[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 149 (Thursday, August 3, 2006)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 43979-43984]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E6-12483]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R09-OAR-2006-0571, FRL-8204-8]
Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans for Arizona;
Maricopa County PM-10 Nonattainment Area; Serious Area Plan for
Attainment of the 24-Hour and Annual PM-10 Standards
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: EPA is taking final action under the Clean Air Act (CAA) to
approve the Best Available Control Measure (BACM) and the Most
Stringent Measure (MSM) demonstrations in the serious area particulate
matter (PM-10) plan for the Maricopa County portion of the metropolitan
Phoenix (Arizona) nonattainment area (Maricopa County area). EPA is
also granting Arizona's request to extend the attainment deadline from
2001 to 2006. EPA originally approved these demonstrations and granted
the extension request on July 25, 2002. Thereafter EPA's action was
challenged in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. In
response to the Court's remand, EPA has reassessed the BACM
demonstration for the significant source categories of on-road motor
vehicles and nonroad engines and equipment exhaust, specifically
regarding whether or not California Air Resources Board (CARB) diesel
is a BACM. EPA has also reassessed the MSM demonstration.
DATES: Effective Date: This rule is effective on September 5, 2006.
ADDRESSES: You can inspect copies of the docket for this action at
EPA's Region IX office during normal business hours by appointment at
the following locations: Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX, 75
Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105-3901. Air and Radiation
Docket and Information Center, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Room B-102, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW., (Mail Code 6102T),
Washington, DC 20460.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Doris Lo, EPA Region IX, (415) 972-
3959, [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, ``we,'' ``us'' and
``our'' refer to EPA.
I. Summary of Proposed Action
On July 1, 2005, EPA proposed to re-approve the BACM and MSM
demonstrations in the Maricopa County
[[Page 43980]]
area's serious area PM-10 plan.\1\ EPA also proposed again to grant
Arizona's request for an extension of the area's attainment deadline
from December 31, 2001 to December 31, 2006. 70 FR 38064. This proposed
action responded to a remand by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit on the issue of whether CARB diesel must be included in the
serious area plan as a BACM and a MSM. See Vigil v. Leavitt, 366 F.3d
1025, amended at 381 F.3d 826 (9th Cir. 2004). EPA re-examined the
feasibility of CARB diesel for both the on-road motor vehicle exhaust
and nonroad engines and equipment exhaust source categories. In its
proposed approval in response to the remand, EPA concluded that
implementation of CARB diesel is not feasible for on-road motor
vehicles because Arizona cannot obtain a CAA section 211(c)(4) waiver
of federal preemption and it is not feasible for nonroad engines and
equipment because of the uncertainties with fuel availability, storage
and segregation and concerns about program effectiveness due to owners
and operators fueling outside the Maricopa County area. 70 FR 38064.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ On July 25, 2002, EPA approved multiple documents submitted
to EPA by Arizona for the Maricopa County area as meeting the CAA
requirements for serious PM-10 nonattainment areas for the 24-hour
and annual PM-10 national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS).
Among these documents is the ``Revised MAG 1999 Serious Area
Particulate Plan for PM-10 for the Maricopa County Nonattainment
Area,'' February 2000 (MAG plan) that includes the BACM
demonstrations for all significant source categories (except
agriculture) for both the 24-hour and annual PM-10 standards and the
State's request and supporting documentation, including the most
stringent measure analysis (except for agriculture) for an
attainment data extension for both standards. EPA's July 25, 2002
final action included approval of these elements of the MAG plan.
