[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 35 (Wednesday, February 21, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 6547-6550]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-3789]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[MN28-02-7253; FRL-5402-2]
Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans (Minnesota)
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) is
approving a year-round oxygenated fuels program as a revision to
Minnesota's State Implementation Plan (SIP) for carbon monoxide (CO).
The use of oxygenated fuels can reduce emissions of CO from vehicles,
thereby reducing the threat to human health posed by CO, which can
contribute to heart and lung disease and reduce the concentration of
oxygen in the blood stream. Minnesota already has an approved SIP which
requires the use of oxygenated fuels during the winter; the extension
of the oxygenated fuels program beyond the winter months will serve as
the contingency measure required for nonattainment plans under section
172(c)(9) of the Clean Air Act (the Act). USEPA's action is based upon
a SIP revision request which was submitted by the State to satisfy the
requirements of the Act.
DATES: This final rule is effective on March 22, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Copies of the SIP revision request, public comments on the
rulemaking, and other materials relating to this rulemaking are
available for inspection at the following address: (It is recommended
that you telephone Alexis Cain at (312) 886-7018 before visiting the
Region 5 Office.) United States Environmental Protection Agency, Region
5, Air and Radiation Division, 77 West Jackson Boulevard (AT-18J),
Chicago, Illinois 60604.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Alexis Cain, Air Toxics and Radiation
Branch, Regulation Development Section (AT-18J), United States
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, Chicago, Illinois 60604,
(312) 886-7018.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Summary of State Submittal
On November 12, 1993, the Commissioner of the Minnesota Pollution
Control Agency submitted elements of a contingency measure for the
carbon monoxide 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.1 The State's
[[Page 6548]]
CO contingency plan consists of an expansion of the State's existing
wintertime oxygenated gasoline program to a year-round program
beginning on October 31, 1995. The program requires gasoline sold in
the control area of the Twin Cities to contain no less than 2.0 percent
oxygen and average 2.7 percent oxygen during the control period. On
January 25, 1994, the USEPA issued a letter stating that the submittal
was complete except for two items: the public hearing process and a
report of the results of a study regarding the year-round use of
ethanol as the oxygenate and its effect on summer-time ozone
concentrations. The results of the public hearing process were received
in a letter from the Commissioner of the MPCA on January 26, 1994, and
contained the required information demonstrating that the public
process was carried out. The letter included a report prepared by an
environmental consultant regarding the year-round use of ethanol in the
State. USEPA requested this report because of the potential for
increased evaporative emissions of hydrocarbons resulting from splash
blending ethanol in gasoline. The emission of hydrocarbons during
summertime conditions results in the formation of tropospheric ambient
ozone.
\1\ 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 State submittal was submitted to satisfy the provisions under
section 172(c)(9) of the Clean Air Act (Act), which requires
contingency measures in moderate CO nonattainment areas with design
values of 12.7 parts per million or less. These contingency measures
must be implemented in the event the area fails to attain the national
standard by December 31, 1995. Contingency measures, once triggered,
are to take effect automatically, without further rulemaking action by
the State or the Administrator. States must show that their contingency
measures can be implemented with minimal further action on their part
and with no additional rulemaking actions.
A proposed rulemaking was published in the June 1, 1995 Federal
Register (60 FR 28557), which proposed approval of the CO contingency
SIP, but raised invited public comment on three issues: potential
increases in ozone concentrations as a result of the use of oxygenated
fuels in the summer months; potential problems in enforcing the program
in the event that a possible future increase in the price of ethanol
(which is the oxygenate in use in Minnesota) gives fuel retailers and/
or blenders an incentive not to comply with the program, and the need
to define an endpoint for reporting purposes in the oxygenate program.
II. Public Comment/USEPA Response
USEPA received comments on the proposed rulemaking from KOCH
Refining and the Minnesota Department of Agriculture.
