Regulation of Fuel and Fuel Additives: Extension of California
Enforcement Exemptions for Reformulated Gasoline Beyond December 31,
1999
Related Material
[Federal Register: September 15, 1999 (Volume 64, Number 178)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 50036-50041]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr15se99-40]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 80
[FRL-6431-9]
Regulation of Fuel and Fuel Additives: Extension of California
Enforcement Exemptions for Reformulated Gasoline Beyond December 31,
1999
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: With this document, EPA proposes to continue to exempt
refiners, importers, and blenders of gasoline subject to the State of
California's reformulated gasoline regulations from certain enforcement
provisions in the Federal reformulated gasoline regulations. Current
exemptions applicable under the Federal Phase I reformulated gasoline
program will expire after December 31, 1999, when the Federal Phase II
reformulated gasoline program begins. Today's proposed rule would
extend the California enforcement exemptions beyond that date. The
Agency is publishing a separate direct final rule in today's Federal
Register, because it does not expect this action to be controversial.
DATES: Comments must be received by October 15, 1999.
ADDRESSES: Any person wishing to submit comments should send them (in
duplicate, if possible) to the docket address listed and to Anne
Pastorkovich, Attorney/Advisor, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Fuels and Energy Division, 401 M Street, SW. (6406J), Washington, DC
20460. Materials relevant to this have been placed in docket [A-99-04]
located at U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Air Docket Section,
Room M-1500, 401 M Street, SW., Washington, DC 20460. The docket is
open for public inspection from 8:00 a.m. until 5:30 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except on Federal holidays. A reasonable fee may be
charged for photocopying services.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information about this
proposed rule, contact Anne Pastorkovich, Attorney/Advisor, Fuels &
Energy Division, at (202) 564-8987. To notify EPA of an intent to
submit an adverse
[[Page 50037]]
comment or public hearing request, contact Anne Pastorkovich, (202)
564-8987.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The remainder of this proposed rule is
organized in the following sections:
I. Background
A. Regulated Entities
B. Current Status and Basis for California Exemptions
II. Applicability of Exemptions Beginning in 2000 (Description of
This Proposed Rule)
III. Administrative Designation and Regulatory Analysis
A. Executive Order 12866
B. Executive Order 12875: Enhancing Intergovernmental
Partnerships
C. Executive Order 13084: Consultation and Coordination With
Indian Tribal Governments
D. Regulatory Flexibility
E. Paperwork Reduction Act
F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
G. Children's Health Protection
H. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995
(NTTAA)
I. Statutory Authority
I. Background
A. Regulated Entities
Regulated categories and entities potentially affected by this
action include:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Examples of regulated
Category entities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry.................................. Refiners, importers, and
oxygenate blenders of
California gasoline.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a
guide for readers regarding entities likely to be regulated by this
action. This table lists the types of entities that EPA is now aware
could be potentially regulated by this action. Other types of entities
not listed in the table could also be regulated. To determine whether
an entity is regulated by this action, one should carefully examine the
RFG provisions at 40 CFR Part 80, particularly Sec. 80.81 dealing
specifically with California gasoline. If you have questions regarding
the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the
person listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.