For a detailed discussion of the MAG plan and the serious area PM-10
requirements, please see EPA's proposed and final approval actions
at 65 FR 19964 (April 13, 2000), 66 FR 50252 (October 2, 2001), and
67 FR 48718 (July 25, 2002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. Public Comments and EPA Responses
EPA received two comment letters: One from Joy E. Herr-Cardillo,
Staff Attorney, Arizona Center for Law in the Public Interest (ACLPI),
on behalf of Phoenix residents Robin Silver, Sandra L. Bahr and David
Matusow; and one from Nancy C. Wrona, Director, Air Quality Division,
Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ). In general, the
comments from ACLPI oppose our proposed rule and the comments from ADEQ
support our proposed rule. EPA appreciates the time and effort made by
the commenters in reviewing the proposed rule and providing comments.
We have summarized the comments and provided our responses below.
A. On-Road Motor Vehicle Exhaust
Comment 1: ACLPI asserts that EPA is allowing Arizona to exclude
CARB diesel as a BACM simply because the State did not request a CAA
section 211(c)(4)(A) waiver. ACLPI states that section 211(c)(4)(A)
generally prohibits the state from implementing fuel controls that are
not identical to any Federal standard in place, but that the statute
allows EPA to ``approve an otherwise preempted state fuel measure as
necessary if no other measures would bring about timely attainment, or
if other measures exist and are technically possible to implement but
are unreasonable or impracticable.''
ACLPI argues that the appropriate question is not whether the State
has requested a waiver, but rather whether it has provided a reasoned
justification for failure to include CARB diesel as a control measure.
ACLPI believes that the State has not provided such a justification and
that under our ``guidance'' at 56 FR 58658, when a control measure is
rejected, the state must provide a reasoned justification. ACLPI
includes the following sentence, purportedly from that Federal Register
notice, to buttress this point: `` `[t]he burden is on the State to
demonstrate that an available control method for an existing source is
infeasible or otherwise unreasonable and, therefore, would not
constitute RACM [or BACM].' ''
ACLPI contends that EPA's speculation that the state would not
qualify for a waiver because CARB diesel is not necessary for
attainment cannot excuse the state's failure to provide a reasoned
justification. ACLPI asserts that EPA cannot simply rely for this
purpose on the State's demonstration that the area will not attain
until December 2006 because EPA improperly approved that date without
CARB diesel as a MSM.
Finally, ACLPI comments that EPA's conclusion that CARB diesel is
not needed for attainment conflicts with the Agency's guidance at 59 FR
42011-42012 that ``the BACM analysis must be independent of the
attainment analysis * * *.''
Response: Initially we note that we did not rely on Arizona's
failure to request a CAA section 211(c)(4) waiver in accepting the
State's exclusion of CARB diesel as a BACM. Rather, we acknowledged
that a state is eligible to obtain a waiver of federal preemption under
certain circumstances, but concluded that Arizona would not have been
able to obtain such a waiver here.
Under section 211(c)(4)(C)(i),\2\ EPA can approve the
implementation of CARB diesel by Arizona only if the Agency ``finds
that the State control or prohibition is necessary to achieve the
national primary or secondary ambient air quality standard that the
plan implements.'' Further, EPA ``may find that a State control or
prohibition is necessary to achieve the standard if no other measures
that would bring about timely attainment exist, or if other measures
exist and are technically possible to implement, but are unreasonable
or impracticable.'' Because EPA has approved the state's demonstration
of attainment of the PM-10 NAAQS (67 FR 48718), EPA believes that the
state would not be able to provide a demonstration that CARB diesel is
necessary to achieve the NAAQS for PM-10 and thus would not be able to
obtain a section 211(c)(4)(C)(i) waiver necessary to implement CARB
diesel for on-road motor vehicles. 70 FR 38064, 38065.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ In August 2005, CAA section 211(c)(4)(C) was amended and
renumbered by the Energy Policy Act of 2005, 42 USCS 15801 et seq.
The amendments place additional restrictions on EPA's authority
under that provision.