KOCH Refining Comments and USEPA Response
KOCH requested that the USEPA disapprove the proposed contingency
measure because:
(1) There is no need for summertime CO reductions, based on current
and historical summertime CO ambient monitoring;
(2) The lack of an end point for reporting purposes will lead to
unnecessary regulatory complications;
(3) There is great potential for increases in ambient ozone
concentrations due to use of year-round oxygenated fuel; and
(4) There is great potential for adverse impacts in price and
availability of gasoline in the event of reduction or curtailment of
federal or state subsidies for ethanol production and blending.
Comment 1: There is no need for summer time CO reductions, based on
current and historical summertime CO ambient monitoring.
While there has not been a violation of the CO air quality standard
since 1991, several of the exceedances which contributed to violations
between 1987 and 1991 were registered outside of the current four-month
program period. Moreover, the most recent exceedance of the standard
occurred during the summer of 1995. Therefore, the USEPA believes that
the extension of the program beyond the winter months, which seems to
have been effective in reducing ambient CO concentrations, will be
useful in providing a margin of protection against exceedances outside
of the current program period.
Comment 2: The lack of an end point for reporting purposes will
lead to unnecessary regulatory complications.
In the proposal action, USEPA noted that while the oxygenated
gasoline program requires reports to be submitted by registered
blenders of oxygenated fuels at the end of the control period, the end
of the control period has not been defined for the year-round program.
The State has been made aware of this minor technical problem, and is
exploring means to correct it. The USEPA believes that this problem can
be resolved without difficulty, and that it is not an adequate reason
to delay final rulemaking.
Comment 3: There is great potential for increases in ambient ozone
concentrations due to use of year-round oxygenated fuel.
The addition of ethanol to gasoline raises the vapor pressure of
the mixture to a level higher than that of either of the two
components. The USEPA allows a one pound per square inch (psi) waiver
for gasolines containing up to 10 volume percent ethanol. So, for
example, the vapor pressure of gasoline sold during summer months is
limited to nine psi. However, a gasoline blend of 10 volume percent
ethanol may have a vapor pressure of 10 psi. This increase in vapor
pressure may lead to higher evaporative emissions of volatile organic
compounds (VOCs), which are precursors of ozone, potentially increasing
the formation of ozone.
While the use of oxygenated fuels during the summer (the ozone
season) may lead to increases in ambient ozone concentrations, the
USEPA has no basis for disapproving the CO contingency SIP request
since there is no information available that indicates that it will
lead to violations of the ozone NAAQS. Section 110(l) of the Act
prohibits USEPA from approving a SIP if it would interfere with any
applicable requirement concerning attainment or reasonable further
progress, or any other applicable requirement of the Act. Since
Minnesota has no nonattainment areas for ozone, reasonable further
progress is not an issue; the only concern is whether use of oxygenated
fuels jeopardizes the attainment status of the Twin Cities.
KOCH argues that a possible tightening of the ozone NAAQS could
make it more difficult to avoid a violation. However, USEPA cannot base
its current rulemaking on speculation about future changes in the
standard. Koch also argues that the possibility of hotter summers in
the future, which would be more conducive to ozone formation, makes it
risky to implement the oxygenated fuels program during the summer.
However, USEPA concludes that there is no available evidence that use
of oxygenated fuels will lead to violation of the standard in the Twin
Cities. Air quality data show no exceedances or violations of the ozone
standard in the last four years, with the last exceedance recorded in
1990. Moreover, there is some dispute over the extent to which ethanol
will increase ozone formation. A study contracted by MPCA (discussed
below) found that ethanol might slightly reduce ozone formation; while
USEPA disputes this study's methodology and still believes that some
ozone increases are possible as a result of the oxygenated
[[Page 6549]]
fuels program, the magnitude of these increase in the Twin Cities
cannot be determined. Furthermore, ethanol blends are already in use
year-round in Minnesota, with 50 percent or greater market penetration
during the past 3 ozone seasons, without causing an exceedance of the
ozone standard. An increase from more than 50 percent use of ethanol
blends to nearly 100 percent is not likely to lead to a significant
increase in ozone.
