[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 105 (Thursday, June 1, 1995)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 28557-28560]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-13430]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[MN-28-1-6163; FRL-5213-7]
Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Minnesota
Carbon Monoxide Contingency Measure
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The USEPA is proposing to approve the carbon monoxide (CO)
contingency measure as a revision to the Minnesota State Implementation
Plan (SIP) in the Twin-Cities area. This area is designated moderate
nonattainment for CO. It includes the Twin Cities of Minneapolis-Saint
Paul and the following counties which comprise the CO control area:
Anoka, Carver, Chisago, Dakota, Hennepin, Isanti, Ramsey, Scott,
Washington, and Wright. The USEPA action is based upon a request that
was submitted by the State to satisfy the requirement of section
172(c)(9) of the Clean Air Act as amended in 1990 (CAAA). This section
of the CAAA requires States with areas designated moderate or above CO
or ozone nonattainment to submit contingency measures by November 15,
1993. These measures must take effect, without further action by the
State or the USEPA, if an area fails to make reasonable further
progress or to attain by the attainment date. The State submittal meets
this requirement, of no further action to implement, because the State
legislation that authorizes this measure requires the use of oxygenated
gasoline on a year-round basis beginning October 31, 1995, in areas
classified as CO control areas. In the State's plan no trigger event is
required. Ethanol is expected to be the primary oxygenate in this area
and will in large part be used to meet the year-round oxygenate
requirement. Thus, in addition to the benefits from the reduction of CO
emissions through the use of oxygenated gasoline, the expected use of
ethanol in implementing this contingency measure is consistent with the
longstanding Federal policy of using renewable fuels for a positive
energy impact and the reduction of emissions of greenhouse gases.
DATES: Comments on this SIP revision and on the proposed USEPA
rulemaking action must be received by July 3, 1995, to be considered in
the development of the USEPA's final rulemaking action.
ADDRESSES: Written comments should be addressed to: William L.
MacDowell, Chief, Regulation Development Section, Air Enforcement
Branch (AE-17J), United States Environmental Protection Agency, 77 West
Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604.
Copies of the revision request and USEPA's analysis are available
for public inspection during normal business hours at the following
addresses: United States Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, Air
and Radiation Division, 77 West Jackson Boulevard (AE-17J), Chicago,
Illinois 60604; and Office of Air and Radiation (OAR), Docket and
Information Center (Air Docket (6102) Room M1500, United States
Environmental Protection [[Page 28558]] Agency, 401 M Street SW.
Washington, D.C., 20460.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Paskevicz, Air Enforcement
Branch, Regulation Development Section (AE-17J), United States
Environmental Protection, Region 5, Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 886-
6084.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Statutory Requirements and Guidance
For moderate CO nonattainment areas with design values of 12.7
parts per million (ppm) or less, section 172(c)(9) of the CAAA requires
States to submit SIP revisions containing contingency measures, which
are due by November 15, 1993, under section 172(b) of the CAAA. These
provisions require contingency measures to take effect automatically,
without further rulemaking action by the State or the Administrator, in
the event the area fails to attain the national standard by the
applicable attainment date. Certain actions, such as notification of
the affected community, resource allocation, etc., would probably be
needed before a measure could be implemented effectively. States must
show that their contingency measures can be implemented with minimal
further action on their part and with no additional rulemaking actions.
The USEPA believes that, to be beneficial, contingency measures must be
implemented within twelve months following a finding of failure to
attain the CO national ambient air quality standard. States must show
that their contingency measures can be implemented with minimal further
action on their part and with no additional rulemaking actions.1
\1\ See Contingency measure guideline document ``Technical
Support Document to Aid States With the Development of Carbon
Monoxide SIPs, EPA-452/R-92-003, dated July 1992.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Twin-Cities CO nonattainment area is a moderate area with a
design value of 11.4 ppm for CO. Thus, under section 172(c)(9),
Minnesota is required to submit a SIP revision containing contingency
measures satisfying the above criteria. In this action, USEPA proposes
to approve the State's submission as satisfying the CAAA requirements.
II. Summary of State Submittal and Analysis
Description of the Submittal
On November 12, 1993, the Commissioner of the Minnesota Pollution
Control Agency submitted elements of a contingency measure SIP revision
for the moderate CO nonattainment area in the Twin-Cities area of the
State. This area includes the following counties which comprise the CO
control area: Anoka, Carver, Chisago, Dakota, Hennepin, Isanti, Ramsey,
Scott, Washington, and Wright.2 The contingency measure expands
the current four month wintertime oxygenated gasoline program to a
year-round oxygenated gasoline program. On January 25, 1994, the USEPA
issued a completeness letter noting the submittal was complete except
for two items of information: the results of the public hearing
process; and a report of the results of a study concerning the year-
round use of ethanol as the oxygenate and its effect on summertime
ozone concentrations. The USEPA received the results of the public
hearing process in a letter from the Commissioner of the MPCA on
January 26, 1994, which demonstrated that the State had carried out the
public process. The State also submitted on that date a report prepared
by an environmental contractor regarding the year-round use of ethanol
in the State.
