Control of Air Pollution From New Motor Vehicles; Amendment to the Tier 2/Gasoline Sulfur Regulations

[Federal Register: April 13, 2001 (Volume 66, Number 72)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 19312-19322]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr13ap01-23]

[[Page 19312]]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 80 and 86

[AMS-FRL-6768-4]
RIN 2060-AI69

Control of Air Pollution From New Motor Vehicles; Amendment to
the Tier 2/Gasoline Sulfur Regulations

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: This proposed rule would correct, amend, and revise certain
Tier 2/Gasoline Sulfur regulations to assist regulated entities with
program implementation and compliance. First, it would make minor
corrections to clarify the regulations governing compliance with the
gasoline sulfur standards. Second, with respect to the low sulfur
gasoline program, it would revise the boundaries of the Geographic
Phase-in Area (GPA) to include counties and tribal lands in states
adjacent to the eight original GPA states. The intention of this
amendment is to ensure a smooth transition to low sulfur gasoline
nationwide and to mitigate the potential for gasoline supply shortages.
Third, it would amend certain provisions of the small refiner and
Averaging, Banking, and Trading (ABT) programs to assist domestic and
foreign refiners and importers in establishing gasoline sulfur
baselines for credit and allotment generation purposes. Fourth, it
would revise certain sampling and testing provisions for low sulfur
gasoline to enable certain refiners to generate early credits and/or
allotments under the ABT program. Finally, this proposal would make
minor revisions to the regulations governing compliance with the
vehicle standards. We plan to make other necessary corrections,
amendments, and revisions to the Tier 2/Gasoline Sulfur regulations in
a future rulemaking.

DATES: Comments or requests for a public hearing must be received by
June 12, 2001.

ADDRESSES: Comments: All comments and materials relevant to today's
action should be submitted to Public Docket No. A-97-10 at the
following address: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Air
Docket (6102), Room M-1500, 401 M Street, SW., Washington, DC 20460.
Materials related to this rulemaking are available at EPA's Air Docket
for review at the above address (on the ground floor in Waterside Mall)
from 8:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except on
government holidays. You can reach the Air Docket by telephone at (202)
260-7548 and by facsimile at (202) 260-4400. You may be charged a
reasonable fee for photocopying docket materials, as provided in 40 CFR
Part 2.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mary Manners, U.S. EPA, National
Vehicle and Fuels Emission Laboratory, Assessment and Standards
Division, 2000 Traverwood, Ann Arbor MI 48105; telephone (734) 214-
4873, fax (734) 214-4051, e-mail manners.mary@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: EPA is proposing to approve corrections,
amendments, and revisions to the Tier 2/Gasoline Sulfur regulations (65
FR 6698, February 10, 2000). However, in the ``Rules and Regulations''
section of today's Federal Register publication, we are approving these
corrections, amendments, and revisions as a direct final rule without
prior proposal language because we view this as a noncontroversial rule
and anticipate no adverse comment. For further information, including
the regulatory text for this proposal, please refer to the direct final
rule that is located in the ``Rules and Regulations'' section of this
Federal Register publication. The direct final rule will be effective
on July 12, 2001 without further notice unless we receive adverse
comment or a request for a public hearing by June 12, 2001. If EPA
receives adverse comment on one or more distinct amendments,
paragraphs, or sections of this rulemaking, we will publish a timely
withdrawal in the Federal Register indicating which provisions are
being withdrawn due to 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. Any distinct
amendment, paragraph, or section of today's rulemaking for which we do
not receive adverse comment will become effective on the date set out
above, notwithstanding any adverse comment on any other distinct
amendment, paragraph, or section of the direct final rule.

Regulated Entities

Entities potentially regulated by this proposed action include
those that manufacture new motor vehicles, alter individual imported
motor vehicles to address U.S. regulation, or convert motor vehicles to
use alternative fuels. It would also affect you if you produce,
distribute, or sell gasoline.
The table below gives some examples of entities that would have to
comply with the proposed regulations if they are finalized. However,
since these are only examples, you should carefully examine these and
other existing regulations in 40 CFR parts 80 and 86. If you have any
questions, please call the person listed in the for further information
contact section above.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Examples of potentially
Category NAICS codes a SIC codes b regulated entities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry...................................... 336111 3711 Motor Vehicle Manufacturers.
336112 ..............
336120 ..............
Industry...................................... 336311 3592 Alternative Fuel Vehicle
Converters.
336312 3714
422720 5172
454312 5984
811198 7549
541514 8742
541690 8931
Industry...................................... 811112 7533 Commercial Importers of Vehicles
and Vehicle Components.
811198 7549
541514 8742
Industry...................................... 324110 2911 Petroleum Refiners.
Industry...................................... 422710 5171 Gasoline Marketers and
Distributors.
422720 5172
Industry...................................... 484220 4212 Gasoline Carriers.

[[Page 19313]]

484230 4213
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
a North American Industry Classification System (NAICS).
b Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) system code.

Access to Rulemaking Documents Through the Internet

Today's proposal is available electronically on the day of
publication from the Office of the Federal Register Internet Web site
listed below. Electronic copies of this preamble, regulatory language,
and other documents associated with this proposal are available from
the EPA Office of Transportation and Air Quality Web site listed below
shortly after the rule is signed by the Administrator. This service is
free of charge, except any cost that you already incur for connecting
to the Internet.
EPA Federal Register Web Site:
http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPA-AIR/(Either select a desired date
or use the Search feature.)
Tier 2/Gasoline Sulfur home page: http://www.epa.gov/otaq/
tr2home.htm.
Please note that due to differences between the software used to
develop the document and the software into which the document may be
downloaded, changes in format, page length, etc., may occur.