B. Current Status and Basis for California Exemptions
Section 211(k) of the Federal Clean Air Act (the Act) directs the
EPA to establish requirements for reformulated gasoline (RFG) to be
used in specified ozone nonattainment areas, as well as ``anti-
dumping'' requirements for conventional gasoline used in the rest of
the country, beginning in January 1995. The areas covered by the
Federal RFG program in California are Los Angeles, San Diego, and
Sacramento.\1\ The Act requires EPA to reduce the emissions of ozone
forming volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and toxic air pollutants from
motor vehicles through the RFG program. It also requires that there be
no increase in the emission of oxides of nitrogen (NOX) as a
result of the RFG program. Finally, RFG must meet certain content
standards for oxygen, benzene and heavy metals.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See 40 CFR 80.70 for a complete list of covered areas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The RFG program is implemented in two phases. The Phase II program,
which will begin on January 1, 2000, is similar to the Phase I program,
but will require even greater emissions benefits. The relevant
regulations for RFG and conventional gasoline may be found at 40 CFR
Part 80, Subparts D, E, and F.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ See 59 FR 7812 (February 16, 1994), as amended at 59 FR
36964 (July 20, 1994); 60 FR 2699 (January 11, 1995); 60 FR 35491
(July 10, 1995); 60 FR 65574 (December 20, 1995); and 62 FR 68196
(December 31, 1997).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On September 18, 1992, the California Air Resources Board (CARB)
adopted regulations requiring reformulation of California ``Phase 2''
gasoline.\3\ The CARB regulations established a comprehensive set of
gasoline specifications designed to achieve reductions in emissions of
VOCs, NOX, carbon monoxide (CO), sulfur dioxide, and toxic
air pollutants from gasoline-fueled vehicles. The CARB regulations set
standards for eight gasoline parameters--sulfur, benzene, olefins,
aromatic hydrocarbons, oxygen, Reid vapor pressure (RVP), and
distillation temperatures for the 50 percent and 90 percent evaporation
points (T-50 and T-90, respectively). These regulations became
effective on March 1, 1996 for all gasoline in the California
distribution network (except for gasoline being exported from
California). The CARB regulations also provide for the production and
sale of alternative gasoline formulations, with certification under the
CARB program based on a predictive model or on vehicle emission
testing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ See Title 13, California Code of Regulations Secs. 2250-2272
(as last amended December 11, 1998). California has amended its
regulations since they were first promulgated in September, 1992.
The most recent amendments, adopted December 11, 1998, raise the
oxygen ``cap'' limit for California gasoline from 2.7 weight % to
3.5 weight %. As discussed below, this direct final rule is based on
the current state of California's Phase 2 gasoline program,
including the December 11, 1998 amendments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
During the Federal RFG rulemaking, and in response to comments by
California refiners, we concluded (1) that VOC and toxics emission
reductions resulting from the California Phase 2 standards would be
equal to or greater than the Federal Phase I RFG standards (applicable
from January 1, 1995 through December 31, 1999), (2) that the content
standards for oxygen and benzene under California Phase 2 would be
equivalent in practice to the Federal Phase I content standards,\4\ and
(3) that the CARB's compliance and enforcement program was designed to
be sufficiently rigorous to ensure that Federal Phase I requirements
would be met.\5\ Consequently, while the Federal RFG and conventional
gasoline standards continue to apply in California, refiners,
importers, and oxygenate blenders of gasoline sold in California
(referred to collectively as ``California refiners'') are exempt in
most cases from various enforcement-related provisions, including the
following:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ As is discussed in the section entitled ``Oxygen Standard'',
below, this is not now the case.
\5\ See 59 FR 7758, 7759 (February 16, 1994) and 40 CFR
Sec. 80.81.
\6\ 40 CFR Sec. 80.81(e)(2) was amended to include a limited
oxygen survey provision. See ``Fuels and Fuel Additives; Amendments
to the Enforcement Exemptions for California Gasoline Refiners--
Final Rule,'' 63 FR 34818 (June 26, 1998).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Citation at 40 CFR Sec.
Requirement exempted 80.xx
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Compliance Surveys \6\..................... 80.68.
Independent Sampling & Testing............. 80.65(f).
Designation of Gasoline.................... 80.65(d).
Marking of Conventional Gasoline........... 80.65(g) and 80.82.
Downstream Oxygenate Blending.............. 80.69.
Recordkeeping.............................. 80.74 and 80.104.
Reporting.................................. 80.75 and 80.105.
Product Transfer Documents................. 80.77.
Parameter Value Reconciliation Requirements 80.65(e)(2).
[[Page 50038]]
Reformulated Gasoline and Reformulated 80.65(c).
Gasoline Blendstock for Oxygenate Blending
(RBOB) Compliance Requirements.
Annual Compliance Audit Requirements....... 80.65(h).
