[Federal Register: December 28, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 249)]
[Notices]
[Page 78192-78199]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr28de06-70]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0340; FRL-8262-6]
Boutique Fuels List under Section 1541(b) of the Energy Policy
Act
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Notice.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPAct) includes a number of
provisions addressing state boutique fuel programs. Section 1541(b) of
this Act requires EPA, in consultation with the Department of Energy,
to determine the total number of fuels approved into all state
implementation plans (SIPs) as of September 1, 2004, under section
211(c)(4)(C) of the Clean Air Act (CAA). The EPAct also requires us to
publish a list of such fuels, including the states and Petroleum
Administration for Defense District (PADD) in which they are used, for
public review and comment. On June 6, 2006, we published a draft list
based upon a ``fuel type approach'' along with an explanation of our
rationale in developing it. We also published an alternative list based
upon a ``state specific approach.'' In this notice we are finalizing
the list of total number of fuels approved into all SIPs as of
September 1, 2004, based upon the fuel type approach. This notice also
addresses comments that we received on the proposed draft notice and
list.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Anne Pastorkovich, Environmental
Protection Agency, MC 6406J, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Washington, DC
20460; telephone number: 202-343-9623; fax number: 202-343-2801; email
address: pastorkovich.anne-marie@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
Under the Clean Air Act (CAA), state fuel programs respecting a
fuel characteristic or component that we have regulated under section
211(c) (1) are preempted.\1\ EPA may waive preemption through approval
of the fuel program into a State Implementation Plan (SIP). Approval
into the SIP
[[Page 78193]]
requires a demonstration that the state fuel program is necessary to
achieve the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) that the
plan implements.\2\ ``Necessary'' means that no other measures exist
that would bring about timely attainment or that other measures exist
and are technically possible to implement, but are unreasonable or
impracticable.\3\ These state fuels programs, which are often referred
to as ``boutique'' fuel programs because they differ from the federal
fuel required in the area, have been adopted by the state to address a
specific local air quality issue. One issue presented by boutique fuels
is that when events (such as hurricanes or pipeline and refinery
breakdowns) lead to fuel supply shortages, varying fuel standards can
complicate the process of quickly solving the supply interruption.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See CAA section 211(c)(4)(A), 42 U.S.C. 7545(c)(4)(A).
\2\ NAAQS are standards for ambient levels of certain air
pollutants (e.g. ground-level ozone) and are designed to protect
public health and welfare.
\3\ See CAA section 211(c)(4)(C)(i), 42 U.S.C. 7545(c)(4)(C)(i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPAct) amends the CAA by placing
additional restrictions on our authority to waive preemption by
approving a state fuel into the SIP. These restrictions are:
We cannot approve a state fuel if it would cause the total
number of fuels approved into SIPs to increase above the number
approved as of September 1, 2004.
In cases where our approval would not increase the total
number of such fuels, because the total number of fuels in SIPs at that
point is below the number of fuels as of September 1, 2004, then our
approval requires a finding, after consultation with the Department of
Energy (DOE), that the new fuel will not cause supply or distribution
interruptions or have a significant adverse impact on fuel
producibility in the affected or contiguous areas.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ See CAA section 211(v)(4)(C)(v)(IV), 42 U.S.C.
7545(c)(4)(C)(v)(IV).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We cannot approve a state fuel into a SIP unless the fuel
is already in an existing SIP within that PADD, with the exception of a
7.0 psi RVP fuel.\5\ EPA's approval of a 7.0 psi RVP fuel would,
however, be subject to the other EPAct restrictions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ See CAA section 211(c)(4)(C)(v)(V), 42 U.S.C.
7545(c)(4)(C)(v)(V). For a pictorial depiction of the PADD map,
please refer to ``Petroleum Administration for Defense Districts''
at http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/analysis_publications/oil_market_basics/paddmap.htm
.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As these restrictions make clear, how we determine the total number
of fuels on the list may greatly affect states' ability to have future
boutique fuels programs approved into SIPs.
Section 1541(b) of the EPAct also requires us, in consultation with
the Department of Energy (DOE), to determine the total number of fuels
approved into all state implementation plans (SIPs) as of September 1,
2004, under section 211(c)(4)(C), and publish a list of such fuels,
including the state and PADD in which they are used for public review
and comment. On June 6, 2006, we published a draft list of state fuels
approved into SIPs under section 211(c)(4)(C) as of September 1, 2004
for public review and comment.\6\ The notice included our draft
interpretation of the various EPAct boutique fuels provisions described
above. As we discussed in the notice, the EPAct is ambiguous as to the
meaning of ``total number of fuels.'' We provided two proposed
interpretations for developing the list. The first proposed approach
was the ``fuel type approach.'' As explained in the notice, this
approach would treat each type or kind of fuel as a separate fuel,
without respect to the number of different state implementation plans
that include this fuel type. For example, all state fuels with a Reid
Vapor Pressure of 7.8 pounds per square inch (psi) would be considered
as one fuel in determining the total number of fuels approved as of
September 1, 2004.\7\ While several states had a 7.8 psi RVP program on
that date, they would not be treated as different fuels in determining
the ``total number of fuels,'' but as different states using a single
fuel type. This approach resulted in a draft list with seven different
fuel types. 71 FR 32533.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ See ``Draft Boutique Fuels List Under Section 1541(b) of the
Energy Policy Act and Request for Public Comment--Notice.'' 71 FR
32532, 32533 (June 6, 2006).