Outline of This Preamble

I. Proposed Clarifications and Other Minor Corrections
II. Geographic Phase-in Area
A. Application Deadline for GPA Standards
B. How Did We Establish the Geographic Phase-in Area?
C. How Do We Propose to Establish the GPA in the Adjoining
States?
D. What Are the Results of the GPA Counties Process?
III. Small Refiners
A. Documentation of Crude Oil Capacity by Foreign Refiners
B. Oxygenates Included in Baseline
IV. Credits and Allotments
A. Baseline Calculations
B. Refineries That Were Non-operational in 1997-98
C. Foreign Refiners With Approved 1990 Baselines Who Did Not
Submit Anti-dumping Compliance Reports to EPA in 1997-1998
V. Sampling and Testing
A. Obtaining Test Results Before Gasoline Leaves the Refinery
1. Before January 1, 2004
2. January 1, 2004 and Beyond
B. Sample Retention
1. Limitation on Length of Time to Retain Samples
2. Composited Samples
3. Sample Retention for Reformulated Blendstocks for Oxygenate
Blending
VI. Changes to Vehicle Compliance Regulations
VII. Administrative Requirements
A. Administrative Designation and Regulatory Analysis
B. Regulatory Flexibility
C. Paperwork Reduction Act
D. Intergovernmental Relations
1. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
2. Executive Order 13084: Consultation and Coordination With
Indian Tribal Governments
3. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)
E. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
F. Executive Order 13045: Children's Health Protection
VIII. Statutory Provisions and Legal Authority

I. Proposed Clarifications and Other Minor Corrections

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Description of
Section clarification or
correction
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 80.216(a)(1)(i) and (a)(2).................. Revise to clarify
that the refinery
annual average
standard for GPA
gasoline is 150.00
ppm instead of 150
ppm, in accordance
with the annual
average refinery
standards under
Sec. 80.195(a)(1)
and Sec. 80.240(a)
which are expressed
to two decimals.
Sec. 80.230(a)(1)................................ Revise to change
``of'' to ``with''
for clarity.
Sec. 80.225(d)................................... Revise to clarify
that the employee/
crude oil criteria
applies to parties
seeking small
refiner status
under Sec.
80.225(d).
Sec. 80.235(g)(1)................................ Revise to change the
phrase ``baseline
standard and
volume, and per-
gallon cap'' to
``annual average
sulfur standard,
baseline volume and
per-gallon cap
standard,'' and to
add the words ``for
the 2004-2007
averaging periods''
for clarity.
Sec. 80.245(a)(3)................................ Revise to conform
language to other
provisions relating
to requirements for
establishing a
sulfur baseline.
This revision does
not change the
substance of the
baseline provisions
under Sec. 80.245.
Sec. 80.250(a)(1) and (a)(2)..................... Revise to clarify
that foreign
refiners must
include only
gasoline imported
into the U.S. in
calculating a small
refinery's baseline
and baseline
volume. Also Revise
to reference
requirements under
Sec. 80.245(a)(3).
Sec. 80.285(a)(1)(i)............................. Revise to add the
words ``for a
refinery'' for
clarity.
Sec. 80.285(a)(1)(ii)............................ Revise to add the
words ``for
refineries'' and
``refineries'' for
clarity.
Sec. 80.285(a)(1)(iii)........................... Revise to add the
words ``for that
refinery'' for
clarity.
Sec. 80.285(b)(1)(i)............................. Revise to add the
words ``for any
refinery'' for
clarity.
Sec. 80.285(b)(1)(ii)............................ Revise to clarify
that, for refiners
of GPA gasoline,
credits generated
beginning in 2004
are based on the
refinery's annual
average sulfur
standard for GPA
gasoline
established under
Sec. 80.216(a).
Sec. 80.285(b)(2)................................ Revise to add
``under Sec.
80.310'' for
clarity.
Sec. 80.295(a)................................... Revise to clarify
that foreign
refiners must
include only
gasoline imported
into the U.S. in
calculating a
sulfur baseline
under Sec. 80.295.
Sec. 80.295(b)................................... Revise to change an
incorrect reference
to Sec. 80.65. The
correct reference
is Sec. 80.69.
Also Revise to add
the words ``for a
refinery'' and
``for that
refinery'' for
clarity.
Sec. 80.305(a)................................... Revise to clarify in
the definition of
the term Va that
foreign refiners
must include only
gasoline imported
into the U.S. in
calculating early
credits under Sec.
80.305, and to
clarify in the
definition of the
term Sa that the
annual average
sulfur level used
in the equation in
this section is
calculated in
accordance with
Sec. 80.205.
Sec. 80.305(d)................................... Revise to add ``for
a refinery'' and
``at that
refinery'' and to
change
``refiner's'' to
``refinery's'' for
clarity.
Sec. 80.310(b)................................... Revise to clarify in
the definition of
the term Sstd that
the standard for
GPA gasoline is the
standard
established for GPA
gasoline for the
refinery under Sec.
80.216(a), and to
clarify in the
definition of the
term Sa that the
annual average
sulfur level used
in the equation in
this section is
calculated in
accordance with
Sec. 80.205.

[[Page 19314]]

Sec. 80.410(f)(2)(ii)............................ Revise to change an
incorrect reference
to paragraph
(c)(3)(i). The
correct reference
is paragraph
(c)(3)(ii).
Sec. 80.410(s)................................... Revise to change an
incorrect reference
to paragraph (r).
The correct
reference is
paragraph (p).
Sec. 86.1810-01(l)(1)............................ Correct an
inadvertent
limitation of
applicability by
removing the model
year designations
in the referenced
section numbers.
Sec. 86.1810-01(m)(1)............................ Correct an
inadvertent
limitation of
applicability by
removing the model
year designations
in the referenced
section numbers.
Sec. 86.1811-04(c)(3)(i) and (ii)................ Revise to clarify
the applicability
of the NMOG -
standard to flex,
bi- or dual-fueled
vehicles on the
gasoline or diesel
portion of
certification only.
Sec. 86.1811-04(e)............................... Revise to delete an
erroneous statement
about the
applicability of
the spitback
standard to newly
assembled vehicles.
Sec. 86.1811-04(f)(2)(i)......................... Revise to clarify an
incorrect rounding
procedure.
Sec. 86.1829-01(2)(i)............................ Revise to add a
waiver provision
for evaporative/
refueling testing
of CNG or LPG
vehicles,
inadvertently
omitted.
Sec. 86.1835-01(d)............................... Correct an incorrect
reference to
paragraph (b) to
paragraph (a).
Sec. 86.1841-01(e)............................... Revise to clarify
that RAFS may be
applied only to
NLEV vehicles.
Sec. 86.1845-04(f)(1)............................ Revise to change an
incorrect reference
to NMOG to NMHC.
Sec. 86.1846-01(a)(3)............................ Revise to add the
word ``passenger''
to ``medium-duty
passenger
vehicles'' for
clarity.
Sec. 86.1860-04(g)(2)(ii)........................ Revise to correct a
rounding procedure.
Sec. 86.1860-04(h)............................... Revise to clarify
that the
multipliers for
fleet average NOX
specified in (h)(1)
apply to the
denominator in the
equation in
paragraph (f)(2) of
that section.
Provide optional
formula necessary
to address
mathematical
problems caused by
the value of zero
associated with Bin
1.
Sec. 86.1861-04(a)(5)............................ Revise to correct an
inconsistency with
small volume
hardship provisions
by changing the
requirement for
100% compliance in
a specific model
year to one model
year before a
deficit can be
carried forward.
Sec. 86.1861-04(b)(1)............................ Revise formula to
replace erroneous +
symbol with x .
------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Geographic Phase-in Area