\2\ St. Louis County (in the Duluth-Superior, Wisconsin MSA) was
redesignated to attainment for carbon monoxide on April 14, 1994.
The maintenance plan contains a 'park and ride' measure to reduce
vehicle miles traveled in the event maintenance cannot be assured.
If the first choice measure (park and ride) does not succeed in
reducing the CO concentrations, the State will consider the
implementation of an oxygenated gasoline program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The USEPA believes the State's year-round oxygenated gasoline
requirement complies with the criteria for contingency measures. The
program will be implemented in the event the area fails to reach
attainment by 1996 because the program will go into effect on October
31, 1995. Also, all provisions of the program were adopted and
enforceable prior to submittal to the USEPA on November 15, 1993. This
contingency measure will produce emissions reductions during the
portion of the year that the current wintertime oxygenated fuels
program does not address. While there has not been a violation of the
CO air quality standard since 1991, a significant number of exceedances
contributing to a violation of the health standard between 1987 and
1991 were registered outside of the current four month program period.
The current oxygenated gasoline program appears to be effectively
reducing emissions of CO during the period of the year it is in effect.
Therefore, USEPA believes the CO emissions reductions achieved by the
expansion of the program throughout the rest of the year would be an
important contribution to attaining the standard, in the event that the
area fails to attain by the deadline. Thus, USEPA believes that it is
appropriate to approve the revision.
An issue has been raised whether section 110(l) of the CAAA would
prevent USEPA from approving the revision because of the potential that
the year round oxygenate requirement would adversely affect summertime
ozone levels. Section 110(l) bars the Administrator from approving a
plan revision if the revision would interfere with any applicable
requirement concerning attainment of a standard and reasonable further
progress, or any other applicable requirement of the CAAA. The concern
arises here because it is expected that ethanol, the primary oxygenate
used in the blending program, will increase the emission of volatile
organic compounds, which are ozone precursors, from the gasoline-
ethanol blend.
Ethanol comprises over 65 percent of the market share for
oxygenates in the Twin-Cities area. Splash blending of ethanol in
gasoline increases the evaporative emissions of hydrocarbons, and
section 211(h)(4) of the CAAA allows a one pound per square inch (psi)
waiver of the vapor pressure limit on gasoline for ethanol blends.
Increased evaporative hydrocarbon emissions could produce higher
summertime ambient ozone concentrations in the area, potentially
exceeding the National Ambient Air Quality Standard for ozone.
The USEPA requested that the State submit the report on year-round
use of the ethanol blended gasoline in order to evaluate this potential
problem.
While the Twin-Cities area is in attainment for ozone, it is
difficult to accurately predict the effect that an increase in RVP
resulting from increased summertime ethanol use will have on ambient
ozone concentrations. The lower exhaust VOC and CO emissions resulting
from the use of ethanol are believed to have some effect moderating the
impact of increases in evaporative emissions of ethanol blends. Also,
an increase is limited to the effects of a one psi increase in the
vapor pressure limit for gasoline. In this case it is believed the use
of ethanol year-round will have a positive impact on summertime ambient
concentrations of carbon monoxide.3 The State does not believe the
year-round program will adversely affect ambient ozone concentrations.
The State has indicated it will continue to evaluate the material
[[Page 28559]] available on the issue, especially the comments made by
the USEPA regarding the consultant's report.4 While USEPA
questions some of the conclusions in the report by the environmental
consultant on this issue, it believes the potential for reduced carbon
monoxide exceedances during the summer months and the positive energy
benefits of the use of renewable fuels outweigh the uncertain potential
for increased ozone concentrations. At this time, USEPA does not have
enough information to indicate a likely increase in ozone sufficient to
move the area into nonattainment for ozone, which would be a basis for
disapproval.
\3\ Internal staff communication concerning past summertime
exceedances of the carbon monoxide standard in Minnesota.
\4\ Note dated July 20, 1994, from Paul Machiele, USEPA, Ann
Arbor commenting on the report entitled ``Ozone Impact of Year-Round
Oxy-Fuel Program in Minnesota'', G. Whitten, B. Austin, K. O'Conner,
Systems Application International, sysapp94-93/246rl, January 10,
1994.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The remainder of the State's submittal is similar in content to the
original document submitted for the oxygenated gasoline program dated
November 9, 1992, which USEPA approved on October 4, 1994 (59 FR
50493). The major difference is that this contingency measure is a
year-round oxygenated gasoline program as opposed to the four month
wintertime only program. The State's procedures document details the
manner in which the program must be carried out. The USEPA is also
concerned about the extent and vigor of the enforcement program to
ensure oxygen content. The USEPA believes that if tax supports for the
use of renewable fuels are reduced, resources for enforcement will
become critical to the effectiveness of the program. Without tax
credits or other forms of price support, the cost of using ethanol will
increase and retailers and/or blenders will have an incentive to reduce
their costs by not blending. The State and interested parties are
requested to respond to this concern.