\7\ Reid Vapor Pressure is the common measure of fuel
volatility. Volatility is the tendency of fuel to evaporate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We also provided an alternative interpretation, called the ``state
specific approach.'' Under this approach, each individual state using a
type or kind of fuel in a SIP would be considered a separate fuel. For
example, each state having a 7.8 psi RVP fuel in its SIP could be
treated as having a separate fuel for purposes of determining the
``total number of fuels.'' The state specific interpretation would lead
to as many fuels as there are state fuel programs in the various PADDs
and, as proposed, would have resulted in 15 different fuels.\8\ 71 FR
32533-34.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ For a more detailed description of the ``fuel type
approach'' and the ``state specific approach,'' see 71 FR 32532,
32533-34. Also see the tables corresponding to these approaches on
pages 32535-36 of that notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A. Our Final Interpretation of the EPAct Boutique Fuel Provisions
In today's notice, we are adopting the fuel type interpretation. We
are determining the total number of state fuels approved into SIPs
under section 211(c)(4)(C) as of September 1, 2004 based on the fuel
type interpretation. We will use both the fuel type interpretation and
the final list of fuels in implementing the three EPAct criteria for
future decisions on approval of a state fuel into a SIP. Specifically,
these criteria present the following restrictions on our ability to
approve future state fuels into SIPs:
We cannot approve a state fuel into a SIP under section
211(c)(4)(C) if it would cause the total number of fuel types on the
list to increase above the number approved on September 1, 2004.\9\
Under the fuel type interpretation, our approval of a state 7.8 psi RVP
program, for example, would not cause an increase in the number of fuel
types on the list because that type of RVP program is already on the
list.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ See CAA section 211(c)(4)(C)(v)(I), 42 U.S.C.
7545(c)(4)(C)(v)(I).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In cases where our approval of a fuel would increase the
total number of fuels types on the list but not above the number
approved as of September 1, 2004, because the total number of fuel
types in SIPs is below the number of fuels types as of September 1,
2004, we are required to make a finding after consultation with the DOE
that the fuel does not cause supply or distribution interruptions or
have a significant adverse impact on fuel producibility in the affected
or contiguous areas. Under the fuel type interpretation, where there is
``room'' on the list, we may approve a state fuel program, after
consultation with the DOE, and a finding that the state fuel will not
cause either supply or distribution interruptions or have a significant
adverse impact on fuel producibility in either the affected or
contiguous areas.
We cannot approve a state fuel into a SIP unless that fuel
type is already in a SIP in the applicable PADD, with the exception of
the 7.0 psi RVP fuel type.\10\ Under the fuel type interpretation that
we are adopting today, the PADD restriction would not extend to our
approval of a 7.0 psi RVP fuel, although our approval of a 7.0 psi RVP
fuel would remain subject to the other EPAct restrictions, discussed
above. See also Section I.C. below for a further discussion of our
interpretation and
[[Page 78194]]
implementation of the PADD restriction provision in PADD 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ See CAA section 211(c)(4)(C)(v)(V), 42 U.S.C.
7545(c)(4)(C)(v)(V).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. List of Fuel Types
We have also modified the draft list in response to comments that
we received on the proposed notice, and it now contains a total of 8
different fuel types. See Section III, below, for the final List of
State Fuels approved under section 211(c)(4)(C) as of September 1,
2004.
(i) 9.0 psi RVP Fuel Type
In proposing the draft list of boutique fuels, we recognized that
there were a few states that had 9.0 psi RVP fuel programs approved
into their SIPs as of September 1, 2004. We explained, however, that we
do not believe that we should include a 9.0 psi RVP fuel type on the
boutique fuels list required by EPAct. We explained that we were
obligated to publish a list based on the total number of fuels approved
into SIPs under section 211(c)(4)(C) as of September 1, 2004, and also
required to remove a fuel that is ``identical to a Federal fuel
formulation implemented by the Administrator,'' from the list.\11\
Because the current federal RVP requirement in all of these
northeastern states is 9.0 psi RVP, and was as of September 1, 2004,
reading the EPAct provisions literally would require EPA to include a
9.0 psi RVP fuel type on the list but to remove it from the list at the
same time. We proposed to exclude the 9.0 psi RVP fuel type from the
list in order to avoid this illogical outcome. As we further explained
in the notice, we do not believe that the 9.0 psi RVP fuel type would
be viewed as contributing to the proliferation of ``fuel islands'' that
Congress was concerned about.\12\ We continue to believe that the
appropriate way to reconcile these apparently conflicting provisions is
to exclude the 9.0 psi RVP fuel type from the list. We do not believe
that adoption of the fuel type interpretation affects our decision not
to list the 9.0 psi RVP fuel type.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ See CAA section 211(c)(4)(C)(v)(III), 42 U.S.C.
7545(c)(4)(C)(v)(III).