A. Application Deadline for GPA Standards

Due to the timing of today's action, we are proposing to extend the
application deadline for GPA standards from December 31, 2000 to May 1,
2001. To apply for the GPA standards under Sec. 80.216 (What standards
apply to gasoline produced or imported for use in the GPA?), a refiner
or importer would have to submit an application in accordance with the
provisions of Sec. 80.290 (How does a refiner apply for a sulfur
baseline?).

B. How Did We Establish the Geographic Phase-in Area?

In the Tier 2/Gasoline Sulfur final rule (65 FR 6698, February 10,
2000), we established a geographic area in which the low sulfur
gasoline program will be phased-in differently than the national
program. This program, referred to as the Geographic Phase-In Area
(GPA) program, covers seven states in the Rocky Mountains and Upper
Great Plains, as well as Alaska. The gasoline sulfur standards and
phase-in schedule for the GPA program can be found at Secs. 80.216,
80.219, and 80.220. Gasoline produced by any refiner and/or importer
can be sold in the GPA provided that the refiner and/or importer
registers with us (see Sec. 80.217) and sells gasoline within the GPA
consistent with the requirements summarized in the regulations.
As discussed in the Tier 2 final rulemaking (FRM), the GPA program
was established to help enable a smooth transition to low sulfur
gasoline nationwide. The need for such a program was based on the
competition for engineering and construction resources and the time
needed for installation of desulfurization equipment. (See 65 FR 6755-
6756)
As described in the preamble to the Tier 2 FRM, states in the GPA
were determined based on two criteria: environmental need and gasoline
supply. First, we evaluated states based on the environmental need
criterion. In defining the GPA, we identified those states that have a
somewhat less urgent environmental need in the near term (relative to
the 1-hour ozone standard) for ozone precursor reductions \1\ and whose
emissions are less important with respect to ozone transport. (Tier 2
vehicles operating on higher sulfur gasoline have increased emission
rates compared with those operated on 30 ppm, but this effect is
partially reversible.) Second, we considered the issue of sufficient
gasoline supply, specifically, the relative difficulty of producing or
obtaining through product transport (via pipeline, truck, rail or
barge) adequate supplies of gasoline which would meet the requirements
of the national low sulfur gasoline program. Upon evaluation of these
criteria, we identified eight states for the GPA program: Alaska,
Colorado, Idaho, Montana, New Mexico, North Dakota, Utah, and Wyoming.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\1\ Primarily oxides of nitrogen ( NOX) and volatile
organic compounds (VOCs).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

In this same assessment we also acknowledged that there may be
counties in other states adjoining these eight states which are solely
or predominantly dependent on gasoline produced by the refineries that
supply these eight states and which meet the same basic environmental
and gasoline supply criteria. As part of the Tier 2 final rule, we
committed to conducting additional assessments to identify which
counties in these adjoining states should be considered for inclusion
in the GPA program.

C. How Do We Propose to Establish the GPA in the Adjoining States?

As part of the Tier 2/Gasoline Sulfur final rule, we included
criteria that should be considered in establishing which counties in
adjoining states should be included in the GPA program. We designed
these criteria to include those counties in adjacent states which
receive a majority of their gasoline from the refineries located in the
eight states covered by the GPA program. Not including these counties
within the GPA program could potentially undermine the basic intent of
the GPA program by pressuring refineries in the eight states to supply
their markets in the adjoining states with national gasoline, in spite
of the existence of the GPA program. It could also have the affect of
creating spot gasoline supply shortages and put upward pressure on
prices in these counties.

[[Page 19315]]

EPA's current gasoline sulfur regulations provide that additional
counties or tribal lands in states adjacent to the eight states listed
above will be included in the GPA, and gasoline sold there will thus be
subject to the GPA standards, if one of the following conditions is met
for the area in 1999: (1) Approximately 50 percent or more of the total
volume of gasoline, as measured at the terminals and bulk stations, was
received from refineries located in the eight GPA states, (2)
approximately 50 percent or more of the total volume of gasoline
dispensed was received from refineries in the GPA states, or (3)
approximately 50 percent or more of the total commercial and private
dispensing outlets were supplied by gasoline produced by refineries
located in the eight GPA states. See 40 CFR 80.215(a)(2).
To identify additional areas for inclusion in the GPA under these
regulations, we worked with interested parties such as petroleum
marketers and state governments to obtain information regarding
gasoline distribution practices. We identified pipeline and terminal
locations and, in several cases, information on GPA and total gasoline
dispensed in given states and counties. Using the various types of
information provided as a foundation, we then developed a basic
methodology to identify counties which rely on GPA refineries for a
majority of their gasoline. This methodology involved the following
steps:
Prepare a list of the states adjoining the eight GPA
states (10 in total).
Identify and locate the GPA refineries (those in the eight
core GPA states that are not expected to qualify as small businesses
under the low sulfur gasoline program).
Identify the pipelines used by these GPA refineries to
transport product to the terminals which supply gasoline to the
adjoining states, and
Identify all other refineries/terminals which service the
adjoining states.
Using this methodology, we developed an initial list of counties in
the adjacent states which receive gasoline from the refineries in the
eight GPA states. We then identified counties which receive the
majority of their gasoline from a given source. To accomplish this
task, we mapped counties that fell within a distance range of 100-150
miles from refinery racks and pipeline terminals used by GPA refineries
since essentially all gasoline is delivered to private and retail
outlets by tanker truck. We used this distance range because our
analysis of the information provided to us by the states and petroleum
marketers suggested this was a good indicator of a county's primary
source of gasoline. We then adjusted this initial list of counties
based on two inputs. First, in some cases, county-specific data on the
percent of gasoline dispensed that was produced at refineries in the
eight GPA states was available. We used these data to include or
exclude specific counties from the program. Second, we excluded a
county if our analysis indicated that low sulfur gasoline would be
available from nearby refineries and terminals which are not linked to
the refineries in the eight core GPA states. In places where refineries
and terminals are located nearby, we expect that, for economic reasons,
retail outlets will obtain the majority of their gasoline at those
locations rather than obtaining gasoline that has been transported a
much greater distance from a terminal supplied by a refinery in a GPA
state.
In summary, under Sec. 80.215(a)(2) of the low sulfur gasoline
program regulations, we propose to expand the boundaries of the GPA to
include additional counties and tribal lands in states adjacent to the
eight GPA states established under Sec. 80.215(a)(1) of the Tier 2
final rule. To accomplish this, we identified the counties in which we
reasonably concluded that approximately 50 percent or more of the
gasoline volume dispensed is produced by refineries in the eight GPA
states. Specifically, we (1) determined the location of terminals that
receive such gasoline, and (2) identified retail outlets in the
adjacent states that receive most of their gasoline from these
terminals. Next, we excluded certain counties based on specific data
which showed that more than half of the gasoline dispensed came from
refineries outside the eight GPA states. We then included some
additional counties based on specific data which showed that more than
half of the gasoline dispensed came from refineries within the eight
GPA states. Finally, we excluded some counties identified in our
initial analysis based on the identification of nearby terminals that
provided an economical source of gasoline from refineries outside the
eight GPA states. We have included materials in the docket for today's
action that describe in more detail the relevant information regarding
the location of terminals and retail outlets for each county.