Compliance attest Engagement Requirements.. Subpart F.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
California refiners are not exempt from these Federal enforcement
requirements with regard to gasoline that is delivered for use outside
California, because the California Phase 2 standards and the CARB
enforcement program do not cover RFG exported from California. EPA has
made reasonable allowances to minimize complications for gasoline
exported from California, including permitting the use of California
test methods for conventional gasoline that is produced in California
for sale outside the state.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ See 40 CFR 80.81(h)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. Description of This Proposed Rule
The enforcement exemptions which expire on December 31, 1999 were
based on a comparison of California Phase 2 gasoline and Federal Phase
I RFG. The enforcement exemptions which were included in the final RFG
rule (see fn. 5) were only applicable during the Phase I RFG program.
It would have been premature for EPA to have made an equivalency
determination comparing California Phase 2 and Federal Phase II upon
publication of the final RFG rule. However, we indicated in that
rulemaking that, if an appropriate and timely demonstration was made in
the future, showing that California Phase 2 gasoline could be expected
to provide emission benefits equivalent to Federal Phase II RFG, then
we might extend the enforcement exemptions beyond December 31, 1999.
For the reasons discussed below, we believe that California Phase 2
gasoline provides emissions benefits equivalent to Federal Phase II
RFG, and that it is appropriate for the us to extend the California
enforcement exemptions to Federal Phase II RFG. Specifically, the
Agency believes that:
(1) VOC, toxics, and NOX emission reductions resulting
from the California Phase 2 standards would be equal to or greater than
the reductions from the Federal Phase II RFG standards,
(2) the content standards for oxygen and benzene under California
Phase 2 would be equivalent in practice to the Federal Phase II content
standards, and
(3) the CARB's compliance and enforcement program is designed to be
sufficiently rigorous.
We have received a detailed comparison of California Phase 2 and
Federal Phase II blends from the Western States Petroleum Association
(``WSPA''), entitled ``Comparing the Equivalency of California and
Federal Reformulated Gasoline'' (hereafter referred to as ``the WSPA
analysis''). A copy of the WSPA analysis, and an EPA staff memorandum
describing the Agency's evaluation of the WSPA analysis, has been
placed in public docket at the location listed in the ADDRESSES section
of this notice.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ The WSPA analysis and an EPA staff memorandum entitled
``Equivalency Determination of California and Federal Reformulated
Gasoline,'' (March 8, 1999) have been placed in docket A-99-04.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The WSPA analysis evaluated the performance of the California
program (1) by comparing the average performance of actual California
RFG to the averaged parameter limits of federal RFG, and (2) by
analyzing the performance of a set of ``virtual fuels'' using computer
modeling. While the average fuel performance analysis establishes that
the overall air quality objective of the federal RFG program will be
met, the virtual fuels analysis provides assurances that there will be
no temporal spikes in the emission of ozone forming VOCs.
The WSPA analysis utilized data from two separate surveys of actual
California gasoline to compare the emissions performance of California
gasoline with the EPA Phase II complex model averaging standards. See
40 CFR Sec. 80.41(f). One survey was prepared by the California Energy
Commission (CEC).\9\ The other survey was prepared by the American
Petroleum Institute/National Petroleum Refiners Association (API/
NPRA).\10\ Both surveys collected data on the properties of RFG
actually produced by California refiners in an effort to evaluate the
emissions performance of actual, in use California gasoline. The API/
NPRA and CEC surveys represented about 85% and 100% of the RFG produced
in California, respectively. The surveys each occurred over periods of
about four months during the summertime, and were weighted by
production volume. Producers were not aware that the surveys were being
conducted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ Final Report, 1996 American Petroleum Institute/National
Petroleum Refiners Association Survey of Refining Operations and
Product Quality (July, 1996).
\10\ California Energy Commission, Supply and Cost of
Alternatives to MTBE in Gasoline--Technical Appendices, Refinery
Modeling--Task 2 Calibration of Refinery Model, Table 5.3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Both surveys support the conclusion that average fuel property
values and average emissions reductions of in-use California gasolines
comply with Federal Phase II averaged standards. Additionally, the two
surveys, performed one year apart, were remarkably consistent. The
results of the surveys are shown in the following table: \11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ WSPA analysis, at 7.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1990 California survey results
Properties Federal phase II averaged baseline ---------------------------
standards fuel API-96 CEC-97
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oxygen (wt%)............................. >=2.1 average, 1.5 per gal. 0 2.1 2.1
min.