\12\ See 71 FR 32532, 32534.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We received two comments concerning our treatment of the 9.0 psi
RVP fuel type. Our response to these comments can be found in ``Section
II. Comment Summary and Response,'' below.
(ii) Arizona Clean Burning Gasoline (CBG)
Under our proposed fuel type interpretation, we listed the total
number of fuels based on the kind or type of fuel approved into a SIP
as of September 1, 2004. 71 FR 32533. We also determined the fuel type
or kind based on the required specific fuel components, specifications,
or limits of each fuel type (for example, 7.8 psi RVP, 7.2 psi RVP or
7.0 psi RVP). At proposal therefore, we listed 7.0 psi RVP as a fuel
type with Arizona as one of the 5 states that uses this fuel type. We
also listed Arizona Clean Burning Gasoline (CBG) as a separate fuel
type. We received two comments on our proposal. Both commenters
recommended that we list Arizona CBG as two types of fuels, namely
summertime and wintertime CBG. Both commenters said that specifications
for CBG were different in winter, which was described as the period
beginning November 2-March 31, and summer, which was described as the
remaining portions of the calendar year. Also one commenter stated that
both summer and winter CBG have different specifications for RVP,
sulfur, aromatics, olefins, E200 and E300.
In today's notice, we are listing Arizona CBG as two fuel types--
summer CBG and non-summer CBG. (See section III below for our final
list of the fuel types). We agree with the commenters that Arizona's
CBG program has several components, specifications or limits for summer
CBG, such as the 7.0 psi RVP requirement, that are different from non-
summer CBG. We also believe summer CBG requirements, which have been
adopted by Arizona to address ozone nonattainment, include the 7.0 psi
RVP requirement. We are therefore listing summer CBG as one fuel type,
because it has specifications that are different from non-summer CBG.
We have removed Arizona from the list as one of the states that uses
the 7.0 psi fuel type. We believe that our decision to list CBG as two
fuel types is similar to our listing of the Atlanta 7.0 psi RVP with
sulfur provisions as a separate fuel type. At proposal we also
specified the control period for Arizona's 7.0 psi RVP program as June
1-September 30. In today's notice, we are specifying May 1-September 30
as the time period for the CBG summer control period, in order to
correspond with the start date of Arizona's summer CBG control period
(May 1) and the end date of Arizona's 7.0 psi RVP control period
(September 30).
One consequence of our decision to list Arizona CBG as two fuel
types is that states in PADD 5 seeking to adopt state fuel programs
would now have a wider choice of fuel types for purposes of addressing
local air quality problems.
(iii) RVP Fuel Types that Do Not Provide a 1.0 psi Waiver for Ethanol-
Blended Gasoline
In our draft list published June 6, 2006, we did not list any of
the RVP programs that do not provide a 1.0 psi waiver for ethanol-
blended gasoline as separate fuel types. More specifically, we proposed
listing the 7.8 psi RVP program for western Pennsylvania, and the 7.0
psi RVP program for El Paso, Texas as part of the 7.8 psi and 7.0 psi
fuel types respectively. Both programs explicitly do not provide a 1.0
psi waiver for ethanol blends, and we have approved this requirement
into the respective SIPs.\13\ We received two comments supporting our
proposed decision not to list these fuel programs as separate fuel
types, and one comment inquiring as to why EPA made no mention of RVP
waivers for 10% ethanol-gasoline blends. Our response to these comments
can be found in ``Section II. Comment Summary and Response,'' below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ Most SIPs explicitly allow the 1.0 psi waiver for ethanol-
blended gasoline. However, some SIPs are silent regarding the 1.0
psi waiver for ethanol-blended gasoline, and our understanding is
that these SIPs do not allow for such a waiver.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Listing fuel programs as separate fuel types depending on whether
they allow or do not allow a 1.0 psi waiver for ethanol-blended
gasoline would have several consequences. First, states in the same
PADD as either Pennsylvania and Maine (PADD 1), or Texas (PADD 3), that
want to adopt 7.8 psi RVP programs, would not be able to adopt a 7.8
psi RVP program in their SIP that allows a 1.0 psi waiver for ethanol-
blended gasoline, because there is no 7.8 psi RVP program approved in
any SIP in either PADD 1 or 3 that allows a 1.0 psi waiver for ethanol
blends. Conversely, states in PADD 2 that want to adopt a 7.8 psi RVP
program would only be able to adopt a 7.8 psi RVP program that allows a
1.0 psi waiver for ethanol-blended gasoline, because there is no RVP
program approved in a SIP in PADD 2 that does not allow a 1.0 psi
waiver for ethanol blends.
Another consequence of listing separate fuel types for areas that
do not allow a 1.0 psi ethanol waiver is that we would have to decide
how to treat the 7.0 psi RVP fuel type under EPAct. The EPAct treats
the 7.0 psi RVP fuel type differently from other fuel types by allowing
EPA to approve a state 7.0 psi RVP fuel even if no other states in the
same PADD already have a 7.0 psi RVP fuel approved in their SIP (see
Section I.C. below). The EPAct does not specify whether future
approvals of 7.0 psi RVP SIP fuels should be allowed with a 1.0
[[Page 78195]]
psi ethanol waiver, without a 1.0 psi ethanol waiver, or whether states
should be able to choose whether or not they want to allow a 1.0 psi
ethanol waiver.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ It is important to note that this discussion of approval of
state fuel programs with or without a 1.0 psi waiver for ethanol
blends has no impact on EPA's federal RVP program. In the federal
RVP program there is a 1.0 psi waiver for ethanol blends, subject to
the provisions for exclusion of the 1.0 psi waiver adopted in EPAct.