The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency submitted a contractor's
report which suggested that the use of ethanol would not cause
violations of the ozone standard.2 The USEPA reviewed the report
and found that it was flawed in a number of areas including:
uncertainty on how to take into account VOC reactivity; incorrect
speciation profiles; inability to replicate exhaust VOC benefit of the
ethanol blends; lack of evidence to support the contention of an
enrichment benefit for ethanol, and the use of excessively high highway
speeds in the modelling. Despite USEPA's criticism of this study, no
new information was submitted by the consultant or the State. The
USEPA's comments on this report remain unchanged. However, KOCH did not
provide any additional studies which demonstrate that there will be
ozone violations as a result of summertime ethanol use.
\2\ Systems Applications International, Ozone Impact of Year-
Round Oxy-Fuel Program in Minnesota, San Rafael, CA, January 10,
1994.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment 4: There is great potential for adverse impacts in price
and availability of gasoline in the event of reduction or curtailment
of federal or state subsidies for ethanol production and blending.
Koch expressed concern that federal codification of this existing
program will reduce the State's ability to respond flexibly to price
increases and disruptions in availability. KOCH believes that a
hypothetical reduction or elimination of federal and State ethanol
subsidies, which amount to as high as 89 cents per gallon of pure
ethanol, will not lead to ``cheating'' as suggested in the USEPA
proposal. Instead, Koch is concerned that limited oxygenate
availability would lead to a tight supply of blended specification
gasoline and price increases. Koch expects the potential for shortages
to increase in 1997 when the oxygenated gasoline program area is
expected to be expanded to cover the entire State.
The State does not expect or anticipate a change in the subsidy
program associated with the use of ethanol. If there is a change in
State and/or Federal subsidies, the USEPA believes the state does have
the flexibility to discontinue the measure, assuming that no violation
of the CO NAAQS occur. The USEPA would retain the contingency measure
as a Section 172(c) requirement, however, which the State would need to
implement if the area fails to attain the CO standard by the attainment
date. If the area fails to attain and the State shuts the program off,
the USEPA has the authority to require the implementation or continued
operation of the program. If the area is in attainment (through a
redesignation process) and the State wishes to eliminate the program as
even a contingency measure, the State would need to identify a
substitute contingency program.
Minnesota Department of Agriculture Comments and USEPA Response
The Minnesota Department of Agriculture objected to statements in
the proposed rulemaking that the year-round use of ethanol could lead
to increased ozone pollution. The Department of Agriculture argues that
air quality studies have shown that increased ozone will not result.
As stated above, USEPA does not believe that this issue has been
resolved conclusively. While it is possible to make a case that
increased ozone concentrations may result from summertime use of
oxygenated gasoline, it cannot be shown that violations of the NAAQS
will result. Thus, USEPA is approving the program.
III. Rulemaking Action
The USEPA is approving the Minnesota year-round oxygenated fuels
program as the CO contingency measure required for nonattainment plans
under section 172(c)(9) of the Clean Air Act.
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.
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 (OMB) has
exempted this regulatory action from Executive Order 12866 review.
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.
Under Section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by April 22, 1996. 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).)
Note--Incorporation by reference of the State Implementation
Plan for the State of Minnesota was approved by the Director of the
Federal Register on July 1, 1982.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide,
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Ozone,
Volatile organic compounds.
Dated: November 6, 1995.
David A. Ullrich,
Acting Regional Administrator.
40 CFR part 52 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 Y--[Amended]
2. Section 52.1220 is amended by adding paragraph (c)(43) to read
as follows:
Sec. 52.1220 Identification of plan.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(43) On November 12, 1993, the State of Minnesota submitted a
contingency plan to control the emissions of carbon monoxide from
mobile sources by use of oxygenated gasoline on a year-round basis. The
submittal of this program satisfies the provisions under section
172(c)(9) and 172(b) of the Clean Air Act as amended.
[[Page 6550]]
(i) Incorporation by reference.
(A) Laws of Minnesota for 1992, Chapter 575, section 29(b), enacted
by the legislature and signed into law on April 29, 1992.
[FR Doc. 96-3789 Filed 2-20-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P