Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality State Implementation Plans (SIP); Texas: Control of Gasoline Volatility

Related Material

Other Related Documents

Note: EPA no longer updates this information, but it may be useful as a reference or resource.

[Federal Register: April 26, 2001 (Volume 66, Number 81)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 20927-20931]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr26ap01-16]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[TX-114-2-7494; FRL-6969-4]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality State Implementation
Plans (SIP); Texas: Control of Gasoline Volatility

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The EPA is approving a State Implementation Plan (SIP)
revision submitted by the State of Texas establishing a low-Reid Vapor
Pressure (RVP) fuel requirement for gasoline distributed in 95 counties
in the eastern and central parts of Texas. Texas developed this fuel
requirement to reduce emissions of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) as
part of the State's strategy to achieve the National Ambient Air
Quality Standard (NAAQS) for ozone in the Houston-Galveston and Dallas-
Fort Worth nonattainment areas. We are approving Texas' fuel
requirement into the SIP because we found that the fuel requirement is
in accordance with the requirements of the Clean Air Act (the Act) as
amended in 1990 and is necessary for these

[[Page 20928]]

nonattainment areas to achieve the ozone NAAQS.

DATES: This final rule is effective on May 29, 2001.

ADDRESSES: Copies of the documents relevant to this action are
available for public inspection during normal business hours at the
following locations. Persons interested in examining these documents
should make an appointment with the appropriate office at least 24
hours before the visiting day.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 6, Air Planning Section
(6PD-L), 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 700, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733.
Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission, 12100 Park 35
Circle, Austin, Texas 78753.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Sandra G. Rennie, Air Planning
Section (6PD-L), EPA Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75202-
2733, telephone (214) 665-7367.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document ``we,'' ``us,'' and
``our'' means EPA.

What Action Is EPA Taking Today?

We are granting final approval of Texas' low RVP fuel requirement
for gasoline distributed in 95 counties in the eastern and central
parts of Texas. The State's low-RVP program will only apply in the
attainment counties listed in this action and will not apply in the
designated nonattainment counties in the Houston-Galveston (HGA),
Dallas-Fort Worth (DFW), or Beaumont-Port Arthur (BPA) ozone
nonattainment areas because these areas are already subject to Federal
fuel controls that are at least as stringent.

What Are the Clean Air Act Requirements?

Section 172 of the Act provides the general requirements for
nonattainment plans. Section 172(c)(6) and section 110 require SIPs to
include enforceable emission limitations, and such other control
measures, means or techniques as well as schedules and timetables for
compliance, as may be necessary to provide for attainment by the
applicable attainment date. Today's SIP revision involves approval of
one of a collection of controls adopted by the State to achieve the
ozone standard in the DFW and HGA nonattainment areas as required under
section 172. EPA approval of this SIP revision is governed by section
110 of the Act.
In addition to these general requirements, section 211(c)(4)(C)
provides that a state fuel control, otherwise preempted under section
211(c)(4)(A), may only be approved into a SIP if EPA finds the fuel
control is ``necessary'' to achieve a NAAQS. Today's approval of the
State's fuel control also meets the requirements of section
211(c)(4)(C) because we have found that the control is ``necessary'' to
achieve the NAAQS in the DFW and HGA ozone nonattainment areas.

Why Is EPA Taking This Action?

We are taking this action because the State submitted an adequate
demonstration to show the necessity for this fuel requirement to
achieve the NAAQS in the DFW and HGA ozone nonattainment areas.

What Does the State's Low-RVP Regulation Include?