\3\ Because we have determined that we could not approve CARB
diesel into the Arizona SIP under section 211(c)(4)(C)(i), we
believe that we need not address the effect of the new provisions of
the Energy Policy Act of 2005 in today's action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We agree with ACLPI that generally an appropriate inquiry, among
others, in a BACM analysis is whether there exists a reasoned
justification for excluding a control measure. 65 FR 19964, 19967
(April 13, 2000). However, a BACM analysis is not undertaken in a
vacuum. If it is not possible for the State to obtain a waiver under
section 211(c)(4), it would not be able to implement CARB diesel in the
nonattainment area. Therefore it is not necessary for the State to
provide a reasoned justification for rejecting CARB diesel as BACM. The
State should not be compelled to undertake a pointless analysis.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ To support its contention that the burden is on the state to
demonstrate that a measure is not a BACM, ACLPI misquotes a sentence
from an unrelated EPA proposed rule as: ``[t]he burden is on the
State to demonstrate that an available control method * * * is
infeasible and, therefore, would not constitute RACM [or BACM].''
The actual quotation is from a Federal Register notice in which EPA
describes a moderate area PM-10 guidance document and states:
``[t]he burden is on the State to demonstrate that an available
control method * * * is infeasible and, therefore, would not
constitute RACM [or RACT].'' 56 FR 58656, 58658 (November 21, 1991)
(emphasis added; brackets in original). There is nothing so
definitive in EPA's serious area guidance regarding the
responsibility of the State to provide the primary justification for
rejecting a measure as BACM. Moreover, the Ninth Circuit, in
determining that it could not find in EPA's approval of the MAG plan
the reasoned justification for rejecting CARB diesel, observed that
``Arizona has offered one explanation, which EPA has declined to
ratify, and EPA has not proffered an adequate explanation of its
own.'' 381 F. 3d at 843.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 43981]]
ACLPI's assertion that EPA cannot rely on the State's demonstration
that the area will not attain until December 2006 because EPA
improperly approved that date without CARB diesel as a MSM is also
misguided. In granting the State's request for an extension of the
attainment deadline from December 31, 2001 to December 31, 2006 under
CAA section 188(e), EPA concluded that the MAG plan ``includes the most
stringent measures that are included in the implementation plan of any
State or are achieved in practice in any State, and can feasibly be
implemented in the area.'' 67 FR at 48739. As we explained in our final
approval of the State's PM-10 plan, section 188(e) does not compel the
adoption of every possible MSM. We have interpreted the MSM requirement
consistent with how we have historically interpreted the general RACM
provision in section 172(c)(1), i.e., we have long held that a state is
not obligated to adopt and implement measures that will not contribute
to expeditious attainment. We are interpreting the MSM requirement
using the same principle.
Before we can grant an attainment date extension, the state must
show that its plan will result in attainment by the ``most expeditious
alternative date practicable.'' See CAA sections 188(e) and
189(b)(1)(A)(ii). If a state can show that including a certain set of
potential MSM would not result in more expeditious attainment, then it
is reasonable and consistent with the Act not to require their
inclusion as a condition of approval. Id. at 48723-48724. Here we
appropriately concluded that the implementation of CARB diesel would
not advance attainment of the PM-10 NAAQS and thus was not required to
be adopted under the MSM requirement. Id. at 48725. As a result, having
determined that the State had demonstrated that attainment by December
31, 2006 was the most expeditious alternative date under section
188(e), EPA properly granted the State's request for an attainment date
extension to that date.
Finally, EPA disagrees that its conclusion, pursuant to section
188(e), that CARB diesel is not needed for expeditious attainment
conflicts with the Agency's BACM guidance. There is nothing in EPA's
guidance for PM-10 serious area plans (59 FR 41998 (August 16, 1994))
that requires that a BACM analysis be entirely independent of
attainment questions. More importantly, the Act does not link the BACM
and attainment demonstration requirements. As noted in EPA's guidance,
under section 189(b)(2), states have only 18 months following
reclassification to submit their BACM demonstrations, but up to four
years to submit attainment demonstrations. Therefore, EPA concluded
that ``Congress intended BACM demonstrations to be based more on the
feasibility of implementing the measures rather than on an analysis of
the attainment needs of the area.'' 59 FR at 42012. In contrast, the
Act does not specify an implementation deadline for MSM. However,
because the clear intent of section 188(e) is to minimize the length of
any attainment date extension, the implementation of MSM must
necessarily take into account the attainment needs of the area. 66 FR
at 50282.