SULFUR (ppm)............................. ........................... 339 20 19
RVP (psi)................................ ........................... 8.7 6.8 6.8
E200 (%)................................. ........................... 41 51.3 50.5
E300 (%)................................. ........................... 83 88.8 88.4
AROMATICS (vol%)......................... ........................... 32 23.0 23.0
OLEFINS (vol%)........................... ........................... 9.2 3.9 4.1
[[Page 50039]]
BENZENE (vol%)........................... <=0.95 average, 1.3 per 1.53 0.55 0.57
gal. max.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Phase II Complex Model Absolute Emissions Absolute emissions (milligrams/mile)
Calculations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Exhaust VOC.............................. ........................... 907.0 733.0 734.2
Nonexhaust VOC........................... ........................... 559.3 294.1 294.1
Total VOC................................ ........................... 1466.3 1027.2 1028.4
Exhaust benzene.......................... ........................... 53.5 28.8 28.9
Nonexhaust benzene....................... ........................... 6.2 1.3 1.4
Acetaldehyde............................. ........................... 4.4 3.6 3.6
Formaldehyde............................. ........................... 9.7 11.8 11.8
Butadiene................................ ........................... 9.4 6.4 6.5
POM...................................... ........................... 3.0 2.5 2.5
Total exhaust toxics..................... ........................... 80.1 53.0 53.2
Total toxics............................. ........................... 86.3 54.3 54.6
NOX...................................... ........................... 1340.0 1144.5 1143.2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Phase II Complex Model Reductions from Percent change from baseline emissions
1990 Baseline
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total VOC................................ >=29.0% average, 25.0% per ............ -29.9 -29.9
gal. min..
Total toxics............................. 21.5% average.............. ............ -37.1 -36.8
NOX...................................... 6.8% average............... ............ -14.6 -14.7
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The WSPA analysis also compares the emissions performance of the
survey average in-use fuel with the emissions performance of fuels that
meet California's ``regulatory recipe''. The regulatory recipe
specifies limits for various emission-related fuel parameters (e.g.
sulfur content, aromatics content).
Certain of these parameters in the regulatory recipe have two sets
of limits; a ``flat'' (per gallon) limit and an average limit with a
cap. A California refiner may choose, on a property by property basis,
to produce a blend that complies with a flat or an average (with cap)
regulatory recipe limit. However, a refiner may produce a blend with
parameters that differ from the regulatory recipe specifications if
they can demonstrate, using the predictive model, that the emissions
performance of their blend is comparable. In order to use the
predictive model to compare the emissions performance of its blend to
the performance of the regulatory recipe, refiners must decide whether
certain parameters in their blend will be averaged or flat-limited.
The WSPA analysis compares the survey results to the regulatory
recipe by plugging the average survey data into the predictive model
and generating emissions numbers. These numbers are then compared
against an all-average and all-flat emissions baseline. The results
demonstrate that the emissions performance of in-use gasoline
approximates the emissions performance of a fuel with average
regulatory recipe limits. Therefore, it is reasonable to use the
average, rather than the flat, regulatory recipe limits to determine
which of the computer-generated virtual fuels meet California standards
under the predictive model. This virtual fuels analysis, discussed
later, demonstrates compliance of California fuel with the Federal VOC
per-gallon minimum performance requirement.