Section 211(h)(4), (5). EPA's interpretation of the section
211(c)(4)(C) boutique fuels provisions above has no impact on the
federal RVP program adopted under the provisions of section 211(h).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We are not listing RVP programs as separate fuel types according to
whether or not they allow the 1.0 psi ethanol waiver. We believe that
listing SIP fuels in this manner would reduce fuel fungibility and
reduce states' flexibility, which are contrary to Congressional intent.
As explained above, one consequence of such a listing is that a state
in PADD 1 that wants to adopt a 7.8 psi RVP program into their SIP
could not allow the 1.0 psi ethanol waiver because there is no RVP
program in a SIP in PADD 1 that allows a 1.0 psi waiver for ethanol-
blended gasoline. We believe that if a state in PADD 1 adopts a 7.8 psi
fuel program that does not allow a 1.0 psi waiver for ethanol-blended
gasoline, refiners would be required to either not blend ethanol into
gasoline in the area covered by the new SIP, or supply a special sub-
RVP blendstock which, when blended with ethanol, would meet the 7.8 psi
RVP standard. If refiners choose to supply a special blendstock, which
meets the 7.8 psi RVP standard when blended with ethanol, the
blendstock would have to be produced and transported separately from
all other fuels. We believe this would run counter to EPAct's intention
of promoting fuel fungibility.
Additionally, because the exception allowed for 7.0 psi RVP fuel
programs makes no mention as to whether new 7.0 psi RVP fuel programs
should be permitted with or without the 1.0 psi ethanol waiver, we
believe that Congress was primarily concerned with classifying fuel
types according to RVP limits, instead of whether or not they allowed
the 1.0 psi ethanol waiver. We therefore, believe that listing fuel
types solely according to RVP limits is most consistent with Congress's
intent to improve fuel fungibility.
C. Removal of Fuel Types from the List
We are required to remove a fuel from the published list of fuels
if the fuel is either identical to a federal fuel or is removed from
the SIP into which it is approved.\15\ At proposal we explained that
under the fuel type interpretation, a fuel type would be removed from
the list only if that fuel type was either identical to a federal fuel
or removed from all SIPs with that type of fuel program. 71 FR 32534.
We also proposed how we would implement the provision relating to
removal of a fuel from the published list.\16\ 71 FR 32535. We received
two comments on our proposed implementation of this provision to remove
a fuel from the published list. Our response to these comments can be
found in ``Section II. Comment Summary and Response,'' below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ See CAA section 211(c)(4)(C)(v)(III), 42 U.S.C.
7545(c)(4)(C)(v)(III).
\16\ See 71 FR 32532, 32534.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In today's notice we are adopting the fuel type interpretation, and
as proposed we will be removing a fuel from the list if it is either
identical to a federal fuel or if it is removed from all SIPs into
which it is approved. Our removal of a fuel type that either ceases to
exist in any SIP or that is identical to a federal fuel formulation may
create ``room'' on the list, and subsequently, subject to the three
restrictions discussed above, we can approve a ``new fuel'' type into a
SIP.
D. Approval of a ``New Fuel''
The EPAct provides that before approving a ``new fuel'' into a SIP,
where there is room on the list for additional fuels, we must make a
finding, after consultation with the DOE, on the impact of the ``new
fuel'' on fuel supply, distribution, and producibility. We also
addressed the EPAct use of the term ``new fuel'', under the fuel type
interpretation.\17\ We explained that the term ``new fuel'' may be
somewhat problematic under the fuel type interpretation. A new fuel
type would be a fuel type that is not already on the list, however, the
PADD restriction would preclude the approval of a new fuel type if that
fuel type is not already approved into a SIP in the applicable
PADD.\18\ At proposal, we explained that because there is an exception
to the PADD restriction for a 7.0 psi RVP program, we could under
limited circumstances give meaning to the term ``new fuel'' under the
proposed fuel type interpretation.\19\ We received one comment on our
proposed implementation of this provision for the addition of a ``new
fuel'' to the published list. Our response to this comment can be found
in ``Section II. Comment Summary and Response,'' below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ See CAA section 211(c)(4)(C)(v)(IV), 42 U.S.C.
7545(c)(4)(C)(v)(IV).
\18\ See CAA section 211(c)(4)(C)(v)(IV), 42 U.S.C.
7545(c)(4)(C)(v)(V) and 71 FR 32532, 32534.
\19\ Congress exempted 7.0 psi RVP programs from the PADD
restriction. While the other EPAct provisions on boutique fuels do
apply to 7.0 psi RVP programs, the specific limitation on PADD usage
in section 211(c)(4)(C)(v)(V) does not apply. Also see 71 FR 32532,
32534.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In today's notice, we are adopting the fuel type interpretation,
and as proposed, we will give meaning to the term ``new fuel'' under
the limited circumstances where a state seeks to adopt a 7.0 psi RVP
program. At such a time, we also expect to make a finding on the impact
of the ``new fuel'' on fuel supply, distribution, and producibility,
after consultation with the DOE.
We also believe that we could give meaning to the term ``new fuel''
where states within PADD 5 seek our approval to adopt a fuel program
that has been approved into California's SIP. See our discussion of the
PADD restriction, California Air Resources Board (CARB) fuels, and
states in PADD 5 in Section I.D. below. We believe that under this
additional limited circumstance, where states in PADD 5 are seeking to
adopt CARB fuels approved into California's SIP, and there is room on
the list for a new fuel type, we could give meaning to the term ``new
fuel'' to include a CARB fuel program, under the fuel type
interpretation that we are adopting today. At such a time, we will also
make a finding on the impact of the ``new fuel'' on fuel supply,
distribution, and producibility, after consultation with the DOE.
