[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 86 (Monday, May 5, 1997)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 24341-24343]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-11633]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[MI50-01-7257; FRL-5819-5]
Promulgation of Reid Vapor Pressure Standard; Michigan
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In this action, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is
approving a revision to the Michigan State Implementation Plan (SIP)
establishing a summertime gasoline Reid vapor pressure (RVP) limit of
7.8 pounds per square inch (psi) for gasoline sold in Wayne, Oakland,
Macomb, Washtenaw, Livingston, St. Clair, and Monroe counties in
Michigan (Detroit--Ann Arbor consolidated metropolitan statistical area
(CMSA)). The marketing of less volatile gasoline
[[Page 24342]]
reduces excessive evaporation of fuel during the summer months.
Evaporated gasoline combines with other pollutants on hot summer days
to form ground-level ozone, commonly referred to as smog. Ozone
pollution is of particular concern because of its harmful effects on
lung tissue and breathing passages.
On August 30, 1996, the EPA published a Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking (NPRM) proposing to approve the SIP revision. During the
comment period EPA received comments from one commentator, which were
adverse.
This document summarizes the comments received, EPA's responses and
finalizes the approval of Michigan's SIP revision to establish a RVP
limit of 7.8 psi for gasoline sold in the Detroit--Ann Arbor CMSA.
EFFECTIVE DATE: This rule will become effective on May 5, 1997.
ADDRESSES: Copies of the documents relevant to this action are
available at the below address for public inspection during normal
business hours.
United States Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, Air and
Radiation Division, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), 77 West Jackson
Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois, 60604.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Brad J. Beeson at (312) 353-4779.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
In April 1995, the Detroit-Ann Arbor CMSA was redesignated as an
attainment area for ozone. At the time the area was redesignated to
attainment, EPA approved, as a revision to the Michigan SIP,
contingency measures including a 7.8 psi RVP fuels program. During the
summer of 1995 monitors in the Detroit-Ann Arbor CMSA recorded several
violations of the ozone standard. Therefore, the State is required to
implement an ozone contingency measure.
On January 6, 1996, Michigan Governor John Engler sent a letter to
EPA advising EPA the State had selected the 7.8 psi (low-RVP) fuels
program as one of the contingency measures to be implemented in the
Detroit area. On May 16, 1996, the State submitted the low-RVP portion
of their fuels program to EPA for approval. The program would require
gasoline sold in the Detroit-Ann Arbor CMSA to a standard of 7.8 psi
from June 1 to September 15. See 61 FR 45926 (August 30, 1996) for
further details of the program. The EPA reviewed the SIP revision
submitted by the State to determine completeness in accordance with the
completeness criteria set out at 40 CFR Part 51, Appendix V (1991), as
amended by 57 FR 42216 (August 26, 1991). On May 24, 1996, EPA found
the State's SIP submittal complete.
State governments are preempted under Section 211(c)(4)(A) of the
Clean Air Act from mandating a gasoline volatility standard not
identical to any Federal standard promulgated under Section 211(c)(1)
that is applicable to the same characteristic. However, under Section
211(c)(4)(C) a State can require, through a SIP revision, a more
stringent RVP standard for a particular area if the EPA finds that the
more stringent standard is necessary to achieve the National Ambient
Air Quality Standard for ozone. The EPA can approve a preempted state
fuel requirement as necessary; only if no other measures would bring
about timely attainment, or if other measures exist but are
unreasonable or impracticable. In addition to demonstrating necessity
as part of the Section 211(c)(4)(C) waiver process, under Section 110
the State must also submit an adequate description of the low-RVP
program and associated enforcement procedures. If EPA finds that a
State has shown necessity and has provided an adequate description of
the program, EPA may approve the SIP revision requiring the lower State
RVP standard for the selected areas.
On August 30, 1996, EPA proposed approval of the State's SIP
revision to establish a low-RVP program in the Detroit-Ann Arbor CMSA.
As detailed in the proposed approval at 61 FR 45926, EPA found the
State's demonstration sufficient to satisfy the necessity requirement
of Section 211(c)(4)(C) of the Act. Additionally, EPA found that the
State's description of the program and associated enforcement
procedures were sufficient for approval.
II. Public Comment and EPA Response
During the comment period comments were received from only one
commentator. The following summarizes each comment and provides EPA's
response.
Comment
The first comment questioned whether implementation of a low-RVP
program alone would be sufficient to reduce ozone and ozone precursor
emissions in the Detroit-Ann Arbor area. In support of this position,
the commentator cites recent air quality monitoring data showing
exceedances of the 120 parts per billion one-hour standard. The data
includes ozone monitoring values from monitors in Detroit as well as
Southern Ontario, Canada, which is directly downwind of Detroit.
EPA Response
The State is obligated under its maintenance plan to implement
further emission control measures if the low-RVP program is not
effective in reducing violations of the ozone standard. Implementation
of a low-RVP program was only one of several measures the State has in
its contingency plan. Therefore, there are other measures in the
State's contingency plan which could be and must be implemented if the
low-RVP program is not effective.
Comment
The last comment concerns whether consensus was reached by the
Michigan Contingency Measure Workgroup in selecting a low-RVP program
as a contingency measure. The commentator states that ``the workgroup
which was convened to consider and select contingency measures did not
result in consensus recommendations.''
