Regulation of Fuels and Fuel Additives: Modifications to
Reformulated Gasoline Covered Area Provisions
Related Material
[Federal Register: June 4, 2002 (Volume 67, Number 107)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 38453-38456]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr04jn02-30]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 80
[FRL-7222-6]
RIN 2060-AK07
Regulation of Fuels and Fuel Additives: Modifications to
Reformulated Gasoline Covered Area Provisions
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to make several minor modifications to its
reformulated gasoline (RFG) regulations to reflect changes in the
covered areas for the federal RFG program, and to delete obsolete
language and clarify existing language in the provisions listing the
federal RFG covered areas. These changes include: Deleting the seven
southern counties in Maine from the RFG covered areas list, reflecting
their opt-out of the RFG program as of March 10, 1999; adding the
Sacramento Metro and San Joaquin Valley nonattainment areas to the list
of RFG covered areas, reflecting the Sacramento Metro Area's inclusion
in the RFG program as of June 1, 1996 and the San Joaquin Valley Area's
inclusion in the RFG program on December 10, 2002; and deleting the
text which extended the RFG opt-in provisions to all ozone
nonattainment areas including previously designated ozone nonattainment
areas, reflecting a court decision in January, 2000, which invalidated
this language. This proposal also makes certain other minor changes in
the provisions listing the RFG covered areas for purposes of
clarification. In the Final Rules section of this Federal Register, EPA
is approving these modifications as a direct final rule without prior
proposal because the Agency views this as a noncontroversial submittal
and anticipates no adverse comments. A detailed rationale for these
modifications is set forth in the direct final rule. If no adverse
comments are received in response to this action, no further activity
is contemplated. If EPA receives adverse comments, the direct final
rule will be withdrawn and all public comments received will be
addressed in a subsequent final rule based on this proposed rule. EPA
will not institute a second comment period. Any parties interested in
commenting on this action should do so at this time.
DATES: Written comments must be received on or before July 5, 2002.
ADDRESSES: Comments should be mailed (in duplicate if possible) to John
Brophy, Office of Transportation and Air Quality (mail code 6406J),
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Ariel Rios Building, 1200
Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, DC, 20460, and to the following
docket address: Docket A-2001-32, Air Docket Section, Mail
Code 6102, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M Street, SW,
Washington, DC 20460, in room M-1500 Waterside Mall. Materials
relevant to today's rulemaking have been placed in the Docket
A-2001-32 at the docket address listed above, and may be
inspected on business days from 8:00
[[Page 38454]]
a.m. to 5:30 p.m. A reasonable fee may be charged for copying docket
material.
Materials relevant to today's rulemaking regarding the removal of
the seven Maine counties from the federal RFG program are also
available for public inspection during normal business hours, by
appointment at the Office of Ecosystem Protection, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, EPA-New England, One Congress Street, 11th
floor, Boston, MA and the Bureau of Air Quality Control, Department of
Environmental Protection, 71 Hospital Street, Augusta, ME 04333. For
further information, contact Robert C. Judge at (617) 918-1045.
Materials relevant to today's rulemaking regarding the self-
executing change in status of the Sacramento Metro and San Joaquin
Valley nonattainment areas are also available for inspection during
normal business hours in the Air Docket, EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne
Street, San Francisco, CA 94105. This rule and the Technical Support
Documents for the proposed actions are also available in the air
programs section of EPA Region 9's website, http://www.epa.gov/
region09/air. Interested persons may make an appointment with Ms.
Virginia Peterson at (415) 744-1265, to inspect the docket
between 9:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. A reasonable fee may be charged for
copying docket material.
There are several other dockets that may also contain related
materials of interest to the public:
Materials relevant to EPA's approval of a State Implementation Plan
(SIP) revision submitted by the State of Maine are available for public
inspection during normal business hours, by appointment at the Office
of Ecosystem Protection, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA New
England Regional Office, One Congress Street, 11th floor, Boston, MA;
Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Room M-1500, 401 M Street, (Mail Code 6102),
SW., Washington, DC; and the Bureau of Air Quality Control, Department
of Environmental Protection, 71 Hospital Street, Augusta, ME 04333. For
further information, contact Robert C. Judge at (617) 918-1045.