D. What Are the Results of the GPA Counties Process?

Using the approach described above, we have identified 74 counties
in six states that adjoin the GPA which we propose to include in the
GPA. These counties are shown in Figure 1 below and are listed in the
regulatory text in a new Sec. 80.215.

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P

[[Page 19316]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP13AP01.024

BILLING CODE 6560-50-C

GPA gasoline sold in these counties would be subject to the
requirements in Secs. 80.215-80.220, in addition to other applicable
requirements in part 80. In our analysis, we concluded that no counties
in Minnesota, Texas, Oklahoma, or Kansas need to be included in the
GPA. No county in these states meets the criteria in the regulation and
with the exception of Minnesota, these four states receive little or no
gasoline from the refineries in the eight states now in the GPA
program.
The eight core GPA states contain a number of American Indian
reservations. We propose to fully include these reservations in the GPA
under today's action. The adjacent counties discussed above also
contain 25 American Indian reservations. If a reservation is only
partly within a GPA state or adjacent county, it would be considered
fully in the area for purposes of the GPA program. This is consistent
with the inclusion of entire states or counties in the program.
Overall, the gasoline sold in these adjacent counties and American
Indian reservations represents about one percent of U.S. gasoline
consumption, which would bring the total gasoline consumption covered
by the GPA program to 5.7 percent. Even though we are proposing to
revise the GPA program to include these additional counties, the
overall emission benefits of the early years of the Tier 2/Gasoline
Sulfur program would not be reduced over those described in the final
rule. The air quality analysis of the final Tier 2 program was based on
the premise that all gasoline produced or used in the eight GPA states
would be covered by the GPA program. Thus, GPA gasoline produced at
refineries located in the eight GPA states was included in the air
quality analysis.
We believe that including the states, counties, and tribal lands
described above would allow the objectives of the GPA program to be
achieved.

III. Small Refiners

A. Documentation of Crude Oil Capacity by Foreign Refiners

Section 80.235(c)(2) provides that a refiner's application for
small refiner status must contain the total corporate crude oil
capacity of each refinery as reported to the Energy Information
Administration (EIA) of the U.S. Department of Energy. Because foreign
refiners do not report their crude oil capacity to the EIA, today's
action proposes to modify Sec. 80.235(c)(2) to provide that, in the
case of a foreign refiner, the small refiner status application must
contain the total crude oil capacity of each refinery as documented by
a comparable reputable source, such as a professional publication or
trade journal.
Today's proposal would not change the definition of ``small
refiner'' under Sec. 80.225(a), and we are not seeking

[[Page 19317]]

comment on any of the provisions of Sec. 80.225(a).

B. Oxygenates Included in Baseline

Section 80.250 provides the equations to be used in determining
small refiner sulfur baselines and baseline volumes. This section,
however, does not address whether oxygenates added downstream from the
small refinery are to be included in the calculations. The current low
sulfur gasoline regulations at Sec. 80.295(b) provide that any refiner
who, under the RFG and anti-dumping regulations, included oxygenates
blended downstream in compliance calculations for 1997-1998, must
include this oxygenate in the calculations for sulfur content under
Sec. 80.295 for purposes of establishing a baseline for early credit
generation. We intended the provisions of Sec. 80.250 under the small
refiner program to be consistent with the provisions of Sec. 80.295,
since both baselines are intended to reflect current sulfur levels at a
refinery and are based on the same calculation. As a result, today's
action proposes to modify Sec. 80.250 to require any small refiner who
included oxygenates blended downstream in RFG/anti-dumping compliance
calculations for 1997-1998, to include this oxygenate for purposes of
establishing a sulfur baseline under Sec. 80.250.

IV. Credits and Allotments

A. Baseline Calculations

The current low sulfur gasoline regulations at Sec. 80.205 require
the annual refinery or importer average or corporate pool average
calculations to be conducted to two decimal places. However, the
provisions at Secs. 80.250 and 80.295 for calculating a sulfur baseline
for purposes of determining small refinery standards and generating
early credits and allotments currently do not contain a similar
requirement. We intended the provisions for calculating a sulfur
baseline to be consistent with the provisions for calculating the
refinery or importer annual average sulfur level, including the
requirement to conduct the calculations to two decimal places. As a
result, today's action proposes to modify Secs. 80.250 and 80.295 to
require the baseline calculations under these sections to be conducted
to two decimal places.
Note, however, that sulfur credits generated under the sulfur
program are in units of ``ppm-gallons.'' See Sec. 80.305(c). We
interpret Sec. 80.305(c) to require sulfur credits to be rounded to the
nearest ppm-gallon. Therefore, in calculating sulfur credits using the
equation in Sec. 80.305(a), the refiner should use the refinery's
sulfur baseline value established under Sec. 80.250 or Sec. 80.295,
conducted to two decimal places, and the refinery's actual annual
average sulfur level calculated under Sec. 80.205, conducted to two
decimal places. Once the sulfur credits are calculated, the refiner
should round the credits to the nearest ppm-gallon.

