Document ID: EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0002-0004
Agency: epa
Document Type: Proposed Rule
Title: Approval of Louisianas Petition To Relax the Summer Gasoline Volatility Standard for the Grant Parish Area
Posted Date: 2008-02-13T05:00Z

[Federal Register: February 13, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 30)]
[Proposed Rules]               
[Page 8251-8255]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr13fe08-27]                         

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 80

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0002; FRL-8529-1]

 
Approval of Louisiana's Petition To Relax the Summer Gasoline 
Volatility Standard for the Grant Parish Area

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve the State of Louisiana's request 
to relax the federal Reid Vapor Pressure (RVP) standard applicable to 
gasoline introduced into commerce in the Grant Parish 8-hour ozone 
attainment area (Grant Parish) during the summer high ozone season--
June 1 to September 15 of each year. Grant Parish is a designated 
attainment area under the 8-hour ozone National Ambient Air Quality 
Standard (``NAAQS'') and is a redesignated attainment area under the 1-
hour ozone NAAQS. This action amends our regulations to change the 
summertime RVP standard for Grant Parish from 7.8 pounds per square 
inch (psi) to 9.0 psi. EPA has determined that this change to our 
federal RVP regulations is consistent with the applicable provisions of 
the Clean Air Act. Louisiana's request is supported by evidence that 
Grant Parish can implement the 9.0 psi RVP standard and maintain the 8-
hour ozone NAAQS and that relaxation of the applicable RVP standard to 
9.0 psi will provide economic benefits.

[[Page 8252]]

DATES: Comments must be received on or before March 14, 2008. Request 
for a public hearing must be received by February 28, 2008. If we 
receive a request for a public hearing, we will publish information 
related to the timing and location of the hearing and the timing of a 
new deadline for public comments.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2007-0002, by one of the following methods:
     http://www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line 

instructions for submitting comments.
     E-mail: a-and-r-Docket@epa.gov.
     Fax: Air and Radiation Docket--(202) 566-9744.
     Mail: Air Docket, Environmental Protection Agency, 
Mailcode: 2822T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460, 
Attention: Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0002. In addition, please mail 
a copy of your comments on the information collection provisions to the 
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and 
Budget (OMB), Attn: Desk Officer for EPA, 725 17th St. NW., Washington, 
DC 20503.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2007-0002. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included 
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at 
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information 

provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be 
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose 
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you 
consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through http://www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The http://www.regulations.gov Web site 

is an ``anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know your 
identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of 
your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without 
going through http://www.regulations.gov, your e-mail address will be 

automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is 
placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you 
submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name 
and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any 
disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to 
technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA 
may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid 
the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of 
any defects or viruses.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov
 index. Although listed in the index, some 

information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information 
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such 
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy. 
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically 
in http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Air Docket, EPA/

DC, EPA West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. 
The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday 
through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the 
Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the 
Air Docket is (202) 566-1742.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sean Hillson, Office of Transportation 
and Air Quality, Transportation and Regional Programs Division, 
Mailcode AASMCG, Environmental Protection Agency, 2000 Traverwood 
Drive, Ann Arbor, MI 48105; telephone number: (734) 214-4789; fax 
number: (734) 214-4052; e-mail address: Hillson.Sean@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the ``Rules and Regulations'' section of 
today's Federal Register, we are making these revisions as a direct 
final rule without prior proposal because we view these revisions as 
noncontroversial and anticipate no adverse comment.
    We have explained our reasons for these revisions in the preamble 
to the direct final rule. For further information, please see the 
information provided in the preamble to the direct final rule. If we 
receive no adverse comment, we will not take further action on this 
proposed rule. If we receive adverse comment on the rule, or on one or 
more distinct actions in the rule, we will withdraw the direct final 
rule, or the portions of the rule receiving adverse comment. We will 
address all public comments in a subsequent final rule based on this 
proposed rule. We will not institute a second comment period on this 
action. Any parties interested in commenting must do so at this time.
    The contents of this preamble are listed in the following outline:

I. General Information
II. Summary of Rule
III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
IV. Statutory Provisions and Legal Authority

I. General Information

A. Does This Action Apply to Me?

    This action will affect you if you produce, import, distribute, or 
sell gasoline fuel for use in Grant Parish, Louisiana. The following 
table gives some examples of entities that may have to follow the 
regulations. But because these are only examples, you should carefully 
examine the regulations in 40 CFR part 80. If you have questions, call 
the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of 
this preamble.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             NAICS codes
        Examples of potentially  regulated entities              \a\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Petroleum Refineries.......................................       324110
Gasoline Marketers and Distributors........................       424710
                                                                  424720
Gasoline Retail Stations...................................       447110
Gasoline Transporters......................................       484220
                                                                 484230
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ North American Industry Classification System (NAICS).

B. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA?

