant Parish still reflect a decrease in
emissions from the 2002 baseline year and a downward trend in VOC and
NOX emissions through 2014. Therefore, and as discussed in
more detail above, Louisiana has demonstrated that EPA's approval of
the relaxed RVP standard in Grant Parish will not interfere with
continued maintenance of the 8-hour ozone standard in that Parish.
VI. Final Action and Rationale
EPA is taking direct final action to approve Louisiana's request to
relax the federal RVP standard applicable to summertime gasoline
supplied to Grant Parish. This action changes the applicable RVP
standard in Grant Parish from 7.8 psi to 9.0 psi in 40 CFR 80.27(a)(2).
This action will become effective on April 14, 2008, unless adverse
comment is received by March 14, 2008.
Relaxation of the applicable RVP standard for Grant Parish is based
on the fact that Grant Parish is a redesignated 1-hour ozone attainment
area and a designated 8-hour ozone attainment area that has an approved
section 110(a)(1) 8-hr maintenance plan. This maintenance plan
demonstrates that Grant Parish can maintain the 8-hour ozone standard
for the duration of the plan while using 9.0 psi RVP gasoline. As also
discussed earlier, this SIP revision meets the requirements of section
110(l) of the Act. Finally, relaxation of the applicable standard will
result in economic benefits as increased transportation costs
associated with the delivery of 7.8 psi RVP gasoline will be
eliminated.
VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review
This action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under the
terms of Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and is
therefore not subject to OMB review.
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
This action does not impose any new information collection burden
under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et
seq., and therefore is not subject to these requirements.
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency
to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to
notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative
Procedure Act or any other statute unless the agency certifies that the
rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses,
small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions.
For purposes of assessing the impacts of today's rule on small
entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business as defined
by the Small Business Administration's (SBA) regulations at 13 CFR
121.201; (2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government of
a city, county, town, school district or special district with a
population of less than 50,000; and (3) a small organization that is
any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated
and is not dominant in its field.
After considering the economic impacts of today's rule on small
entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. In
determining whether a rule has a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities, the impact of concern is any
significant adverse economic impact on small entities, since the
primary purpose of the regulatory flexibility analyses is to identify
and address regulatory alternatives ``which minimize any significant
economic impact of the rule on small entities.'' 5 U.S.C. 603 and 604.
Thus, an agency may certify that a rule will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities if the rule
relieves regulatory burden, or otherwise has a positive economic effect
on all of the small entities subject to the rule.
This action will relax the federal RVP standard for gasoline sold
in Grant Parish, Louisiana, during the ozone control season (June 1 to
September 15), from 7.8 psi to 9.0 psi, and is therefore expected not
to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. The rule does not impose any requirements or create impacts
on small entities beyond those, if any, already required by or
resulting from the CAA Section 211(h) Volatility Control program.
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public
[[Page 8208]]
Law 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the
effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal
governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, EPA
generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-benefit
analysis, for proposed and final rules with ``Federal mandates'' that
may result in expenditures to State, local, and tribal governments, in
the aggregate, or to the private sector of $100 million or more in any
one year. Before promulgating an EPA rule for which a written statement
is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires EPA to identify
and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt
the least costly, most cost effective or least burdensome alternative
that achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of section 205
do not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover,
section 205 allows EPA to adopt an alternative other than the least
costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative if the
Administrator publishes with the final rule an explanation why that
alternative was not adopted. Before EPA establishes any regulatory
requirements that may significantly or uniquely affect small
governments, including tribal governments, it must have developed under
section 203 of the UMRA a small government agency plan. The plan must
provide for notifying affected small governments, enabling officials of
affected small governments to have meaningful and timely input in the
development of EPA regulatory proposals with significant Federal
intergovernmental mandates, and informing, educating, and advising
small governments on compliance with the regulatory requirements.
EPA has determined that this rule does not contain a Federal
mandate that may result in expenditures of $100 million or more for
State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or the private
sector in any one year. Today's rule merely relaxes the Federal RVP
standard for gasoline in the Grant Parish area, and thus avoids
imposing the costs that the existing Federal regulations would
otherwise impose. Today's rule, therefore, is not subject to the
requirements of sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA.
EPA has determined that this rule contains no regulatory
requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small
governments. As discussed above, the rule relaxes an existing standard
and affects only the gasoline industry.
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR 43255 August
10, 1999), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure
``meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the
development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.''