B. Nonroad Engines and Equipment Exhaust
Comment 2: Fuel availability: ACLPI comments that to conclude that
CARB diesel is not a BACM due to uncertainty about the fuel's
availability in Maricopa County, EPA relies principally on outdated
information (the state's submission in 1999 and a MathPro study
conducted in 1998) and incomplete information that fails to consider
the availability (as of January 1, 2006) of similar diesel fuel in
Texas (approved into the Texas SIP by EPA at 66 FR 57196 (2001)) as
well as in California.
Response: The conditions EPA relied on from the 1998 and 1999
documents still exist, i.e., Arizona has no refineries and therefore
must depend on refineries in other states for fuel supplies,
principally California, New Mexico, and Texas. Even though CARB diesel
fuel is produced in California, and to some extent may be produced to
meet Low Emission Diesel (LED) fuel requirements in eastern and central
Texas as discussed below, there are limits on refinery capacity in each
state, as evidenced by (1) our discussion in the proposed rule of
projected refining capacity for CARB diesel in California, which ACLPI
does not dispute, and (2) the recent disruption of fuel production,
including diesel fuel, in the aftermath of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita.
As a result of fuel supply problems caused by hurricane damage to
refineries and other oil production facilities in the Gulf Coast area,
EPA issued waivers of certain gasoline and diesel fuel requirements,
initially applicable in all 50 states, for a sixteen day period from
August 31 to September 15, 2005. The initial waiver was extended for a
smaller number of states, including New Mexico and Texas, for highway
diesel fuel sulfur content through October 25, 2005. Additionally, EPA
granted a waiver of the start date for the Texas LED fuel through
January 31, 2006.
Arizona and California fuel supplies were also affected by the
hurricanes, since California depends on imports for 5 to 10% of its
gasoline supply, and Arizona depends on California and Texas for a
great majority of its gasoline supply. Arizona requested and received a
waiver of its SIP-approved Reid Vapor Pressure (RVP) gasoline
requirement for the Phoenix area through its duration, September 30,
2005. California requested and received waivers of its SIP-approved RVP
gasoline requirement through October 31, 2005, the end of its summer
RVP gasoline restriction. For copies of the relevant waivers, see EPA's
fuel waiver Web site at http://www.epa.gov/compliance/katrina/waiver/index.html or EPA's docket for this rule.
The issuance of these fuel waivers illustrates the limits on
refinery capacity in the states cited by ACLPI, California and Texas,
which provide the great majority of fuel supplies to Arizona. This
limitation, in addition to the information provided in the proposed
rule on current projections of CARB diesel production in California,
supports our conclusion that there is continuing uncertainty regarding
Arizona's sources of fuel supplies as indicated in the 1998 study and
1999 report.
ACLPI also states that EPA relied on incomplete information by
failing to consider the availability (as of January 1, 2006 \5\) of
similar diesel fuel in Texas as well as in California. As noted above,
CARB diesel may be produced to meet the LED fuel requirements in
eastern and central Texas, but it is not required as a result of (1)
the permissible use of substitutes for LED fuel that achieve equivalent
NOX reductions but not necessarily equivalent PM reductions,
and (2) recent changes that removed the low sulfur requirement from the
LED rule. See 70 FR 58325. We note that California has made the low
sulfur requirement of its CARB diesel rule more stringent, implementing
a 15 ppm sulfur content requirement as of
[[Page 43982]]
September 1, 2006 at the retail level,\6\ but Texas has eliminated the
sulfur content requirement completely, deferring to federal
requirements for low sulfur content for both highway and nonroad diesel
fuel. (See footnote 8 for a brief description of these requirements.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ As noted above, the LED start date for retailers has now
been moved to January 31, 2006, following issuance by EPA of fuel
waivers dated September 27 and October 18, 2005, as a result of the
supply disruptions caused by Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. See the
EPA website noted above for copies of the relevant waivers.