1. Submitting CBI
    Do not submit confidential business information to EPA through 
http://www.regulations.gov or e-mail. Clearly mark the part or all of 

the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk 
or CD ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD ROM 
as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD ROM the 
specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one 
complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as 
CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information 
claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket. 
Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with 
procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.
2. Tips for Preparing Your Comments
    When submitting comments, remember to:
     Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other 
identifying information (subject heading, Federal Register date and 
page number).
     Follow directions--The agency may ask you to respond to 
specific questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of 
Federal Regulations (CFR) part or section number.
     Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives 
and substitute language for your requested changes.

[[Page 8253]]

     Describe any assumptions and provide any technical 
information and/or data that you used.
     If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how 
you arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be 
reproduced.
     Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and 
suggest alternatives.
     Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the 
use of profanity or personal threats.
     Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period 
deadline identified.

II. Summary of Rule

    This proposed rule would relax the applicable RVP (Reid Vapor 
Pressure) standard of 7.8 psi (pounds per square inch) to 9.0 psi in 
Grant Parish, Louisiana, during the summer high ozone season--June 1 to 
September 15 of each year. The State of Louisiana petitioned us for 
this relaxation in May 2005 and raised several valid points to justify 
this action. First, Grant Parish is classified as rural, is not 
adjacent to any urban area, and has a population of roughly 18,700 as 
of the 2000 Census. Second, air quality reflects a general decrease in 
emissions of ozone-forming pollutants since redesignation to attainment 
under the 1-hour standard in 1995 (data has fluctuated from year-to-
year, but averaging annual emissions over three-year increments 
evidences the downward trend). Additionally, there is an economic 
advantage to relaxing the applicable RVP standard. Grant Parish is 
isolated from other (former) nonattainment areas which are required to 
use 7.8 psi gasoline. This isolation increases transportation costs 
which translate to roughly 2 cents per gallon increase in price to the 
consumer.
    Finally, the Grant Parish 8-hour ozone attainment area has 
submitted an 8-hour maintenance demonstrating that the use of 9.0 psi 
gasoline will not interfere with attainment of the 8-hour NAAQS. EPA 
Region 6 approved this maintenance plan in November 2007. Grant Parish 
was formerly a 1-hour ozone nonattainment area and was redesignated to 
attainment in 1995, but at that time did not request relaxation of the 
applicable RVP standard. In 2004, Grant Parish was designated as 
attainment for the 8-hour ozone standard and, under the Phase 1 Ozone 
Implementation Rule, Grant Parish was required to submit an 8-hour 
maintenance plan under Clean Air Act section 110(a)(1). In Louisiana's 
2006 8-hour maintenance demonstration, the state supported their 
petition by modeling 9.0 psi gasoline and demonstrated that Grant 
Parish will be able to maintain attainment of the 8-hour standard for 
10 years, thereby meeting the requirements to have the applicable 
gasoline volatility standard relaxed.
    For additional discussion of the proposed rule changes, see the 
direct final rule EPA has published in the ``Rules and Regulations'' 
section of today's Federal Register. This proposal incorporates by 
reference all the reasoning, explanation, and regulatory text from the 
direct final rule.

III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review

    This action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under the 
terms of Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and is 
therefore not subject to OMB review.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    This action does not impose any new information collection burden 
under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et 
seq., and therefore is not subject to these requirements.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency 
to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to 
notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative 
Procedure Act or any other statute unless the agency certifies that the 
rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial 
number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses, 
small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions.
    For purposes of assessing the impacts of today's rule on small 
entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business as defined 
by the Small Business Administration's (SBA) regulations at 13 CFR 
121.201; (2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government of 
a city, county, town, school district or special district with a 
population of less than 50,000; and (3) a small organization that is 
any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated 
and is not dominant in its field.
    After considering the economic impacts of today's rule on small 
entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. In 
determining whether a rule has a significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small entities, the impact of concern is any 
significant adverse economic impact on small entities, since the 
primary purpose of the regulatory flexibility analyses is to identify 
and address regulatory alternatives ``which minimize any significant 
economic impact of the rule on small entities.'' 5 U.S.C. 603 and 604. 
Thus, an agency may certify that a rule will not have a significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities if the rule 
relieves regulatory burden, or otherwise has a positive economic effect 
on all of the small entities subject to the rule.
    This action will relax the federal RVP standard for gasoline sold 
in Grant Parish, Louisiana, during the ozone control season (June 1 to 
September 15), from 7.8 psi to 9.0 psi, and is therefore expected not 
to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities. The rule does not impose any requirements or create impacts 
on small entities beyond those, if any, already required by or 
resulting from the CAA Section 211(h) Volatility Control program. We 
continue to be interested in the potential impacts of the proposed rule 
on small entities and welcome comments on issues related to such 
impacts.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public 
Law 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the 
effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal 
governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, EPA 
generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-benefit 
analysis, for proposed and final rules with ``Federal mandates'' that 
may result in expenditures to State, local, and tribal governments, in 
the aggregate, or to the private sector of $100 million or more in any 
one year. Before promulgating an EPA rule for which a written statement 
is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires EPA to identify 
and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt 
the least costly, most cost effective or least burdensome alternative 
that achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of section 205 
do not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover, 
section 205 allows EPA to adopt an alternative other than the least 
costly, most cost effective or least burdensome alternative if the 
Administrator publishes with the final rule an explanation why that 
alternative was not adopted. Before EPA establishes any regulatory 
requirements that may significantly or uniquely affect small