E. The PADD Restriction
The EPAct constrains our approval of ``any fuel unless that fuel''
was already approved into at least one SIP in the applicable PADD as of
the date of our consideration of a state's request.\20\ At proposal we
explained that for a state fuel program to be approved into a SIP in
the future, the effect of the PADD restriction is that the fuel type
must have been approved into a SIP in that PADD as of the date of our
consideration of a state's request (with the exception of 7.0 psi RVP
programs).\21\ We explained in the notice that the PADD restriction
places a strong constraint on our future approval of ``boutique fuels''
because it effectively limits state fuels to both the types of fuels
currently in existence, and to the PADDs in which they are currently
found.\22\ We also received several comments on our treatment of CARB
fuels. Our response to these comments can be found below in section
II.B.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ See CAA section 211(c)(4)(C)(v)(V), 42 U.S.C.
7545(c)(4)(C)(v)(V).
\21\ See 71 FR 32532, 32534.
\22\ See 71 FR 32532, 32534-32535.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In today's notice we are adopting the fuel type interpretation and
finalizing a
[[Page 78196]]
list of fuel types under this interpretation. Moreover, as proposed, we
can approve a state fuel program if the fuel type (except for 7.0 psi
RVP programs) has been approved into a SIP in the applicable PADD as of
the date of our consideration of a state's request. Additionally,
because we are allowed to approve a fuel if it is ``approved in at
least one [SIP] in the applicable [PADD],'' we believe that there is a
limited circumstance in PADD 5 where we could approve a fuel type that
is in a SIP in that PADD although such a fuel type is not on the list
that we have published today.\23\ Our approval would however, be
subject to the three restrictions we have listed and discussed earlier.
If our approval will not cause an increase in the number of fuel types
above those approved as of September 1, 2004, i.e., if there is ``room
on the list,'' we could approve for states within PADD 5 a fuel program
that is in California's SIP, without violating the PADD restriction.
CARB fuels are approved into California's SIP, but because the approval
is not under CAA section 211(c)(4)(C) we have not placed CARB fuels on
the list of fuels we are publishing today. Under the PADD restriction
provision, however, we are only required to approve a fuel if it is
``approved in at least one [SIP] in the applicable [PADD].'' We would,
therefore, not be prohibited from approving CARB fuels for states
within PADD 5, because CARB fuels are approved into a SIP in the
applicable PADD. As earlier explained, adoption and approval of CARB
fuels, however, remains subject to our meeting the three restrictions
we have listed and discussed, above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ CAA section 211(c)(4)(C)(v)(V), 42 U.S.C.
7545(c)(4)(C)(v)(V)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We continue to believe that under the fuel type interpretation,
states would generally adopt fuels programs but only in those limited
cases where that fuel type is already found in their PADD. We also
continue to believe that this interpretation addresses the ``fuel
islands'' concerns, while continuing to preserve an important degree of
flexibility and choice of states in developing air pollution control
programs.
II. Comment Summary and Response
We received thirteen sets of comments on the boutique fuels notice.
These comments were submitted to the public docket. Our responses to
comments are as follows:
A. Comments on the Fuel Type Approach versus the State Specific
Approach.
Comment: The Fuel Type Approach is Preferred. All commenters
supported the fuel type approach except one who expressed no opinion.
No commenter supported a state-specific approach.
Response: We agree that the fuel type approach is preferable for
several reasons. The fuel type approach will implement the intent of
the EPAct, while preserving some choice for states in meeting the
NAAQS.
B. Comments Regarding State Fuel Programs Not Included on the Draft
State Boutique Fuels List
Comment: Arizona Clean Burning Gasoline (CBG) should be listed as
two separate fuel types. Two commenters suggested that we list Arizona
CBG as two fuel types on the list--summer CBG and winter CBG. According
to one commenter, this is because the Arizona CBG has specifications
for RVP, sulfur, aromatics, olefins, E200 and E300 during summer that
are different from the specifications for winter. The commenter also
stated that the summer specifications address the ozone NAAQS, while
the winter specifications address the CO NAAQS, and that the differing
fuel specifications results in ``unique supply and distribution
issues.'' Another commenter stated that we had failed to ``adequately
characterize Arizona CBG which is actually two different fuels
depending on the time of year involved.''
Response: We agree that Arizona CBG should be listed as two
separate fuel types. Arizona requires winter CBG to meet a set of
specific standards for RVP, sulfur, aromatics, olefins, T50, T90 and
oxygen. Arizona, however, allows summer CBG to either meet the same set
of specific standards (for sulfur, aromatics, olefins, T50, T90 and
oxygen), or alternatively meet performance standards for emissions
reductions in VOC and NOX. As explained in Section 1.A,
above, summer CBG includes specification for 7.0 psi RVP. Thus, because
CBG has components, specifications or limits for summertime that are
different from non-summertime specifications, we are listing CBG as two
fuel types. In today's notice, therefore, we are listing summertime
CBG, which includes the 7.0 psi RVP requirement and non-summertime CBG.