Additionally, EPA has approved two subsequent SIP revisions making
changes to the LED fuel program. See 70 FR 17321 (April 6, 2005) and
70 FR 58325 (October 6, 2005).
\6\ See Section 2281(a)(2)-(3) of the California Diesel Fuel
Regulations, with amendments effective August 14, 2004, at the
following Web site: http://www.arb.ca.gov/fuels/diesel/081404dslregs.pdf pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A significant difference between CARB diesel and the Texas LED fuel
program is the ability of fuel producers to meet the LED obligations by
using substitutes that achieve equivalent NOX emission
reductions. For example, a producer may be able to achieve equivalent
NOX reductions by substituting early introduction of low
sulfur gasoline, at least until all relevant EPA requirements for low
sulfur gasoline have been implemented, or by the use of diesel fuel
with additives which do not necessarily meet the LED limit on aromatic
hydrocarbons and the minimum cetane number but would still achieve the
same NOX reductions.\7\ Substitutes in the Texas LED program
that achieve equivalent NOX reductions are not designed to
achieve the PM emission reductions that would be critical if CARB
diesel fuel were to be required in the Maricopa County area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ See Sections 114.312(f) and 114.318 of the LED fuel program
regulations, which provide for alternative diesel fuel formulations
and alternative emission reduction plans, at the following Web site:
http://www.tceq.state.tx.us/implementation/air/sip/cleandiesel.html. Although Section 114.312(f) provides that
alternative diesel fuel formulations must provide comparable or
better reductions of NOX and PM, three of the four
alternative diesel fuel formulation approval letters to date have
cited NOX reductions alone, or (in one case) reductions
of NOX and hydrocarbons, but not PM, as the basis for
approval. (See approval letters for TXLED-A-00001, dated May 10,
2005, TXLED-A-00005, dated December 13, 2005, and TXLED-A-00006,
dated April 26, 2006, at the same website.) Section 114.318 provides
that the alternative emissions reduction plan must demonstrate
emission reductions associated with LED compliance through an
equivalent substitute fuel strategy that is achieved through diesel
fuel or early gasoline sulfur reduction offsets that meet specified
NOX reduction requirements or a combination of such
strategies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Another significant difference between CARB diesel and the Texas
LED fuel program is the elimination in the latter of the low sulfur
requirement. EPA approved this change into the relevant Texas ozone
SIPs because the low sulfur requirement did not directly reduce the VOC
or NOX emissions that are precursors to the formation of
ozone, and because EPA's requirements for low sulfur diesel fuel will
begin implementation in 2006 and 2007.\8\ None of the Texas ozone
attainment demonstration SIP submissions relied on sulfur emission
reductions from the LED fuel program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ As noted in the proposed rule, federal requirements for low
sulfur diesel fuel for nonroad use will be implemented at 15 ppm in
2010; beginning in 2007, the federal requirement for low sulfur
diesel fuel for nonroad use will begin implementation at 500 ppm.
Federal requirements for low sulfur diesel fuel for highway use will
be implemented at 15 ppm in 2006. 70 FR 70498 (November 22, 2005).
As noted in the MAG plan, Arizona already restricts the sulfur
content of nonroad diesel fuel in the Maricopa County area to 500
ppm. (MAG plan, page 9-47.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA specifically states, however, that reducing sulfur emissions
(through implementing the low sulfur standard) does reduce sulfur
dioxides and particulate matter emissions. 70 FR at 58326. However,
since there are no SO2 or PM-10 nonattainment areas in the
eastern and central areas of Texas (the LED covered area), and no
monitored violations of these standards in these areas, removing the
low sulfur standard was not critical to the LED fuel program. Id.