B. Refineries That Were Non-Operational in 1997-98

Section 80.290 requires a refiner to submit in its sulfur baseline
application the annual average gasoline sulfur baseline for gasoline
produced in 1997-1998 for each refinery for which the refiner is
applying for a sulfur baseline. The regulations, however, do not
address refineries that were shutdown or non-operational during 1997-
1998. Today's action proposes that, for such refineries, sulfur data
for at least one annual averaging period would be required to establish
a sulfur baseline for early credit generation. The refiner's baseline
application would have to include the information required under
Sec. 80.290(c) for the gasoline produced during each annual averaging
period that the refinery was in operation after being reactivated. We
will evaluate all of the data submitted by the refiner in determining
the appropriate sulfur baseline for the refinery. Where we conclude
that the data submitted reasonably reflects current sulfur levels, the
refinery's baseline will be determined based on the annual average
sulfur content for the most recent annual averaging period that the
refinery was in operation. Today's rule would modify Secs. 80.290 and
80.295 to clarify these requirements.

C. Foreign Refiners With Approved 1990 Baselines Who Did Not Submit
Anti-dumping Compliance Reports to EPA in 1997-1998

To establish a sulfur baseline for purposes of the small refinery
standards or generating early sulfur credits, the regulations require
refiners to submit to us sulfur baseline data for 1997-1998, including
information on each batch of gasoline produced and the batch number
assigned to the batch for purposes of compliance with the RFG/anti-
dumping regulations. See Secs. 80.245(a) and 80.290(c). We may then
verify the data in the refiner's sulfur baseline submission by
comparing it with the data submitted to us on the refiner's 1997-1998
annual averaging reports. Foreign refiners who do not have an approved
individual baseline under the RFG/anti-dumping regulations, and,
therefore, did not submit batch reports to us in 1997-1998, are
required to follow the procedures under Secs. 80.91 through 80.93
(provisions for establishing an individual anti-dumping baseline) to
establish the volume and sulfur content of gasoline that was produced
at the foreign refinery and imported into the United States during
1997-1998, for purposes of calculating a sulfur baseline under
Sec. 80.250 or Sec. 80.295. See Secs. 80.250(b), 80.290(d) and
80.410(b)(1). This is in addition to the other baseline establishment
requirements under Sec. 80.245 or Sec. 80.290.
The regulations, however, do not address the situation where a
foreign refiner has received an approved individual anti-dumping
baseline, but the baseline did not apply for purposes of compliance
with the anti-dumping regulations until after the 1998 annual averaging
period. Such a refiner would not have submitted any reports to us in
1997-1998. In this situation, we believe it is appropriate for the
foreign refinery's baseline to be based on the gasoline produced by the
foreign refinery and imported to the United States during the period of
time that the refinery was subject to its individual anti-dumping
baseline. The sulfur baseline is intended to be a reasonable
representation of a refinery's current sulfur level. See 65 FR 6761
(February 10, 2000). We believe that a baseline based on the refinery's
post-1998 sulfur data would provide a reasonable representation of the
refinery's current sulfur level, and perhaps an even more accurate
representation of the refinery's current sulfur level than 1997-1998
data. As a result, today's proposal would require a foreign refiner who
has an approved individual anti-dumping baseline that was not in effect
in 1997-1998 to submit in its sulfur baseline application under
Sec. 80.245 or Sec. 80.290 information and data for the gasoline
produced by the refinery during each annual averaging period that the
refinery was subject to its individual anti-dumping baseline. EPA would
evaluate all of the data submitted by the foreign refiner in
determining the appropriate sulfur baseline for the refinery. Where we
conclude that the data they give us reasonably reflects current sulfur
levels, the refinery's baseline would be determined based on the
average sulfur content of gasoline produced by the refinery and
imported to the United States during the most recent annual averaging
period in which the refinery was subject to its individual anti-dumping
baseline.

[[Page 19318]]