[[Page 8254]]

governments, including tribal governments, it must have developed under 
section 203 of the UMRA a small government agency plan. The plan must 
provide for notifying affected small governments, enabling officials of 
affected small governments to have meaningful and timely input in the 
development of EPA regulatory proposals with significant Federal 
intergovernmental mandates, and informing, educating, and advising 
small governments on compliance with the regulatory requirements.
    EPA has determined that this rule does not contain a Federal 
mandate that may result in expenditures of $100 million or more for 
State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or the private 
sector in any one year. Today's rule merely relaxes the Federal RVP 
standard for gasoline in the Grant Parish area, and thus avoids 
imposing the costs that the existing Federal regulations would 
otherwise impose. Today's rule, therefore, is not subject to the 
requirements of sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA.
    EPA has determined that this rule contains no regulatory 
requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small 
governments. As discussed above, the rule relaxes an existing standard 
and affects only the gasoline industry.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR 43255, August 
10, 1999), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure 
``meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the 
development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.'' 
``Policies that have federalism implications'' is defined in the 
Executive Order to include regulations that 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.''
    This proposed rule does not have federalism implications. It will 
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. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does 
not apply to this rule.

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian 
Tribal Governments

    Executive Order 13175, entitled ``Consultation and Coordination 
With Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), 
requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful 
and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory 
policies that have tribal implications.'' This rule does not have 
tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175. This rule 
would relax the applicable RVP standard in Grant Parish, LA, during the 
ozone control season (June 1 to September 15) from 7.8 psi to 9.0 psi. 
It applies only to Grant Parish, LA. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does 
not apply to this rule.

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental 
Health and Safety Risks

    Executive Order 13045, ``Protection of Children From Environmental 
Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR 19885, Apr. 23, 1997) applies to 
any rule that: (1) Is determined to be ``economically significant'' as 
defined under Executive Order 12866, and (2) concerns an environmental 
health or safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may have a 
disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action meets 
both criteria, the Agency must evaluate the environmental health or 
safety effects of the planned rule on children, and explain why the 
planned regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and 
reasonably feasible alternatives considered by the Agency.
    This rule is not subject to the Executive Order because it is not 
economically significant as defined in Executive Order 12866, and 
because the Agency does not have reason to believe the environmental 
health or safety risks addressed by this action present a 
disproportionate risk to children. As previously discussed, the Grant 
Parish area has continued to meet the 1-hour ozone standard since 1995 
and has met the 8-hour ozone standard since initial designations were 
issued in 2004. The maintenance plan approved on November 6, 2007 shows 
maintenance of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS for the entire maintenance time 
period of 2002 through 2014 with the 9.0 psi RVP standard.

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy 
Supply, Distribution, or Use

    This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211, ``Actions 
Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 
Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) because it is not a 
significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement 
Act of 1995 (``NTTAA''), Public Law 104-113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 
272 note) directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its 
regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with 
applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards 
are technical standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, 
sampling procedures, and business practices) that are developed or 
adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA 
to provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides 
not to use available and applicable voluntary consensus standards.
    This action does not involve technical standards. Therefore, EPA 
did not consider the use of any voluntary consensus standards.

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental 
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations

    Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, Feb. 16, 1994) establishes 
federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision 
directs federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and 
permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission 
by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high 
and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs, 
policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income 
populations in the United States.
    EPA has determined that this proposed rule will not have 
disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental 
effects on minority or low-income populations because it does not 
affect the applicable 8-hour ozone NAAQS which establish the level of 
protection provided to human health or the environment. This rule will 
relax the applicable volatility standard of gasoline during the summer 
possibly resulting in slightly higher mobile source emissions. However, 
the State of Louisiana has demonstrated in a maintenance plan Approval 
of Louisiana's Petition To Relax the Summer Gasoline Volatility 
Standard for the Grant Parish Area page 18 of 18--Proposal that this 
action will not interfere with attainment of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS and 
therefore disproportionately high and adverse human health or 
environmental effects

[[Page 8255]]

on minority or low-income populations are not an anticipated result.

IV. Legal Authority

    Authority for this action is in sections 211(h) and 301(a) of the 
Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. 7545(h) and 7601(a).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 80

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedures, 
Air pollution control, Fuel additives, Gasoline, Incorporation by 
reference, Motor vehicle and motor vehicle engines, Motor vehicle 
pollution, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: February 7, 2008.
Stephen L. Johnson,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. E8-2705 Filed 2-12-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P