The State's low-RVP regulation requires that gasoline sold within
the 95 attainment counties listed in the regulations have a maximum RVP
of 7.8 psi. The regulations apply to gasoline sold at gasoline
dispensing facilities between June 1 and October 1 of each year, and
between May 1 and October 1 of each year for bulk plants, gasoline
terminals and gasoline storage vessels.
The 95 central and eastern Texas counties affected by these rules
are Anderson, Angelina, Aransas, Atascosa, Austin, Bastrop, Bee, Bell,
Bexar, Bosque, Bowie, Brazos, Burleson, Caldwell, Calhoun, Camp, Cass,
Cherokee, Colorado, Comal, Cooke, Coryell, De Witt, Delta, Ellis,
Falls, Fannin, Fayette, Franklin, Freestone, Goliad, Gonzales, Grayson,
Gregg, Grimes, Guadalupe, Harrison, Hays, Henderson, Hill, Hood,
Hopkins, Houston, Hunt, Jackson, Jasper, Johnson, Karnes, Kaufman,
Lamar, Lavaca, Lee, Leon, Limestone, Live Oak, Madison, Marion,
Matagorda, McLennan, Milam, Morris, Nacogdoches, Navarro, Newton,
Nueces, Panola, Parker, Polk, Rains, Red River, Refugio, Robertson,
Rockwall, Rusk, Sabine, San Jacinto, San Patricio, San Augustine,
Shelby, Smith, Somervell, Titus, Travis, Trinity, Tyler, Upshur, Van
Zandt, Victoria, Walker, Washington, Wharton, Williamson, Wilson, Wise,
and Wood Counties.

What Did the State Submit?

The State submitted SIP revisions for 30 Texas Administrative Code
(TAC) 114 on August 16, 1999, and April 25, 2000, as well as technical
supplements dated October 13, 1999, and February 11, 2000. The
submittals contained data and analyses to support a finding under
section 211(c)(4)(C) that the State's low-RVP requirement is necessary
for the DFW and HGA nonattainment areas to achieve the ozone NAAQS. For
further discussion of the submittal, see the proposed approval, 65 FR
69720 (November 20, 2000) and accompanying Technical Support Document.

What Comments Did EPA Receive in Response to the November 20, 2000,
Proposed Rule?

EPA received comments on the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPR)
from the Texas Oil and Gas Association (TxOGA) and Southwest Research
Institute. A summary of the comments received and EPA's response is
presented below.

A. State Regulation of Fuels Outside Nonattainment Areas

Comment: TXOGA supports the use of cleaner burning fuel, but
opposes the regional regulation of gasoline in areas outside of
designated nonattainment areas because they do not believe that
regulation of gasoline in attainment areas has been demonstrated to be
necessary for NAAQS attainment in the HGA or DFW areas.
Response: We believe it is reasonable to justify fuel controls in
attainment areas as ``necessary to achieve the NAAQS'' where, as here,
it is demonstrated that emissions reductions associated with fuel use
in the surrounding attainment areas benefit the nonattainment areas of
concern and there are no reasonable or practicable non-fuel
alternatives that would bring about timely attainment. Regional
approaches to reducing pollution are acceptable to EPA because air
pollution does not recognize political or geographic boundaries.
In our Technical Support Document (TSD) accompanying the proposed
approval, we explained the way in which the low-RVP program will help
the nonattainment areas achieve the NAAQS (more detailed discussions of
how the regional fuel benefits the nonattainment areas are provided in
the responses to comments below). Second, we reviewed the
reasonableness and practicability of non-fuel control alternatives.
Finally, we showed that with implementation of all reasonable and
practicable control measures including the regional fuel control, the
HGA and DFW nonattainment areas will be able to attain the ozone NAAQS
but with no margin for error.

B. Transport of Emissions and Emissions From Commuting Vehicles

Comment: TXOGA points out that controls in areas downwind of the
nonattainment areas do not benefit DFW or HGA. TXOGA also notes a
recent modeling study showed Corpus Christi does not affect HGA and
asserts that