``Policies that have federalism implications'' is defined in the
Executive Order to include regulations that have ``substantial direct
effects on the States, on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government.''
This final rule does not have federalism implications. It will not
have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship
between the national government and the States, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government,
as specified in Executive Order 13132. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does
not apply to this rule.
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments
Executive Order 13175, entitled ``Consultation and Coordination
with Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful
and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory
policies that have tribal implications.'' This rule does not have
tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175. This rule
would relax the applicable RVP standard in Grant Parish, LA, during the
ozone control season (June 1st to September 15th) from 7.8 psi to 9.0
psi. It applies only to Grant Parish, LA. Thus, Executive Order 13175
does not apply to this rule.
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health and Safety Risks
Executive Order 13045, ``Protection of Children from Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR 19885, Apr. 23, 1997) applies to
any rule that: (1) Is determined to be ``economically significant'' as
defined under Executive Order 12866, and (2) concerns an environmental
health or safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may have a
disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action meets
both criteria, the Agency must evaluate the environmental health or
safety effects of the planned rule on children, and explain why the
planned regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and
reasonably feasible alternatives considered by the Agency.
This rule is not subject to the Executive Order because it is not
economically significant as defined in Executive Order 12866, and
because the Agency does not have reason to believe the environmental
health or safety risks addressed by this action present a
disproportionate risk to children. As previously discussed, the Grant
Parish area has continued to meet the 1-hour ozone standard since 1995
and has met the 8-hour ozone standard since initial designations were
issued in 2004. The maintenance plan approved on November 6, 2007 shows
maintenance of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS for the entire maintenance time
period of 2002 through 2014 with the 9.0 psi RVP standard.
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use
This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211, ``Actions
Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) because it is not a
significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.
I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (``NTTAA''), Public Law No. 104-113, section 12(d) (15
U.S.C. 272 note) directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in
its regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with
applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards
are technical standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods,
sampling procedures, and business practices) that are developed or
adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA
to provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides
not to use available and applicable voluntary consensus standards.
This action does not involve technical standards. Therefore, EPA
did not consider the use of any voluntary consensus standards.
J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, Feb. 16, 1994) establishes
federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision
directs federal agencies, to the greatest extent
[[Page 8209]]
practicable and permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of
their mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate,
disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental
effects of their programs, policies, and activities on minority
populations and low-income populations in the United States.
EPA has determined that this final rule will not have
disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental
effects on minority or low-income populations because it does not
affect the applicable 8-hour ozone NAAQS which establish the level of
protection provided to human health or the environment. This rule will
relax the applicable volatility standard of gasoline during the summer
possibly resulting in slightly higher mobile source emissions. However,
the State of Louisiana has demonstrated in a maintenance plan that this
action will not interfere with attainment of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS and
therefore disproportionately high and adverse human health or
environmental effects on minority or low-income populations are not an
anticipated result.
K. Congressional Review Act
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit 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 United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A ``major rule''
cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register.
This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(a).
This rule will be effective April 14, 2008.
VIII. Legal Authority and Statutory Provisions
Authority for this action is in sections 211(h) and 301(a) of the
Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. 7545(h) and 7601(a).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 80
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedures,
Air pollution control, Fuel additives, Gasoline, Incorporation by
reference, Motor vehicle and motor vehicle engines, Motor vehicle
pollution, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Dated: February 7, 2008.
Stephen L. Johnson,
Administrator.
0
Title 40, chapter I, part 80 of the Code of Federal Regulations is
amended as follows:
PART 80--[AMENDED]
0
1. The authority citation for part 80 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7414, 7545 and 7601(a).
0
2. In Sec. 80.27(a)(2)(ii), the table is amended by revising the entry
for Louisiana and adding a new footnote 4 to read as follows:
Sec. 80.27 Controls and prohibitions on gasoline volatility.
(a) * * *
(2) * * *
(ii) * * *
Applicable Standards\1\ 1992 and Subsequent Years
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
State May June July August September
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
Louisiana:
Grant Parish \4\........................... 9.0 9.0 9.0 9.0 9.0
All other volatility nonattainment areas... 9.0 7.8 7.8 7.8 7.8
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Standards are expressed in pounds per square inch (psi).
* * * * * * *
\4\ The standard for Grant Parish from June 1 until September 15 in 1992 through 2007 was 7.8 psi.
* * * * * * *
[FR Doc. E8-2702 Filed 2-12-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P