V. Sampling and Testing

A. Obtaining Test Results Before Gasoline Leaves the Refinery

1. Before January 1, 2004
The current low sulfur gasoline regulations at Sec. 80.330(a)(1)
require a refiner to collect a representative sample from each batch of
gasoline produced and then to test each sample to determine its sulfur
content prior to the gasoline leaving the refinery. The requirements in
Sec. 80.330(a)(1) apply beginning on January 1, 2004, or January 1 of
the first year of credit or allotment generation, whichever is earlier.
Sections 80.330(a)(3) and (a)(4) provide the following exceptions: (1)
Parties who collect and test composited samples of conventional
gasoline are allowed to continue that practice until January 1, 2004;
and (2) parties who are unable to obtain test results prior to the
gasoline leaving the refinery are exempt from that requirement if they
have an approved in-line blending exemption under Sec. 80.65(f)(4). The
current low sulfur gasoline rule, therefore, requires parties who
currently test each batch of gasoline by testing a representative
sample taken from the certification tank (i.e., who do not test
composite samples) to obtain test results prior to the gasoline leaving
the facility for purposes of generating early credits or allotments
prior to January 1, 2004. The current low sulfur gasoline rule also
requires a refiner who produces gasoline using in-line blending
equipment to have an in-line blending exemption under Sec. 80.65(f)(4)
in order to generate early credits or early allotments.
Under the RFG regulations, refiners who produce RFG by in-line
blending are required to obtain an exemption under Sec. 80.65(f)(4).
However, refiners who produce conventional gasoline by in-line blending
are not required to obtain an exemption under Sec. 80.65(f)(4) for
purposes of anti-dumping compliance. The current low sulfur gasoline
regulations require these conventional gasoline refiners to apply for
and receive an exemption under Sec. 80.65(f)(4) to generate early
credits or allotments.
We did not intend for refiners who test every batch of conventional
gasoline by testing samples from the certification tank to have more
severe testing requirements for purposes of generating early credits or
allotments prior to January 1, 2004, than refiners who test composite
samples. In addition, we now believe that the requirement under
Sec. 80.330(a)(4) to obtain an exemption under Sec. 80.65(f)(4) for in-
line blending operations, regarding both RFG and conventional gasoline,
is unnecessary for purposes of generating early credits or allotments.
The requirement to obtain test results prior to the gasoline leaving
the refinery, and the exemption requirement for in-line blenders, were
intended to ensure that the sulfur level of each batch produced was
known at the time of shipment. However, since early credit or allotment
generation is based on the refinery's annual average sulfur level,
credits and allotments are not calculated until the end of the annual
averaging period, after the test results for all batches produced
during the averaging period are obtained. Therefore, we believe it is
unnecessary for refiners to obtain test data prior to the gasoline
leaving the refinery for purposes of early credit or allotment
generation. Moreover, there are no per-gallon sulfur standards prior to
January 1, 2004, which would necessitate knowing the sulfur content of
the gasoline prior to its leaving the refinery. As a result, today's
action proposes to modify Sec. 80.330 to provide that refiners,
including those who produce gasoline using computer-controlled in-line
blending equipment, and those who test every batch of conventional
gasoline, are not required to obtain test results prior to the gasoline
leaving the refinery to generate early credits in 2000-2003 or early
allotments in 2003. However, refiners generating early credits or
allotments would have to meet the requirements under Sec. 80.330 to
obtain a representative sample of each batch of gasoline produced, and
conform their sampling methods to the ASTM methodologies set forth in
Secs. 80.330(b)(1) and (b)(2). Today's rule would also modify the
provisions of Sec. 80.410 to allow foreign refiners who generate early
sulfur credits in 2000-2003 to ship gasoline from the foreign refinery
without having the sulfur content included in the product transfer
documents.
2. January 1, 2004 and Beyond
Beginning on January 1, 2004, refiners would have to obtain test
results before the gasoline leaves the refinery or import facility.
There is an exception to this requirement for refiners who use
computerized in-line blending methods. In-line blenders typically route
finished gasoline out of the refinery before an entire batch is
completed so they are unable to comply with the requirement to test
prior to shipment. An automatic sampler takes a large number of small
volumes from a batch throughout production and does not have a
representative sample until the blending is completed. The current low
sulfur gasoline regulations address in-line blending by providing that
refiners who use such in-line blending equipment may meet the
requirement to test prior to shipment under the terms of an exemption
under Sec. 80.65(f)(4) of the RFG regulations. The basis for this
provision is that these exemption holders measure sulfur on-line and
therefore know the sulfur concentration of each batch throughout the
blending process and can thereby prevent non-complying batches from
leaving the refinery.
Currently, all exemption holders are producers of RFG and must meet
a wide range of requirements, including the on-line measurement of
several properties in addition to sulfur. See Sec. 80.65(f)(4). We do
not believe it is practical for in-line blenders of conventional
gasoline, with fewer requirements, to meet the requirements designed
for RFG blenders, and there is no process under the current low sulfur
gasoline regulations for granting a more specialized exemption. As a
result, today's action proposes to revise Sec. 80.330(a)(4), which
requires all in-line blenders to have an exemption granted under
Sec. 80.65(f)(4), to distinguish between conventional gasoline and RFG
in-line blenders.
Today's action proposes to remove the requirement that in-line
blenders of conventional gasoline obtain an exemption under
Sec. 80.65(f)(4) to ship gasoline prior to testing. Instead, today's
action would provide that any refiner who uses in-line blending
equipment may be exempt from the requirement to obtain test results
prior to releasing the gasoline from the refinery, provided that the
refiner submits to us the information required for an in-line blending
exemption under Sec. 80.65(f)(4)(i)(A) (requiring a detailed
description of the in-line blending operation), or the refiner has an
in-line blending exemption granted under Sec. 80.65(f)(4). Today's
action also proposes to require the refiner to submit any additional
information requested by us and to comply with any other requirements
that we include in the exemption. For refiners that do not hold an
exemption under Sec. 80.65(f)(4), in the absence of notification by us
that the exemption has not been approved, or that additional
information is required or other requirements have been included in the
exemption, the in-line blending exemption would be effective 60 days
from our receipt of the refiner's submission of information.
We believe it is important to ensure that the on-line analyzer
technology and the refiner's methodology and procedures are sufficient
for the gasoline sulfur levels that the refinery

[[Page 19319]]

will have when the low sulfur gasoline rule is implemented, for both
RFG and conventional gasoline. Generally, we will require the accuracy
of the on-line sulfur measurement to be sufficient to identify product
segments that violate the applicable per-gallon sulfur standards. The
control of an in-line blending system must be sufficient to prevent
non-complying gasoline from leaving the refinery. Recordkeeping must be
sufficient to allow us to verify the sulfur compliance of each batch
and the accuracy and control capability of the in-line blending system.
Currently, on-line sulfur measurement technology is evolving and
refiners are evaluating analyzers. In the preamble to the final rule,
we indicated that we will be asking in-line blending refiners with
exemptions under Sec. 80.65(f)(4) to submit additional information
under the sulfur rule, including information on how sulfur is monitored
and how streams of gasoline are distributed in the in-blending process.
See 65 FR 6807. As indicated above, today's action proposes to include
provisions which require in-line blender-refiners, both refiners of
conventional gasoline and refiners of RFG under a Sec. 80.65(f)(4)
exemption, to submit any additional information requested by us and to
comply with other requirements that we include in the exemption.
Today's action also proposes that we may modify the requirements of an
exemption under Sec. 80.330(a)(4) if we determine that the in-line
blending operation does not effectively or adequately control, monitor
or document the sulfur content of the gasoline, or if we determine that
other circumstances exist which merit modification of the requirements
of an exemption, such as advancements in the state-of-the-art for in-
line blending measurement which allow for additional control or more
accurate monitoring or documentation of sulfur content. Consistent with
other provisions of the sulfur rule, today's action provides that a
refiner's exemption will be void ab initio if we determine that the
refiner provided false or inaccurate information in any submission
required for an exemption under Sec. 80.330(a)(4).