Removing the low sulfur standard, however, means the LED fuel program
is no longer equivalent to CARB diesel for an area such as Maricopa
County which ACLPI argues needs CARB diesel to meet the PM-10
standards.
Thus, ACLPI's claim that EPA relied on incomplete information in
failing to consider availability of CARB diesel fuel in Texas is not
compelling. The LED fuel program is not equivalent to CARB diesel
because it allows substitution of other fuels, including gasoline, that
achieve equivalent NOX emission reductions, and has recently
been revised to eliminate the low sulfur requirement which would
directly affect PM emission reductions. Furthermore, the LED fuel
requirement was developed for ozone nonattainment areas in Texas, not
PM nonattainment areas.
Comment 3: Fuel storage and supply: ACLPI comments that EPA raises
a potential problem of future fuel storage and supply but does not
evaluate it except by relying on hypothetical observations of a single
ADWM employee. ACLPI states that since the presumption when evaluating
potential BACM is in favor of including the control measure unless a
reasoned justification is offered to exclude it, this potential problem
is not enough to justify excluding it.
Response: Although ACLPI describes this ``potential problem'' as
one of fuel storage and ``supply,'' EPA's proposed rule more accurately
describes the scope of the problem as fuel storage and ``segregation.''
If the nonroad diesel fuel for the Maricopa County area were CARB
diesel, there would be a third type of diesel fuel in addition to the
two types (federal highway diesel fuel and Federal nonroad diesel fuel)
currently required for distribution statewide. These three fuels, and
the three types of gasoline that are required for the state (Cleaner
Burning Gasoline for the Maricopa County area, oxygenated gasoline for
Tucson in the winter, and conventional gasoline for the rest of the
state), as well as jet fuel, must be stored and transported separately
in the fuel storage and distribution systems. These systems include
pipelines, terminal tanks, truck tanks, and retail tanks. If not
properly segregated, the fuels can be contaminated which would
complicate the fuel distribution system since the contaminated fuels
would need to be re-blended to be suitable for another use.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ Additionally, as noted in our proposed rule, if nonroad
diesel fuel is not kept segregated strictly for nonroad use, and it
is available for use by both on-road vehicles as well as nonroad
engines and equipment, the nonroad diesel fuel would be preempted
just as if it were intended only for use by on-road vehicles. 70 FR
at 38066, footnote 8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Arizona Department of Weights and Measures (ADWM) is the State
agency responsible for implementing and enforcing fuels requirements in
the State. The cited employee, the Air and Fuel Quality Program
Manager, regularly gathers information from representatives of fuel
suppliers and distributors about the storage of different types of fuel
for distribution in the State as part of a routine effort to assess the
potential for fuel supply interruptions. This employee regularly
reports on this information to the Governor's office as part of an
effort to anticipate and resolve potential problems with fuel supply or
demand.\10\ Thus, this employee has the authority and the experience to
know if tank farms for fuel storage in the Maricopa County area are at
maximum capacity.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ See December 22, 2005 Memorandum, ``December 20, 2005
telephone conversation with Duane Yantorno, Air and Fuel Quality
Program Manager, Arizona Department of Weights and Measures, Ira
Domsky, Deputy Director, Division of Air Quality, Arizona Department
of Environmental Quality, Carol Weisner, EPA Region 9, and Wienke
Tax, EPA Region 9, on Feasibility of Requiring CARB Diesel Fuel in
Maricopa County PM-10 Nonattainment Area.'' Yantorno confirmed the
next day, after speaking with representatives of fuel suppliers and/
or distributors, that the two large tank farms in the Maricopa area
are at or near maximum capacity. One of the facilities might be able
to accommodate a different type of fuel for storage, but the other
could not.