(See Section III, below, for our list of the fuels approved into all
SIPs as of September 1, 2004). We have also changed the dates in the
table to reflect compliance dates for these two fuel types. We believe
that the practical effect of adding a second fuel type for Arizona CBG
is small, although we note that for states in PADD 5 this changes one
fuel type (CBG) into two fuel types (summer and non-summer CBG) for
consideration of approval to their SIPs for purposes of addressing
local air quality issues.
Comment: State RVP programs that do not provide a 1.0 psi RVP
waiver for ethanol-blended gasoline should be listed as separate
programs. Two state fuels programs (western Pennsylvania and El Paso,
Texas) do not provide a 1.0 psi RVP waiver for ethanol-blended gasoline
in their RVP fuel programs. Two commenters stated that these fuel
programs should not be listed as separate fuel types. Also, one
commenter stated that EPA made no mention of RVP waivers for 10%
ethanol-gasoline blends and the impact these may have on the list of
fuel types.
Response: As explained above, we are not listing the 7.8 psi RVP
western Pennsylvania program and 7.0 psi RVP El Paso, Texas programs
that do not allow the 1.0 psi waiver for ethanol blended gasoline as
two separate fuel types. As also explained in the preamble, we believe
that listing fuel types according to whether they do or do not allow a
1.0 psi ethanol waiver would run contrary to Congress's intention to
improve fuel fungibility through the boutique fuel list. As further
explained in the preamble, because the PADD restriction exception
allowed for 7.0 psi RVP fuel programs makes no mention as to whether
new 7.0 psi RVP fuel programs should be permitted with or without the
1.0 psi ethanol waiver, we do not believe that Congress intended use of
this criteria for listing fuel types.
Comment: ``Historical'' 9.0 psi RVP programs should be on the list.
In 1989 we set nationwide RVP standards for gasoline sold during the
summer, in two phases. Phase I applied to 1990 and 1991, and Phase II
applied to 1992 and later years. Generally, we set the RVP level at
10.5 psi and 9.0 psi in the northern states, under Phase I and II,
respectively.\24\ Between 1989 and 1992, some northeastern states also
adopted 9.0 psi RVP programs, which we approved into their SIPs under
section 211(c)(4)(C). These 9.0 psi RVP programs remain in the SIPs of
several northeastern states. Two commenters supported our decision to
not include these 9.0 psi RVP fuel programs on the list. However, one
commenter suggested that we should include these programs on the
boutique fuels list and that failure to include them would not fulfill
[[Page 78197]]
Congressional intent. This commenter also stated that listing the 9.0
psi RVP fuel type and then subsequently removing the 9.0 psi RVP fuel
type would provide ``room'' on the list for the adoption of another
state fuel program for the northeastern states, or more specifically
states in PADD 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ See 40 CFR 80.27(a)(1) and (2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Response: We do not believe that the 9.0 psi RVP fuel type should
be included on the list. We proposed not to list the 9.0 psi RVP
programs as a way of reconciling the somewhat conflicting provisions
requiring us to list fuels and to remove fuels that were identical to
federal fuel programs. At proposal, we explained that we were obligated
to publish a list based on the total number of fuels approved into SIPs
under section 211(c)(4)(C) as of September 1, 2004, and also required
to remove a fuel that is ``identical to a Federal fuel formulation
implemented by the Administrator'' from the list. We further explained
that reading these provisions literally would require us to
simultaneously include 9.0 psi RVP on the list we are publishing today
and at the same time to remove it from the list. We concluded that
although several of these 9.0 psi RVP programs remain in the SIPs of
some northeastern states, Congress would not have intended such an
illogical approach, primarily because the 9.0 psi RVP program could not
be viewed as contributing to the proliferation of 'fuel islands.'' \25\
We continue to believe that we should not list 9.0 psi RVP as a fuel
type on the list, and in today's notice we are not including 9.0 psi
RVP as a fuel type on the list.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ See 71 FR 32534 for a more detailed discussion of our
treatment of 9.0 RVP fuel programs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We also do not believe that listing and then removing the 9.0 psi
RVP fuel type would provide for the adoption of a new state fuel type
for states in PADD 1. As mentioned previously, the PADD restriction
strongly constrains our future approval of ``boutique fuels'' because
states are limited to the types of fuels already approved into SIPs in
their PADDs, with the exception of the 7.0 psi RVP fuel type. Adding a
9.0 psi RVP fuel type to the list and then removing it would not change
this. States in PADD 1 would still be limited to adopting a fuel
already in a SIP in their PADD or a 7.0 psi RVP fuel. Therefore, we
have not included 9.0 psi RVP programs in the boutique fuels list
published today.
Comment: CARB fuels should be included on the Boutique Fuels list.
Some commenters indicated that the CARB reformulated gasoline (RFG),
and diesel programs should be included on the list. One commenter
believed that the list should include CARB RFG and diesel programs, and
questioned our decision not to list these programs. Other commenters
stated that although CARB RFG and diesel programs have not been
approved into a SIP under section 211(c)(4)(C), they should be included
on the list because they present the same logistical issues as boutique
fuel programs. Another commenter urged us to inform Congress of our
lack of authority to address CARB RFG and diesel programs under section
211(c)(4)(C) if we believed we lacked such authority.