B. Sample Retention

1. Limitation on Length of Time to Retain Samples
Section 80.335(a)(2) requires refiners to retain sample portions
for the most recent 20 samples collected, or for each sample collected
during the most recent 21 day period, whichever is greater. This
section specifies the minimum number of batch samples from a refinery,
which once created, must be retained. The regulation does not
specifically address the maximum amount of time that any particular
sample must be retained. At the time the sulfur rule was promulgated,
it was assumed that refineries and importers produce or import a
substantial number of batches each year, and, therefore, would accrue
the 20 batch minimum in a relatively short time period and be able to
dispose of any additional, older samples quickly. We now understand,
however, that at least one refiner or importer handles less than a
handful of batches each year. Under the current low sulfur gasoline
rule, such a refiner or importer may be required to retain batch
samples for as long as 10 to 20 years. We did not intend for refiners
to be required to retain sulfur samples for that length of time. As a
result, today's action proposes to modify Sec. 80.335(a)(2) to place a
limit of 90 days on the length of time that any one sample must be
retained.
We believe that placing a 90 day maximum on sample retention would
provide a reasonable balance between our need to have samples available
for enforcement purposes and burden on the industry. Ideally, we would
require all samples to be available for at least 90 days. However, we
understand that retaining a large number of samples could create an
undue burden on parties. Under today's action only parties who produce
relatively few batches of gasoline would be required to keep any
samples for as long as 90 days. We do not believe this would unduly
burden such parties, since they would only need to retain a few
samples. Parties who produce a substantial number of batches, for whom
sample retention is potentially a greater burden, would be able to
discard samples in less than 90 days.
2. Composited Samples
Section 80.335(a) provides that beginning on January 1, 2004, or
January 1 of the first year of allotment or credit generation,
whichever is earlier, a refiner or importer must retain representative
samples of the gasoline batch samples analyzed under the requirements
of Sec. 80.330. Under 80.330(a)(3), composited samples are treated as
single batches of gasoline and are allowed for sulfur testing purposes
prior to January 1, 2004. Today's action proposes to modify Sec. 80.335
to clarify that, prior to January 1, 2004, refiners who analyze
composited samples would be required to retain portions of the
composited samples, and not portions of samples of each batch
comprising the composited samples.
3. Sample Retention for Reformulated Blendstocks for Oxygenate Blending
Section 80.335 describes the sample retention requirements for
refiners or importers. However, this section does not address how
reformulated blendstock for oxygenate blending (RBOB) samples should be
considered. Section 80.69(a)(2) of the RFG regulations requires
refiners to conduct testing on RBOB by adding the specified type and
amount of oxygenate to a representative sample of the RBOB, and
determining the properties and characteristics of the resulting
gasoline (i.e., a ``handblend''). Section 80.335(a) requires refiners
to collect a representative portion of each sample analyzed and retain
such sample portions as specified in Sec. 80.335(a)(2). We interpret
Sec. 80.335(a) to require refiners to retain samples of the RBOB
batches and samples of the ethanol used to conduct the handblend
testing, rather than samples of the actual handblend. Refiners,
therefore, would not be required to create additional volumes of the
handblend samples for purposes of fulfilling the sample retention
requirements of Sec. 80.335. Having the RBOB and accompanying ethanol
samples available to us would allow us to combine samples of the actual
RBOB and ethanol used in the handblend. This would enable us to
determine whether the refiner blended the handblend with proper amounts
of the components and properly conducted the testing. Today's action
proposes to clarify Sec. 80.335 with regard to the sample retention
requirement for RBOB.

VI. Changes to Vehicle Compliance Regulations

The table in Section I, above, lists minor changes which we propose
to make to Subpart S of 40 CFR Part 86 which contains the certification
compliance regulations for new motor vehicles. The changes would
correct some errors and inconsistencies and add some clarification. We
believe these changes are minor and technical in nature, and would be
made as a direct final rule.

VII. Administrative Requirements

A. Administrative Designation and Regulatory Analysis

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, Oct. 4, 1993), the Agency
is required to determine whether this regulatory action would be
``significant'' and therefore subject to review by the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) and the requirements of the Executive
Order. The order defines a ``significant regulatory action'' as any

[[Page 19320]]

regulatory action that is likely to result in a rule that may:
Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or
more or adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the
economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public
health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or
communities;
Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with
an action taken or planned by another agency;
Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements,
grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of
recipients thereof; or,
Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in
the Executive Order.
Pursuant to the terms of Executive Order 12866, we have determined
that this proposed rule would not be a ``significant regulatory
action.''

B. Regulatory Flexibility

We have determined that this proposal would not have a significant
impact on a substantial number of small entities, and that it is
therefore not necessary to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis in
conjunction with this direct final rule. Because today's rule would
correct, amend, and revise certain provisions of the December 1999
regulations for the control of air pollution from new motor vehicles
and for low sulfur gasoline, regulated entities would find it easier to
comply with the requirements of the Tier 2/Gasoline sulfur program.
Today's rule also identifies counties for inclusion in the GPA, which
would result in additional flexibility for refiners providing gasoline
to those areas.

C. Paperwork Reduction Act

The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., and
implementing regulations, 5 CFR Part 1320, do not apply to this action
as it does not involve the collection of information as defined
therein.