\11\ These tank farms are the large terminal tanks available for
storing fuel once the fuel has been off-loaded from a pipeline or
other distribution method.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additionally, ADEQ notes in its August 1, 2005 comment letter on
our proposed rule that ``breakout tankage'' does not exist on the
eastern part of the pipeline. Breakout tankage, unlike the storage
tanks located in the Maricopa
[[Page 43983]]
County area, are storage tanks at intermediate terminals outside the
area. On the West Kinder Morgan pipeline, intermediate terminals are
located in Colton, California; on the East Kinder Morgan pipeline,
intermediate terminals are located in El Paso, Texas, and Tucson,
Arizona.\12\ ADEQ comments that refiners from Texas or New Mexico
wanting to bring CARB diesel to the Maricopa market would have to barge
it through the Panama Canal to California for distribution through the
western pipeline system to find adequate ``breakout tankage'' for
storing the fuel separately.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ See December 22, 2005 Memorandum cited in footnote 9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment 4: Fueling outside Maricopa County: ACLPI comments that EPA
relies on speculation that nonroad diesel fuel users will refuel
outside the nonattainment area to avoid paying the higher cost of CARB
diesel. ACLPI claims that EPA's only support comes from MAG plan
statements, which are themselves unsupported, and irrelevant comments
about the trucking industry, and it ignores EPA's explicit rejection of
this argument in the 2001 SIP approval of the Texas low emission diesel
fuel control.
Response: It is the size of the covered area, as well as the
incentive to avoid the higher cost of CARB diesel fuel, that EPA cited
as its principal reasons for the uncertainty in effectiveness of
implementing CARB diesel in the Maricopa area for nonroad engines and
equipment alone. 70 FR 38064. Because of the markedly different
circumstances, ACLPI's reliance on statements from the Texas LED SIP
approval are misplaced. Texas will require sale of LED fuel which, as
noted in response to Comment 2 above, is not equivalent to CARB diesel
fuel, for use by both on-road vehicles and nonroad engines and
equipment in an area that includes 110 counties in eastern and central
Texas with borders from 153 to 454 miles wide, as noted in the excerpt
quoted by ACLPI. This area includes most of the largest cities in
Texas: Houston, Dallas, San Antonio, and Austin. Similarly, California
requires sale of CARB diesel fuel statewide (approximately 58 counties
totaling 163,696 square miles, http://www.dof.ca.gov/HTML/FS_DATA/stat-abs/tables/a1.xls) for use by both on-road vehicles and nonroad
engines and equipment.
The Maricopa County area that would be covered by a CARB diesel
fuel program, by contrast, is much smaller (approximately 66 miles
across its widest point, as we noted in our proposed rule (70 FR at
38067) and would be limited to fuel for nonroad engines and equipment.
As ADEQ noted in its August 1, 2005 comment letter, enforcement of the
requirement would be virtually impossible because it would be
relatively easy to evade, either by purchasing Federal nonroad diesel
fuel outside the covered area, or by purchasing Federal highway diesel
fuel within the covered area.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ For Federal tax purposes, nonroad diesel fuel is dyed red
to distinguish it easily from highway diesel fuel. Both Federal and
Arizona excise taxes apply to highway diesel fuel but not to nonroad
diesel fuel. Arizona law (as noted in ADEQ's August 1, 2005 comment
letter) provides for refunds to users of taxed highway diesel fuel
who demonstrate they actually used the fuel in nonroad equipment.
This ability to seek a refund means the Arizona excise tax on
highway diesel fuel ($0.26 per gallon) is probably not a significant
obstacle to someone who wants to avoid the presumably higher cost of
CARB diesel by purchasing highway diesel fuel which would not be
subject to the CARB diesel fuel requirements. EPA notes, however,
that Arizona sales and use tax (8% of the purchase price of the
fuel) would likely apply to purchases of highway diesel fuel that
are shown to be for nonroad use, and would be deducted from the
refund. See January 20, 2006 Memorandum, ``January 12, 2006
telephone conversation between Tim Lee, Director of Revenue Audits,
Arizona Department of Transportation, and Carol Weisner, EPA Region
9, regarding Arizona excise tax on diesel fuel.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In both California and Texas, the size of the covered areas and the
application of the requirement to both highway vehicles and nonroad
engines and equipment establish much more extensive programs that
essentially provide only one type of diesel fuel for sale in very large
geographic areas, substantially reducing the potential for evading the
special diesel fuel requirements.