EPA Response
Websters' Dictionary defines consensus as a general agreement, or a
judgment arrived at by most of those concerned. In the recommendation
section of the Workgroup's final report a low-RVP program is listed as
one of the recommended contingency measures. The report further states
that most of the participants concurred with recommended contingency
measures. While the recommendation for a low-RVP program was not
unanimous, the recommendation was clearly supported by a majority of
the Workgroup. The EPA concludes that the Workgroup reached consensus
on the recommendation of low-RVP as a contingency measure.
III. Action
The EPA is approving a revision to Michigan's SIP to establish a
summertime gasoline RVP limit of 7.8 psi for gasoline sold in Wayne,
Oakland, Macomb, Washtenaw, Livingston, St. Clair, and Monroe counties.
IV. Administrative Requirements
A. Applicability to Future SIP Decisions
Nothing in this action should be construed as permitting, allowing
or establishing a precedent for any future request for revision to any
SIP. The EPA shall consider each request for revision to the SIP in
light of specific technical, economic, and environmental factors and in
relation to relevant statutory and regulatory requirements.
[[Page 24343]]
B. Executive Order 12866
This action has been classified as a Table 3 action for signature
by the Regional Administrator under the procedures published in the
Federal Register on January 19, 1989 (54 FR 2214-2225), as revised by a
July 10, 1995 memorandum from Mary Nichols, Assistant Administrator for
Air and Radiation. The Office of Management and Budget has exempted
this regulatory action from E.O. 12866 review.
C. Regulatory Flexibility
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 600 et seq., the EPA
must prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis assessing the impact of
any proposed or final rule on small entities (5 U.S.C. 603 and 604).
Alternatively, EPA may certify that the rule will not have a
significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small
entities include small businesses, small not-for-profit enterprises,
and government entities with jurisdiction over populations of less than
50,000.
This approval does not create any new requirements, but simply
approves pre-existing requirements under state law. Therefore, I
certify that this action does not have a significant impact on any
small entities affected. Moreover, due to the nature of the Federal-
State relationship under the Act, preparation of the regulatory
flexibility analysis would constitute Federal inquiry into the economic
reasonableness of the State action. The Act forbids EPA to base its
actions concerning SIPs on such grounds. Union Electric Co. v. EPA, 427
U.S. 246, 256-66 (1976).
D. Unfunded Mandates
Under Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
(``Unfunded Mandates Act''), signed into law on March 22, 1995, EPA
must prepare a budgetary impact statement to accompany any proposed or
final rule that includes a Federal mandate that may result in estimated
costs to state, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate; or to
the private sector, of $100 million or more. Under Section 205, EPA
must select the most cost-effective and least burdensome alternative
that achieves the objectives of the rule and is consistent with
statutory requirements. Section 203 requires EPA to establish a plan
for informing and advising any small governments that may be
significantly or uniquely impacted by the rule.
This Federal action approves pre-existing requirements under state
or local law, and imposes no new Federal requirements. Accordingly, no
additional costs to state, local, or tribal governments, or the private
sector, result from this action.
E. Petitions for Judicial Review
Under section 307(b)(1) of the Act, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by July 7, 1997. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect
the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial review, nor does
it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be
filed and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action.
This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its
requirements (see section 307(b)(2)).
F. Submission to Congress and the General Accounting Office
Under 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A) as added by the Small Business
Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, EPA submitted a report
containing this rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate,
the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the
General Accounting Office prior to publication of the rule in the
Federal Register. This rule is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5
U.S.C. 804(2).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Hydrocarbons,
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Ozone,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Dated: April 4, 1997.
Valdas V. Adamkus,
Regional Administrator.
Part 52, Chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is
amended as follows:
PART 52--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q.
Subpart X--Michigan
2. Section 52.1170 is amended by adding paragraph (c)(108) to read
as follows:
Sec. 52.1170 Identification of plan.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(108) On May 16, 1996, the State of Michigan submitted a revision
to the Michigan State Implementation Plan (SIP). This revision is for
the purpose of establishing a gasoline Reid vapor pressure (RVP) limit
of 7.8 pounds per square inch (psi) for gasoline sold in Wayne,
Oakland, Macomb, Washtenaw, Livingston, St. Clair, and Monroe counties
in Michigan.
(i) Incorporation by reference.
(A) House Bill No. 4898; signed and effective November 13, 1993.
(B) Michigan Complied Laws, Motor Fuels Quality Act, Chapter 290,
Sections 642, 643, 645, 646, 647, and 649; all effective November 13,
1993.
(C) Michigan Complied Laws, Weights and Measures Act of 1964,
Chapter 290, Sections 613, 615; all effective August 28, 1964.
(ii) Additional materials.
(A) Letter from Michigan Governor John Engler to Regional
Administrator Valdas Adamkus, dated January 5, 1996.
(B) Letter from Michigan Director of Environmental Quality Russell
Harding to Regional Administrator Valdas Adamkus, dated May 14, 1996.
(C) State report titled ``Evaluation of Air Quality Contingency
Measures for Implementation in Southeast Michigan,'' submitted to the
EPA on May 14, 1996.
[FR Doc. 97-11633 Filed 5-2-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