D. Intergovernmental Relations

1. 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, We
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 for
any single year. Before promulgating a rule for which a written
statement is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires us 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 us to adopt an alternative that is
not the least costly, most cost-effective, or least burdensome
alternative if we provide an explanation in the final rule of why such
an alternative was adopted.
Before we establish any regulatory requirement that may
significantly or uniquely affect small governments, including tribal
governments, we must develop a small government plan pursuant to
section 203 of the UMRA. Such a plan must provide for notifying
potentially affected small governments, and enabling officials of
affected small governments to have meaningful and timely input in the
development of our regulatory proposals with significant federal
intergovernmental mandates. The plan must also provide for informing,
educating, and advising small governments on compliance with the
regulatory requirements.
This proposal contains no federal mandates for state, local, or
tribal governments as defined by the provisions of Title II of the
UMRA. The rule would not impose any enforceable duties on any of these
governmental entities. Nothing in the rule would significantly or
uniquely affect small governments.
We have determined that this rule does not contain a federal
mandate that may result in estimated expenditures of more than $100
million to the private sector in any single year. This action would
have the net effect of correcting, amending, and revising certain
provisions of the Tier 2/Gasoline Sulfur program, and identifying
counties for inclusion in the GPA. Therefore, the requirements of the
Unfunded Mandates Act do not apply to this action.
2. Executive Order 13084: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments
On January 1, 2001, Executive Order 13084 was superseded by
Executive Order 13175. However, this proposed rule was developed during
the period when Executive Order 13084 was still in force, and so tribal
considerations were addressed under Executive Order 13084. If EPA
receives adverse comment on one or more distinct amendments,
paragraphs, or sections of this proposal, we will publish a timely
withdrawal in the Federal Register indicating which provisions of the
direct final rule are being withdrawn due to adverse comment.
Under Executive Order 13084, we may not issue a regulation that is
not required by statute, that significantly or uniquely affects the
communities of Indian Tribal governments, and that imposes substantial
direct compliance costs on those communities, unless the federal
government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance
costs incurred by the tribal governments, or we consult with those
governments. If we comply by consulting, Executive Order 13084 requires
us to provide to the Office of Management and Budget, in a separately
identified section of the preamble to the rule, a description of the
extent of our prior consultation with representatives of affected
tribal governments, a summary of the nature of their concerns, and a
statement supporting the need to issue the regulation. In addition,
Executive Order 13084 requires us to develop an effective process
permitting elected officials and other representatives of Indian tribal
governments ``to provide meaningful and timely input in the development
of regulatory policies on matters that significantly or uniquely affect
their communities.''
Today's rule would not uniquely affect the communities of American
Indian tribal governments since the motor vehicle emissions, motor
vehicle fuel, and other related requirements for private businesses in
today's rule will have national applicability. Furthermore, today's
rule would not impose any direct compliance costs on these communities
and no circumstances specific to such communities exist that will cause
an impact on these communities beyond those discussed in the other
sections of today's document. The effect of today's rule is no more
significant than the Tier 2/Gasoline Sulfur program for tribes within
the original GPA; under today's action, gasoline sold in certain tribal
lands will be subject to the GPA standards rather than the otherwise
applicable gasoline sulfur standards until 2007. Accordingly, the
requirements of section 3(b) of Executive Order 13084 do not apply to
this rule. Thus, our conclusions regarding the impacts from the
implementation of today's rule discussed in the other sections of this
preamble are equally applicable to the

[[Page 19321]]

communities of American Indian tribal governments.
As described elsewhere in this proposal, the overall emission
benefits of the early years of the Tier 2/Gasoline Sulfur program are
not reduced over those described in the final rule. The air quality
analysis of the final Tier 2 program was based on the premise that all
gasoline produced or used in the eight GPA states would be covered by
the GPA program. Thus, GPA gasoline produced at refineries located in
the eight GPA states was included in the air quality analysis.
3. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)
Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR 43255, August
10, 1999), requires us 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.
Under section 6 of Executive Order 13132, we may not issue a
regulation that has federalism implications, that imposes substantial
direct compliance costs, and that is not required by statute, unless
the Federal government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct
compliance costs incurred by State and local governments, or we consult
with State and local officials early in the process of developing the
proposed regulation. We also may not issue a regulation that has
federalism implications and that preempts State law, unless the Agency
consults with State and local officials early in the process of
developing the proposed regulation.
Section 4 of the Executive Order contains additional requirements
for rules that preempt State or local law, even if those rules do not
have federalism implications (i.e., the rules would 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). Those
requirements include providing all affected State and local officials
notice and an opportunity for appropriate participation in the
development of the regulation. If the preemption is not based on
express or implied statutory authority, we also must consult, to the
extent practicable, with appropriate State and local officials
regarding the conflict between State law and Federally protected
interests within the agency's area of regulatory responsibility.
This proposal does not have federalism implications. It would 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. This proposal would correct,
amend, and revise certain provisions of an earlier rule that adopted
national emissions standards for certain categories of motor vehicles
and national standards to control gasoline sulfur, and proposes
additional areas to be subject to the GPA program for low sulfur
gasoline. The requirements of the rule would be enforced by the federal
government at the national level. Thus, the requirements of section 6
of the Executive Order do not apply to this rule. Although section 6 of
Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this rule, we did consult with
State and local officials in developing this proposal.

E. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (NTTAA), section 12(d) of Public Law 104-113, directs us to
use voluntary consensus standards in our regulatory activities unless
it 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) developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards
bodies. The NTTAA directs us to provide Congress, through OMB,
explanations when the we decide not to use available and applicable
voluntary consensus standards.
This proposal references technical standards adopted by us through
previous rulemakings. No new technical standards would be established
under today's proposal. The standards referenced in today's proposal
involve the measurement of gasoline fuel parameters and motor vehicle
emissions. The measurement standards for gasoline fuel parameters
referenced in today's proposal are all voluntary consensus standards.
The motor vehicle emissions measurement standards referenced in today's
proposal are government-unique standards that were developed by us
through previous rulemakings. These standards have served our emissions
control goals well since their implementation and have been well
accepted by industry. We are not aware of any voluntary consensus
standards for the measurement of motor vehicle emissions. Therefore, we
are using the existing EPA-developed standards found in 40 CFR Part 86
for the measurement of motor vehicle emissions.

F. Executive Order 13045: Children's Health Protection

Executive Order 13045, ``Protection of Children from Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 F.R. 19885, April 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 we have reason to believe may
have a disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action
meets both criteria, section 5-501 of the Order directs us to 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 us.
This proposal is not subject to the Executive Order because it is
not an economically significant regulatory action as defined by
Executive Order 12866. Furthermore, this proposal does not concern an
environmental health or safety risk that we have reason to believe may
have a disproportionate effect on children.

[[Page 19322]]

VIII. Statutory Provisions and Legal Authority

Statutory authority for the vehicle controls set in today's
proposal can be found in sections 202, 206, 207, 208, and 301 of the
Clean Air Act (CAA), as amended, 42 U.S.C. sections 7521, 7525, 7541,
7542 and 7601.
Statutory authority for the fuel controls set in today's proposal
comes from section 211(c) of the CAA (42 U.S.C., section 7545(c)),
which allows us to regulate fuels that either contribute to air
pollution which endangers public health or welfare or which impair
emission control equipment. Additional support for the procedural and
enforcement-related aspects of the fuel's controls in today's proposal,
including the record keeping requirements, comes from sections 114(a)
and 301(a) of the CAA.

List of Subjects

40 CFR Part 80

Environmental protection, Fuel additives, Gasoline, Imports,
Labeling, Motor vehicle pollution, Penalties, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.

40 CFR Part 86

Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Confidential business information, Labeling, Motor vehicle pollution,
Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

Dated: January 19, 2001.
Carol M. Browner,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 01-8928 Filed 4-12-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P

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

Control of Air Pollution From New Motor Vehicles; Amendment to the Tier 2/Gasoline Sulfur Regulations

Local Navigation