Response: CAA section 211(c)(4)(C)(v)(II) requires us to determine
and publish the ``total number of fuels'' approved into all SIPs, under
section 211(c)(4) as of September 1, 2004. We believe this provision
specifically refers to state fuels programs ``approved'' into SIPs
under section 211(c)(4)(C). With such specific language, we do not
believe that Congress intended us to include CARB fuel programs that
are approved into a SIP under section110, based upon the ``allowance''
from preemption provided under section 211(c)(4)(B), instead of
``approved'' under section 211(c)(4)(C). We also note that under
limited circumstances, such as when there is room on the list, adoption
by a state in PADD 5 of CARB RFG or diesel fuels programs would not
violate the PADD restriction. See our discussion in Section 1.D, above.
Such adoption and approval, however, would remain subject to the other
restrictions on our authority to approve state fuels.
Comment: State Oxygenated fuels should be included on the Boutique
Fuels list Some commenters indicated that Congress intended that EPA
should include state oxygenated fuels programs on the boutique fuels
list, even though they acknowledged that these programs are not
approved into SIPs under section 211(c)(4)(C). Similarly, a commenter
noted that Nevada's oxygenated fuels program contains an ethanol
mandate that should be included on the list. This commenter also noted
that the Nevada program includes a 9.0 psi RVP cap in winter.
Response: Section 211(c)(4)(C)(v)(II) requires us to determine the
total number of fuels we have approved into all SIPs, under section
211(c)(4)(C), as of September 1, 2004 and publish a list of such fuels.
We believe this provision specifically refers to state fuels programs
``approved'' into SIPs under section 211(c)(4)(C). With such specific
language, we do not believe that Congress intended us to include
oxygenated fuels programs that were not approved into SIPs under
section 211(c)(4)(C), but, rather, were approved under sections 110 and
211(m). Since the Nevada ethanol requirement is part of an oxygenated
fuels program that we approved under sections 110 and 211(m), we do not
believe it should be included on the boutique fuels list we are
adopting today. Also, since there are no federal wintertime RVP
controls, the Nevada wintertime RVP cap is not preempted and is not
approved into the SIP under section 211(c)(4)(C), and we do not believe
it should be included on the boutique fuels list we are adopting today.
Comment: State biofuel mandates should be included on the Boutique
Fuels list. Some commenters stated that the list should include fuels
required by state biofuel mandates.
Response: Section 211(c)(4)(C)(v)(II) requires us to determine the
total number of fuels we have approved into all SIPs, under section
211(c)(4)(C), as of September 1, 2004. We believe this provision is
very specific in referring to state fuels programs ``approved'' into
SIPs under section 211(c)(4)(C). Since the ethanol and biofuel mandates
(including biodiesel) that the commenters reference were not approved
into a SIP under section 211(c)(4)(C) as of September 1, 2004, they
should not be placed on the list.
C. Addition and Removal of a Fuel Type From the List
Comment: Two commenters noted that beginning in 2007 there should
be an opportunity to consolidate the boutique fuel list by eliminating
the unique gasoline sulfur requirements for Atlanta, Georgia. According
to the commenters, beginning in 2007 early sulfur credits under the
Tier 2 gasoline sulfur program will have been exhausted and Atlanta and
other parts of the country would be receiving the same gasoline with
regard to sulfur content. The Atlanta program would simply be listed as
one of the states using the 7.0 psi RVP fuel type.
Response: As discussed above, we must remove a fuel from the list
when the fuel type is ``identical to a Federal fuel formulation
implemented by the Administrator.''\26\ Considering removal of the
Atlanta program from the list, at this stage, however, would be
premature.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ See CAA section 211(c)(4)(C)(v)(III), 42 U.S.C.
7545(c)(4)(C)(v)(III)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment: One commenter recommended that EPA clarify the procedure
for adding a fuel to the list. The commenter inquired as to whether EPA
would approve either a new fuel
[[Page 78198]]
only for use in PADD 1 or one that could be used in any other PADD
subsequent to removal of a fuel type such as the ``summer 7.0 psi RVP
gasoline with sulfur provisions,'' which the commenter noted is
currently in use only in PADD 1. The commenter also inquired as to
whether a state in PADD 3 could substitute ``summer 7.0 psi RVP
gasoline with sulfur provisions'' fuel type with another new fuel type.
The commenter further inquired as to whether such a substitution would
violate the PADD restriction in section 211(c)(4)(C)(v)(V).
Response: In sections I.B. and C. of the preamble, we discussed how
we may remove a fuel type from the list, and approve a ``new fuel''
into a SIP under EPAct. In section I.D. of the preamble we also
discussed how the PADD restriction in section 211(c)(4)(C)(v)(V) places
a strong constraint on our future approval of ``boutique fuels'' by
effectively limiting state fuels to both the types of fuels currently
in existence, and to the PADDs in which they are currently found, with
the exception of 7.0 psi RVP fuel type. We expect that if the ``summer
7.0 psi RVP gasoline with sulfur provisions'' fuel type in PADD 1 is
removed from the list, the only fuels types we may approve into a SIP
in PADD 3 would be fuel types that are approved into SIPs in PADD 3 as
of the date of our consideration of a state's request to approve a fuel
type.
D. Consultation with DOE
Comment: One commenter stated that EPA's consultations with DOE
should be part of the public record.
Response: We agree with this comment. We did consult with DOE Staff
as part of the development of the June 6, 2006 notice and the draft
boutique fuels list it announced. We have docketed DOE's concurrence
with the approach proposed. We have also consulted with DOE staff on
developing today's notice and the list it adopts and we have docketed
DOE's concurrence with this final notice.