C. MSM Demonstration and Extension of Attainment Date
Comment 5: ACLPI states that, because EPA did not undertake a new
analysis of CARB diesel as a MSM for purposes of the attainment date
extension, ACLPI incorporates by reference comments it submitted ``in
response to previous rulemakings, as well as the arguments and analysis
set forth in the Opening and Reply briefs filed in Vigil * * *
(specifically Opening Brief, pp. 21-27; \14\ Reply Brief, pp. 9-18.)''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ EPA notes that the discussion of MSM begins on p. 24 of
ACLPI's Opening Brief.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Response: The Vigil Court's remand of EPA's approval of the
attainment date extension is limited. The Court concluded that ``[w]e
also remand the question of Arizona's eligibility for the extension,
insofar as that question depends on EPA's determination regarding
MSM.'' (Emphasis added). 381 F. 3d at 487. Therefore to the extent that
ACLPI intends to incorporate by reference its comments and arguments on
aspects of the extension other than MSM, it is precluded from raising
them in this rulemaking.
While ACLPI does not specify, we assume that by ``previous
rulemakings'' it is referring to EPA's proposed approvals of the
serious PM-10 plan for the Maricopa County area at 65 FR 19964 (April
13, 2000) and 66 FR 50252 (October 2, 2001). ACLPI commented on these
proposed actions in letters from Joy Herr-Cardillo to Frances Wicher,
EPA Region 9, dated July 20, 2000 and November 1, 2001. EPA has
previously addressed the arguments relating to MSM and the attainment
date extension as it relates to MSM raised by ACLPI in their briefs and
these letters. See 67 FR at 48722-48725 and EPA's Response Brief in
Vigil at 10-12 and 30-34. Discussions also relevant to these issues can
be found in EPA's proposed approvals of the serious PM-10 plan for the
Maricopa County area at 65 FR 19964 and 66 FR 50252.
III. Final Action
In response to the Vigil Court's remand, EPA is again approving the
BACM demonstration in the MAG plan for the source categories of on-road
and nonroad vehicle exhaust without CARB diesel. CARB diesel is not
feasible for on-road motor vehicles because Arizona cannot obtain a CAA
section 211(c)(4)(C)(i) waiver for purposes of PM-10 attainment. CARB
diesel is not feasible for nonroad engines and equipment because of the
uncertainties with fuel availability, storage and segregation and
concerns about program effectiveness due to owners and operators
fueling outside the Maricopa County area. Therefore, EPA is also again
approving the MSM demonstration in the MAG plan and the associated
extension of the attainment deadline for the area from December 31,
2001 to December 31, 2006.
In its remand to EPA, the Vigil Court did not vacate our approval
of the MAG plan as it relates to the BACM and MSM demonstrations, and
the associated extension of the attainment deadline for the Maricopa
County area. These actions are codified at 40 CFR 52.123(j)(2), (4) and
(7) and remain in effect. See 67 FR at 48739.
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
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. For this
reason, this action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211,
[[Page 43984]]
``Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). 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 (Pub. L. 104-4).
This rule also does not have tribal implications because it will
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). This action also does not have Federalism
implications because it does 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 (64
FR 43255, August 10, 1999). This action 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
``Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks'' (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. 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).
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 October 2, 2006. 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, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Particulate
matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic
compounds.
Dated: July 14, 2006.
Laura Yoshii,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. E6-12483 Filed 8-2-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P