[[Page 20929]]

other areas in North Texas claim similar lack of influence on the DFW
area.
Response: The TSD presents specific modeling data identifying those
counties from which NOX and ozone are transported to the DFW
and/or HGA nonattainment areas. TXOGA does not dispute these modeling
results or provide reason not to rely on this data. The models show
that at least 82 of the 95 counties subject to the regional low-RVP
control have some meteorological connection with the DFW and HGA
nonattainment areas such that it is reasonable to conclude that
emissions reduction in these counties will benefit the DFW and HGA
areas. TxOGA's specific examples do not undermine our overall
conclusion that many areas transport ozone and/or VOCs and that
reduction of emissions in these areas will benefit nonattainment areas.
Comment: TXOGA argues that the evaporative benefits from
controlling RVP used in newer vehicles are small because new vehicle
standards already result in evaporative emissions controls. In
addition, TXOGA argues that the benefit attributed to vehicles fueling-
up in the attainment areas and commuting into the nonattainment areas
is small because the large geographic area has little commuting and
people more often purchase gas in cities and go to surrounding areas
than vice-versa.
Response: TXOGA's claims that the benefits associated with
commuting vehicles are small, are unsupported, and do not undermine the
overall conclusion that controls in these surrounding areas are
reasonably related to attainment in the DFW and HGA areas. It should be
noted, at the outset, that TXOGA does not question the modeled benefits
of the low-RVP program. Its claims regarding the benefits associated
with commuting vehicles therefore are taken only as a challenge to
EPA's justification for approving of the fuel control in surrounding
attainment areas.
The State provided data on commuting for counties surrounding DFW
and HGA areas. This showed where potential impacts from commuting are
most significant. For example, in the DFW area, 17 of the 22 attainment
counties immediately surrounding the nonattainment counties have 10
percent or more of their county work trips being made into the
nonattainment counties. These numbers support EPA's conclusion that
controlling the fuel in these areas will benefit the DFW and HGA
nonattainment areas.
TXOGA has provided no basis to support its assertion that commuting
vehicles are more likely to refuel in the cities than in the areas in
which the commuters live. It is equally as reasonable to expect that,
given price and convenience factors, commuters are at least as likely
to refuel in the surrounding attainment areas as they are in the
nonattainment areas.
In addition, we note that even though the benefits of a low-RVP
fuel are not as significant in newer vehicles, there is still a benefit
from controlling RVP across the fleet as a whole. EPA's estimates of
nationwide vehicle fleet age distribution indicate that more than half
of the existing light duty vehicle fleet is eight years or older.
Additionally, these estimates show that the light duty fleet includes a
significant percentage of trucks (about 40%) which are currently
subject to less stringent emission standards than passenger cars.
Therefore, it is still reasonable to conclude that the low-RVP control
will benefit the nonattainment areas, not only through transport of
emissions but also through reduction in direct emissions.

C. Distribution

Comment: TXOGA argues that approval of the regional fuel program
cannot be justified based on distribution issues because distribution
within the geographic area has nothing to do with air quality. TXOGA
supports as broad a fuel program as possible including a national
program but argues that even with the regional plan there will be a
patchwork because pipelines supply both sides of the program boundary.
Response: We looked at distribution to support the conclusion that
the scope of the program is reasonable even though not all of the 95
counties covered by the rule contribute to air quality in DFW and HGA.
The analysis shows that at least 82 of these 95 counties contribute
emissions to the DFW and/or HGA nonattainment areas through either
meteorologic transport or via commuting vehicles, or both. Fuel
controls are therefore justified in these counties. We concluded that
extending the low-RVP program to the remaining 13 counties was
reasonable to simplify distribution and compliance. EPA has used
similar considerations in approving other regional fuel controls. See
54 FR 26030 (June 21, 1989) (approving low-RVP program in New York); 55
FR 20601 (May 18, 1990) (approving low-RVP program in Maine). We
believe that the broader program is more reasonable than limiting the
scope of the program to only those areas demonstrated to impact DFW and
HGA air quality, which would result in a county-by-county patchwork.