E. General Comments
Comment: EPA should explain how the list will be affected by a
request from a state governor not to allow the 1.0 psi ethanol waiver
as permitted by section 211(h)(5) of EPAct.
Response: As mentioned earlier in the preamble, our approval of
state fuel programs with or without a 1.0 psi waiver for ethanol
blended gasoline does not have any impact on federal RVP programs,
which are authorized by section 211(h). For areas covered by federal
RVP programs, section 211(h)(4) of the Clean Air Act allows a 1.0 psi
RVP waiver for gasoline blends containing 10% ethanol. Section
211(h)(5) also permits the governor of a state to petition EPA to
remove the 1.0 psi RVP waiver if the state provides documentation that
the 1.0 psi ethanol waiver increases emissions. The EPA's
interpretation of section 211(c)(4)(C) above, has no impact on such
federal RVP programs.
Comment: EPA should provide a more nuanced analysis of fuel
categories that considers how fuel properties fall into a hierarchy of
substitutability that affects supply flexibility, both from a
perspective of vehicle impacts as well as legal constraints. For
example, a state requiring gasoline with a 7.8 RVP limit also can
legally allow gasoline with a 7.2 or 7.0 RVP limit.
Response: Fuels that meet more stringent standards than those
required by a SIP may be supplied as compliant fuel in any SIP covered
area. Evaluating SIP fuels from a perspective of vehicle impacts is
outside the scope of today's Notice.
Comment: EPA approval of state fuels should include supply impacts
of all unique fuels, such as California fuels, state winter oxygenate
fuels, state-mandated biofuels, federal RFG, and federal RVP-controlled
fuels. Several commenters recommended that, when reviewing the supply
impacts of a proposed SIP fuel, EPA consider all unique fuels, such as
California fuels, state winter oxygenate fuels, state-mandated
biofuels, federal RFG, and federal RVP-controlled fuels, even if these
fuels are not on the boutique fuel list that we are publishing in
today's notice. Commenters also urged EPA to include these unique fuel
requirements in the Sec. 1509 Fuel Harmonization Study that EPA and
DOE are currently preparing for Congress.
Response: As explained above, before approving a ``new fuel'' into
a SIP, where there is ``room'' on the list, EPA is required to make a
finding, after consultation with the DOE, on the impact of the ``new
fuel'' on fuel supply, distribution, and producibility. In reviewing
the supply implications of a ``new fuel,'' EPA agrees that it is
reasonable to consider all fuels in the area although such fuels are
not on the boutique fuels list. The supply implications of a ``new
fuel'' can best be understood by evaluating them in the context of the
other fuel requirements applicable to fuel distributed in that area.
Therefore, we believe it is appropriate to consider ``unlisted'' fuels
such as biofuels or oxygenated gasoline when determining whether or not
a ``new fuel'' will present supply or distribution interruptions or
will have a significant adverse impact on fuel producibility in the
affected or contiguous areas. We also recognize that including these
``unlisted'' fuels in the EPAct section1509 fuel harmonization study is
appropriate.
Comment: One commenter said that EPA should allow more time for
states to demonstrate attainment with the 8 hour ozone NAAQS and the
PM2.5 NAAQS. Allowing states more time will enable them to realize the
benefits of federal fuels programs that have not yet been fully
implemented (low sulfur gasoline and ultra-low sulfur diesel), and
lessen the pressure on individual states to add motor fuel controls to
their SIPs to demonstrate attainment.
Response: Determining timelines for states to demonstrate
attainment with the various NAAQS is outside the scope of today's
Notice.
III. Publication of the Boutique Fuel List
A list of the eight (8) fuel types approved into SIPs under section
211(c)(4)(C) as of September 1, 2004, the states, and the PADD they are
used in is set forth in the following Table. Please note that this
table varies from the draft table for the fuel type interpretation
published in the June 6, 2006 notice, which contained seven fuel types.
Specifically, we have divided the Arizona CBG program into summer and
non-summer. The Arizona summer CBG program includes the 7.0 psi RVP
requirement that appeared on the draft table, but covers all the CBG
requirements applicable between May 1 and September 30.
Total Number of Fuels Approved in State Implementation Plans (SIPs)
Under CAA Section 211(c)(4)(C) as of September 1, 2004
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Type of fuel control PADD Region-state
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RVP of 7.8 psi 1.................... 1 1-ME (May 1-Sept.15)*
1 3-PA
[[Page 78199]]
2 5-IN
2 5-MI
3 6-TX (May 1-Oct. 1)*
RVP of 7.2 psi...................... 2 5-IL
RVP of 7.0 psi...................... 2 7-KS
2 7-MO
3 4-AL
3 6-TX
RVP of 7.0 with gasoline sulfur 1 4-GA
provisions.
Low Emission Diesel................. 3 6-TX
Cleaner Burning Gasoline (Summer)... 5 9-AZ (May 1-Sept 30)
Cleaner Burning Gasoline (non- 5 9-AZ (Oct 1-Apr 30)
Summer).
Winter Gasoline (aromatics & sulfur) 5 9-NV
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Dates listed in parentheses refer to summer gasoline programs with
different RVP control periods from the federal RVP control period,
which runs from June 1 through September 15.
Dated: December 21, 2006.
Stephen L. Johnson,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. E6-22313 Filed 12-27-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P