Materials regarding the reclassification of the Sacramento Metro
Area as a "Severe" ozone nonattainment area are in Docket
A-94-09. The docket is located at the Air Docket Section,
Mail Code 6102, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M Street, SW,
Washington, DC 20460, in room M-1500 Waterside Mall. Documents
may be inspected on business days from 8:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. A
reasonable fee may be charged for copying docket material.
Materials regarding the reclassification of the San Joaquin Valley
Area as a "Severe" ozone nonattainment area are available
for inspection during normal business hours in the Air Docket, EPA
Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105. This rule and
the Technical Support Documents for the proposed actions are also
available in the air programs section of EPA Region 9's website, http:/
/www.epa.gov/region09/air. Interested persons may make an appointment
with Ms. Virginia Peterson at (415) 744-1265, to inspect the
docket between 9:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. A reasonable fee may be charged
for copying docket material.
Materials regarding the extension of the RFG opt-in provisions to
all ozone nonattainment areas including previously designated ozone
nonattainment areas, and the January, 2000, court decision, are in
Docket A-96-30. The docket is located at the Air Docket
Section, Mail Code 6102, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M
Street, SW, Washington, DC 20460, in room M-1500 Waterside Mall.
Documents may be inspected on business days from 8:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m.
A reasonable fee may be charged for copying docket material.
Materials relevant to the removal of the Phoenix area from the
federal RFG program are in Docket A-98-23. The docket is
located at the Air Docket Section, Mail Code 6102, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, 401 M Street, SW, Washington, DC 20460, in room
M-1500 Waterside Mall. Documents may be inspected on business
days from 8:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. A reasonable fee may be charged for
copying docket material.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Brophy, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Air and Radiation, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave.,
NW (Mail Code 6406J), Washington, DC 20460, (202) 564-9068, e-
mail address: brophy.john@epa.gov
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: For additional information, see the direct
final rule which is located in the Rules section of this Federal
Register.
I. Administrative Requirements
A. Executive Order 12866
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735 (Oct. 4, 1993), the Agency
must determine whether the regulatory action is
"significant" and therefore subject to OMB review and the
requirements of the Executive Order. The Order defines
"significant regulatory action" as one that is likely to
result in a rule that may:
(1) 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;
(2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an
action taken or planned by another agency;
(3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlement, grants,
user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients
thereof; or
(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in
the Executive Order.
It has been determined that this proposed rule is not a
"significant regulatory action" under the terms of
Executive Order 12866 and is therefore not subject to OMB review.
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
This proposed action does not impose any new information collection
burden. Today's proposed rule merely amends EPA's regulations to
reflect the current status of covered areas within the RFG program.
These various changes in status are not dependant on today's proposed
rulemaking, but have occurred (or will occur) as the result of separate
agency action and self-executing statutory provisions. However, the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has previously approved the
information collection requirements contained in the existing [RFG]
regulations [CFR citation 40 CFR part 80, subparts D, E and F,]
under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et
seq. and has assigned OMB control number 2060-0277 (EPA ICR No.
1591.13).
Copies of the ICR document(s) may be obtained from Sandy Farmer, by
mail at the Office of Environmental Information, Collection Strategies
Division; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2822); 1200
Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Washington, DC 20460, by e-mail at
farmer.sandy@epa.gov, or by calling (202) 260-2740. A copy
may also be downloaded off the internet at http://www.epa.gov/icr.
Include the ICR and / or OMB number in any correspondence.
Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources
expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or
provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time
needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize
technology and systems for the purposes of
[[Page 38455]]
collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and
maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information;
adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable
instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able to respond to
a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review
the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the
information.
An Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's
regulations are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR chapter 15.
C. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public
Law 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to
assess the effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and
tribal governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the
UMRA, EPA generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-
benefit analysis, for proposed and final rules with "Federal
mandates" that may result in expenditures to State, local, and
tribal governments, in the aggregate, or to the private sector of $100
million or more in any one year. Before promulgating an EPA rule for
which a written statement is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally
requires EPA to identify and consider a reasonable number of regulatory
alternatives and adopt the least costly, most cost-effective or least
burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives of the rule. The
provisions of section 205 do not apply when they are inconsistent with
applicable law. Moreover, section 205 allows EPA to adopt an
alternative other than the least costly, most cost-effective or least
burdensome alternative if the Administrator publishes with the final
rule an explanation why that alternative was not adopted. Before EPA
establishes any regulatory requirements that may significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, including tribal governments, it
must have developed under section 203 of the UMRA a small government
agency plan. The plan must provide for notifying affected small
governments, enabling officials of affected small governments to have
meaningful and timely input in the development of EPA regulatory
proposals with significant Federal intergovernmental mandates, and
informing, educating, and advising small governments on compliance with
the regulatory requirements.
EPA has determined that this proposed rule does not contain a
Federal mandate that may result in expenditures of $100 million or more
for State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or the
private sector in any one year. Today's proposed rule, therefore, is
not subject to the requirements of sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA.
D. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks
Executive Order 13045, "Protection of Children from
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks" (62 FR 19885, Apr.
23, 1997) applies to any rule that: (1) Is determined to be
"economically significant" as defined under Executive Order
12866, and (2) concerns an environmental health or safety risk that EPA
has reason to believe may have a disproportionate effect on children.
If the regulatory action meets both criteria, the Agency must evaluate
the environmental health or safety effects of the planned rule on
children, and explain why the planned regulation is preferable to other
potentially effective and reasonably feasible alternatives considered
by the Agency.
EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those
regulatory actions that are based on health or safety risks, such that
the analysis required under section 5-501 of the Order has the
potential to influence the regulation. This proposed rule is not
subject to Executive Order 13045 because it does not establish an
environmental standard intended to mitigate health or safety risks.
E. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)
Executive Order 13132, entitled "Federalism" (64 FR
43255, Aug. 10, 1999), requires EPA to develop an accountable process
to ensure "meaningful and timely input by State and local
officials in the development of regulatory policies that have
federalism implications." "Policies that have federalism
implications" is defined in the Executive Order to include
regulations that have "substantial direct effects on the States,
on the relationship between the national government and the States, or
on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various
levels of government."
This proposed rule does not have federalism implications. It will
not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship
between the national government and the States or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government as
specified in Executive Order 13132. This proposed rule simply makes
several minor modifications in the regulations to reflect changes in
the covered areas for the federal RFG program, and to delete obsolete
language and clarify existing language in the provisions listing the
federal RFG covered areas. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply
to this proposed rule.
F. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 ("NTTAA"), Pub L. No. 104-113, Section
12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs EPA to use voluntary consensus
standards in its regulatory activities unless to do so would be
inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary
consensus standards are technical standards (e.g., materials
specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, and business
practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus
standards bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA to provide Congress, through
OMB, explanations when the Agency decides not to use available and
applicable voluntary consensus standards.
This proposed action does not involve technical standards. This
proposed rule simply makes several minor modifications in the
regulations to reflect changes in the covered areas for the federal RFG
program, and to delete obsolete language and clarify existing language
in the provisions listing the federal RFG covered areas. Therefore, EPA
did not consider the use of any voluntary consensus standards.
G. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), as Amended by the Small Business
Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA), 5 U.S.C. 601 et
seq.
The RFA generally requires an agency to prepare a regulatory
flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment
rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act or any
other statute unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
Small entities include small businesses, small organizations, and small
governmental jurisdictions.