The wintertime oxygenated gasoline program submitted in November
1992, was made final on October 4, 1994, (59 FR 50493). The program
requires that gasoline sold in the CO control area contain a minimum of
2.0 weight percent oxygen and must average 2.7 weight percent oxygen
during the control period. The program does not include oxygen credit
trading. Under the revised program, these provisions and all other
aspects of the oxygenated gasoline program will apply year-round.
Persons interested in more details on the year-round program are
invited to review the State's wintertime oxygenated gasoline program
and the USEPA analysis of it published on January 20, 1994, (59 FR
3047), or contact the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, which is
responsible for the SIP revision.
The oxygenated gasoline program requires reports to be submitted by
registered blenders at the end of the control period. For the year-
round program the end of the control period for reporting purposes has
not been defined in the State's legislation. The USEPA believes this
minor deficiency can be overcome through an administrative order.
III. Summary
The USEPA believes the State's contingency measure CO SIP meets the
requirements of section 172(c)(9) of the Act, was submitted promptly,
and contains all of the required elements to reduce the emissions of
CO. Because State legislation requires a year-round oxygenated gasoline
program to be in operation beginning in October 1995, it does not
require a triggering event for startup, and the USEPA believes there
are no other regulatory provisions needed to fully implement the
program. The State already has a seasonal oxygenated gasoline program
in place. This will simply be expanded to a year-round program, which
has been developed and will be implemented and enforced by the same
State administrative agencies.
The USEPA believes this plan meets the requirements for approval as
a contingency measure for the control of CO emissions and proposes to
approve the State plan. However, as noted above, there are a number of
items the USEPA believes should be addressed. Interested parties are
invited to comment on the following issues: potential for increases in
ozone concentrations during the summertime resulting from the use of
renewable oxygenates, the impact on the potential for cheating in the
event tax supports for the use of ethanol are no longer available, and
the need to define an end point for reporting purposes in the annual
program.
IV. Rulemaking Action
The USEPA is proposing to approve the State of Minnesota
contingency plan to control the emissions of carbon monoxide in the
nonattainment area of the Twin Cities area. The USEPA will take final
action on this notice following analysis of public comments on this
proposal.
Nothing in this action should be construed as permitting, allowing
or establishing a precedent for any future request for revision to any
SIP. USEPA 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.
Executive Order 12866
This action has been classified as a Table 2 action by the Regional
Administrator under the procedures published in the Federal Register on
January 19, 1989 (54 FR 2214-2225), as revised by an October 4, 1993
memorandum from Michael H. Shapiro, Acting Assistant Administrator for
Air and Radiation. The Office of Management and Budget exempted this
regulatory action from Executive Order 12866 review.
Regulatory Flexibility
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 600 et seq., USEPA
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, USEPA 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.
SIP approvals under section 110 and subchapter I, Part D of the
CAAA do not create any new requirements, but simply approve
requirements that the State is already imposing. Therefore, because the
federal SIP-approval does not impose any new requirements, I certify
that it does not have a significant impact on any small entities
affected. Moreover, due to the nature of the Federal-State relationship
under the CAAA, preparation of a regulatory flexibility analysis would
constitute federal inquiry into the economic reasonableness of state
action. The CAAA forbids USEPA to base its actions concerning SIPs on
such grounds. Union Electric Co. v. USEPA, 427 US 246, 256-66 (S.Ct.
1976); 42 U.S.C. 7410(a)(2).
Under sections 202, 203, and 205 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform
Act of 1995, signed into law on March 22, 1995, USEPA must undertake
various actions in association with proposed or final rules that
include a Federal mandate that may result in estimated costs of $100
million or more to the private sector, or to State, local, or tribal
governments in the aggregate.
Through submission of the state implementation plan or plan
revisions approved in this action, the State has elected to adopt the
program provided for under section 110 of the Clean Air Act. The rules
and commitments being approved in this action may bind State, local and
tribal governments to perform [[Page 28560]] certain actions and also
may ultimately lead to the private sector being required to perform
certain duties. To the extent that the rules and commitments being
approved by this action will impose or lead to the imposition of any
mandate upon the State, local or tribal governments either as the owner
or operator of a source or as a regulator, or would impose or lead to
the imposition of any mandate upon the private sector, EPA's action
will impose no new requirements; such sources are already subject to
these requirements under State law. Accordingly, no additional costs to
State, local, or tribal governments, or to the private sector, result
from this action. The USEPA has also determined that this action does
not include a mandate that may result in estimated costs or $100
million or more to State, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate
or to the private sector.
Under Section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by July 31, 1995. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule
does not affect the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial
review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial
review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such
rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings
to enforce its requirements. (See Section 307(b)(2).)
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, Hydrocarbons, Ozone,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671(q).
Dated: May 17, 1995.
Michelle Jordan,
Acting Regional Administrator.
[FR Doc. 95-13430 Filed 5-31-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE: 6560-50-P