D. Necessity

Comment: TxOGA also challenges EPA's analysis of the availability
of non-fuel alternatives. TxOGA argues that because the emission
reduction benefit was not quantified in terms of actual VOC reductions,
EPA cannot support the conclusion that the Regional Low-RVP fuel
program is the most reasonable and practicable measure to reduce
background ozone levels and curtail transport of ozone and precursors
in the nonattainment areas. They argue that without quantifying the VOC
reductions attributable to the use of low-RVP fuel in each county, it
is not possible to determine the cost-effectiveness of the rule in each
attainment county and impossible to determine if more reasonable and
practicable measures are available.
Response: Texas considered over 300 measures within the
nonattainment areas and submitted a long list of non-fuel measures that
it considered for implementation outside the nonattainment areas. All
reasonable and practicable measures have been adopted and the reasons
for rejecting the others have been provided. TxOGA has not pointed to
any particular alternative control measure that EPA or the State
improperly rejected as unreasonable or impracticable. Instead, TXOGA
argues generally that the analysis of alternatives was incomplete. We
believe the analysis of alternatives was thorough and appropriate even
without strict comparison of cost-effectiveness.
We disagree that a reasonable analysis of alternatives must be
based on a county-by-county comparison of the cost-effectiveness of the
fuel program and the cost-effectiveness of other controls. First, the
county-by-county approach TXOGA suggests is itself unreasonable to the
extent it implies that the State must mix and match regulations at the
county level to ensure that the most cost-effective controls are used
in each county. Such a regulatory approach could not realistically be
implemented and has never been required.
Second, we disagree with TXOGA's claim that non-fuel alternatives
can only be rejected based on a comparison to the cost-effectiveness of
the fuel measure. EPA's 1997 Guidance (Guidance on Use of Opt-in to RFG
and Low RVP Requirements in Ozone SIPs, August, 1997, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Mobile Sources) describes
the factors generally to be considered in evaluating the reasonableness
and practicability of non-fuel alternatives under section 211(c)(4)(C).
These factors include, but

[[Page 20930]]

are not limited to, the following: length of time to implement the
measure; length of time to achieve ozone reduction benefits; degree of
disruption entailed by implementation; other implementation concerns
such as supply issues; costs to industry, consumers and/or the state;
cost effectiveness; or reliance on commercially unavailable technology.
Some factors may be appropriate for some areas but not for others.
Cost-effectiveness is not the only factor to be considered in making
the determination for reasonableness and practicability. Given the
deadlines imposed by the Act and consequences for failure to attain,
length of time to achieve ozone reduction benefits and supply issues
were also critical factors for today's action.
Even though some point source control programs can be cost-
effective, a regional fuel program can be implemented on a faster
timetable and impacts a much larger geographic area. Those additional
factors make the Regional Fuel program more reasonable and practicable
than point and area source controls of similar cost and benefit.
We continue to believe there are no reasonable or practicable
alternative control measures that would bring about timely attainment.

E. Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether (MTBE)

Comment: TXOGA asks EPA to clarify whether the proposed SIP and
section 211(c)(4)(C) waiver address the portion of the Texas RVP rule
that restricts the use of MTBE to levels used in conventional gasoline
prior to the implementation of this requirement.
Response: EPA did not make a determination under section
211(c)(4)(C) on the MTBE provision of the Texas rule because the State
did not submit that portion of the rule for SIP approval. Therefore, we
are not acting on the MTBE provisions.

F. Exemptions

Comment: Southwest Research Institute (SwRI) commented that the
fuel rule would not allow them to conduct research during the summer
ozone season because there were no exemptions provided for research and
development operations to utilize test fuels that do not meet the 7.8
RVP requirement.
Response: EPA agrees with the commenter that the Texas rule
contains no exemptions for research facilities. While we understand
that this was an oversight, this is not cause for disapproval. It is
our understanding that Texas has committed to revising 30 Texas
Administrative Code (TAC) 114 at the earliest opportunity to provide an
exemption for research and development operations from the 7.8 RVP
requirement. We will review such a regulatory change to determine the
impact upon the attainment demonstration when Texas submits the measure
as a formal SIP revision.