For purposes of assessing the impacts of today's rule on small
entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A firm having no more than
1,500 employees and no more than 75,000 barrels per day capacity of
petroleum-based inputs, including
[[Page 38456]]
crude oil or bona fide feedstocks;.\1\ according to Small Business
Administration (SBA) size standards established under the North
American Industry Classification System (NAICS); (2) a small
governmental jurisdiction that is a government of a city, county, town,
school district or special district with a population of less than
50,000; and (3) a small organization that is any not-for-profit
enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not
dominant in its field.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Capacity includes owned or leased facilities as well
as facilities under a processing agreement or an agreement such as
an exchange agreement or a throughput. The total product to be
delivered under the contract must be at least 90 percent refined by
the successful bidder from either crude oil or bona fide feedstocks.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
After considering the economic impacts of today's proposed rule on
small entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Today's rule
revises the introductory text of Sec. 80.70(j) to distinguish
the nonattainment areas that have opted into the RFG program from those
that are required to be in the program under the Clean Air Act. In
addition, today's rule revises the text of sections 80.70(l) and (n) to
make these provisions clearer. These minor revisions are strictly
organizational and do not change the substance or intent of these
provisions in any way. Today's rule also removes the current provisions
of Sec. 80.70(m) relating to Phoenix as an opt-in covered area,
since the Phoenix area is no longer a covered area as of June 10, 1998.
Published on August 11, 1998, in the Federal Register (at 63 FR 43044)
is a public announcement of EPA's approval of the Arizona Governor's
petition and the effective date of the Phoenix opt-out. The opt-out
effective date for the Phoenix area was June 10, 1998. The provisions
for the Sacramento and San Joaquin Valley covered areas, described
above, are included in a new Sec. 80.70(m).
Today's amendments to the CFR reflect changes that have occurred in
separate actions in accordance with EPA's regulations and the CAA. This
rule is not itself an approval of Maine's or Arizona's opt-out
request Agency action approving those petitions occurred earlier
in separate administrative proceedings. Similarly, neither the
reclassification of the Sacramento and San Joaquin Valley nonattainment
areas, nor the self-executing change in status of these areas to RFG
"covered areas," are dependent on today's action. EPA is
simply modifying the list of covered areas in the RFG regulations, 40
CFR 80.70, so the list will reflect EPA's earlier approval of the Maine
and Arizona opt-out requests, and the self-executing change in the
status of the Sacramento and San Joaquin Valley nonattainment areas.
Thus, the various elements of today's direct final rule involve little
or no exercise of agency discretion. Rather today's actions essentially
are ministerial regulatory amendments.
H. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments
Executive Order 13175, entitled "Consultation and
Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments" (59 FR 22951, Nov.
6, 2000), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure
"meaningful and timely input by tribal officials in the
development of regulatory policies that have tribal
implications." "Policies that have tribal
implications" is defined in the Executive Order to include
regulations that have "substantial direct effects on one or more
Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal government and
the Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities
between the Federal government and Indian tribes."
Today's proposed rule does not have tribal implications and will
not have substantial direct effects on tribal governments, on the
relationship between the Federal government and Indian tribes, or on
the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal
government and Indian tribes, as specified in Executive Order 13175.
This proposed rule simply makes several minor modifications in the
regulations to reflect changes in the covered areas for the federal RFG
program, and to delete obsolete language and clarify existing language
in the provisions listing the federal RFG covered areas. Thus,
Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this proposed rule.
I. Executive Order 13211 (Energy Effects)
This proposed rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211,
"Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use" (66 FR 28355 (May 22, 2001))
because it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order
12866.
II. Statutory Authority
The Statutory authority for the proposed action today is granted to
EPA by sections 211(c) and (k), 301, and 307 of the Clean Air Act, as
amended; 42 U.S.C. 7545(c) and (k), 7601, 7607; and 5 U.S.C. 553(b).
III. Judicial Review
Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for
judicial review of this proposed action must be filed in the United
States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by August 5, 2002.
Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this
proposed rule does not affect the finality of this rule for the
purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a
petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the
effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged
later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section
307(b)(2).)
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 80
Environmental protection, Fuel additives, Gasoline, Imports,
Labeling, Motor vehicle pollution, Penalties, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
Dated: May 23, 2002.
Christine Todd Whitman,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 02-13977 Filed 6-3-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
![[logo] US EPA](https://webarchive.library.unt.edu/eot2008/20090510215216im_/http://www.epa.gov/epafiles/images/logo_epaseal.gif){kind=logo}