EPA's Rulemaking Action

We are granting final approval pursuant to sections 110 and
211(c)(4)(C) because we find that the State has (1) identified the
reduction in modeled peak values needed to achieve attainment of the
ozone NAAQS; (2) identified all other reasonable and practical control
measures; (3) shown that even with the implementation of all reasonable
and practicable control measures, the State would need additional
emissions reductions for these nonattainment areas to meet the ozone
NAAQS (124 ppb) on a timely basis; and (4) demonstrated that the low-
RVP requirement would contribute to those additional reductions.

Administrative Requirements

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this
action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' and therefore is not
subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. This action
merely approves state law as meeting federal requirements and imposes
no additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law.
Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Because
this rule approves pre-existing requirements under state law and does
not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that required by
state law, it does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Public Law 104-4). This rule also does not
have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the
relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on
the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65
FR 67249, November 9, 2000), nor will it 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 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999), because it
merely approves a state rule implementing a federal standard, and does
not alter the relationship or the distribution of power and
responsibilities established in the Clean Air Act. This rule also is
not subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997),
because it is not economically significant.
In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. 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 Clean Air Act. 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. As required by section 3
of Executive Order 12988 (61 FR 4729, February 7, 1996), in issuing
this rule, EPA has taken the necessary steps to eliminate drafting
errors and ambiguity, minimize potential litigation, and provide a
clear legal standard for affected conduct. EPA has complied with
Executive Order 12630 (53 FR 8859, March 15, 1988) by examining the
takings implications of the rule in accordance with the ``Attorney
General's Supplemental Guidelines for the Evaluation of Risk and
Avoidance of Unanticipated Takings'' issued under the executive order.
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. 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(2). This rule will be effective May 29, 2001.
Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for
judicial review of

[[Page 20931]]

this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the
appropriate circuit by June 25, 2001. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect
the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial review nor does
it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be
filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action.
This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its
requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide,
Hydrocarbons, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone,
Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur
oxides, Volatile organic compounds.

Dated: April 9, 2001.
Lynda F. Carroll,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 6.

Part 52 of chapter I, title 40, Code of Federal Regulations, is
amended as follows:

PART 52--[AMENDED]

1. The authority for citation for part 52 continues to read as
follows:

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

Subpart SS--Texas

2. In Sec. 52.2270(c) the table is amended by revising the entry
for ``Section 114.1'' and adding to the end of the section ``Chapter
114 (Reg 4)--Control of Air Pollution From Motor Vehicles'' a new
heading with entries for ``Subchapter H--Low Emission Fuels'' to read
as follows:

Sec. 52.2270 Identification of plan.

* * * * *
(c) * * *

EPA Approved Regulations in the Texas SIP
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
State approval/
State citation Title/subject submittal date EPA approval date Explanation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chapter 114 (Reg 4)--Control of Air Pollution From Motor Vehicles
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subchapter A--Definitions:
Section 114.1............ Definitions......... 08/16/99 4/26/01 [and Federal New definitions
Register citation]. added.

* * * * * *
*
Subchapter H--Low Emission
Fuels; Division I: Gasoline
Volatility:
Section 114.301.......... Control Requirements 04/25/00 4/26/01 [and Federal Part (c) is not
for Reid Vapor Register citation]. approved.
Pressure.
Section 114.304.......... Registration of 04/25/00 4/26/01 [and Federal ...............
Gasoline Producers Register citation].
and Importers.
Section 114.305.......... Approved Test 04/25/00 4/26/01 [and Federal ...............
Methods. Register citation].
Section 114.306.......... Recordkeeping, 04/25/00 4/26/01 [and Federal ...............
Reporting, and Register citation].
Certification
Requirements.
Section 114.307.......... Exemptions.......... 04/25/00 4/26/01 [and Federal ...............
Register citation].
Section 114.309.......... Affected Counties... 04/25/00 4/26/01 [and Federal ...............
Register citation].

* * * * * *
*
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 01-10251 Filed 4-25-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-U

Notices For
2009
2008
2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000
1999
1998
1997
1996
1995
1994

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality State Implementation Plans (SIP); Texas: Control of Gasoline Volatility

Related Material

Local Navigation