Finally, the WSPA analysis demonstrates that the fuels represented
by the two surveys meet the average performance requirements of the
federal RFG program. To make this determination the WSPA analysis
evaluates the averaged fuels from the two surveys using the federal
Complex Model.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ Id. at 9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The WSPA analysis also examined a computer-generated set of
emissions data to evaluate the performance of a large number of
possible California gasoline blends against the Federal per-gallon
minimum reduction requirements for VOCs. This set of virtual fuels
consisted of fuels whose properties vary discretely within ranges
constrained by California or Federal regulations. Specifically, the
virtual fuels analysis defined the properties of the virtual fuels
using the appropriate limits of California Phase 2--for RVP, sulfur,
aromatics, olefins, T50, T90, and benzene, the upper and lower limits
are defined by California's regulations. For oxygen, the lower limit is
defined by the Federal RFG program \13\ and the upper limit is defined
by the California regulations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\The limited oxygen survey option was added to 40 CFR
Sec. 80.81 (e)(2)(ii) to ensure that compliance with a 2.0 wt %
standard is met in Federally covered areas, as defined by
Sec. 80.70. Since for an averaging party, the minimum oxygen content
of any gallon of gasoline is 1.5 wt % (with all production over the
compliance period meeting 2.1 wt %, on average), the appropriate
minimum oxygen content for analysis purposes is 1.5 wt %.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For VOC compliance, the virtual fuels analysis looked at possible
combinations of fuel properties within the limits of what could be
certified under the California predictive model. Although the virtual
fuels analysis does not reflect each and every possible fuel
formulation, the discrete properties chosen accurately approximate the
full range of possible, ``real world'' fuels. These virtual fuel
formulations were then submitted to the EPA's complex model. In all
there were 18,048 virtual fuels that met the California standards. Of
these fuels, all met the 25% minimum Federal Phase II VOC reduction
requirement.
As discussed in greater detail in the staff paper, the virtual
fuels analysis supports the conclusion that any possible ``real world''
fuel will comply with the Federal Phase II complex model minimum VOC
reduction requirement.
We are satisfied that the CARB enforcement program, which employs
several full-time inspectors and a
[[Page 50040]]
mobile laboratory facility, and which conducts year round inspections
of retail facilities, terminals, and refineries, is designed to be
sufficiently stringent to ensure the emissions benefits and content
requirements of the program are met.
In the absence of the enforcement exemptions at 40 CFR Sec. 80.81,
California refiners would be required to comply with duplicative
enforcement requirements at a significant added cost. We believe that
California Phase 2 gasoline, as required by the current regulations
(see footnote 3), and as described in this analysis, will achieve VOC,
toxic and NOX emission reductions that are equal to or
greater than those achieved by Federal Phase II gasoline, and will
comply with the oxygen and benzene content requirements of the Federal
program. We also believe that the CARB enforcement program is
sufficiently stringent to ensure that the expected benefits will
continue to be met. Therefore, we are proposing to extend the
California enforcement exemptions at 40 CFR Sec. 80.81 beyond December
31, 1999.
On March 26, 1999, California Governor Gray Davis issued Executive
Order D-5-99, which directed that methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE) be
phased out of gasoline as soon possible. Because California refiners
must still provide gasoline in the state that complies with the federal
oxygen requirement, the appropriateness of extending the enforcement
exemptions is preserved. A copy of the executive order has been placed
in the public docket at the location indicated in the ADDRESSES section
of this notice.
On April 12, 1999, Governor Davis submitted a letter to EPA
Administrator Carol Browner, requesting that EPA grant a waiver from
the Federal 2.0 weight % oxygen requirement for all California areas
covered by the Federal RFG program. The governor's request is currently
being evaluated by EPA, but is outside the scope of today's direct
final rule. Today's action, in finding that the emission reduction
benefits of California gasoline are equivalent to Federal Phase II RFG
based on a comparison of current California Phase 2 gasoline and
Federal Phase II RFG, includes an analysis demonstrating that such
California gasoline will comply with the Federal content standards,
including the 2.0 weight % oxygen standard. If California amends its
current reformulated gasoline regulations (or issues new regulations),
EPA will re-examine these regulations to determine whether enforcement
exemptions continue to be appropriate.
III. Administrative Requirements
A. Executive Order 12866
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735 (October 4, 1993), the
Agency must determine whether the regulatory action is ``significant''
and therefore subject to Office of Management and Budget (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.
EPA has 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. The Agency has determined that
this regulation would result in none of the economic effects set forth
in Section 1 of the Order because it does not impose any mandatory
obligations on the regulated community beyond those specified in the
current regulations.
B. Executive Order 12875: Enhancing Intergovernmental Partnerships
Under Executive Order 12875, EPA may not issue a regulation that is
not required by statute and that creates a mandate upon a State, local,
or tribal government, unless the Federal government provides the funds
necessary to pay the direct compliance costs incurred by those
governments, or EPA consults with those governments. If EPA complies by
consulting, Executive Order 12875 requires EPA to provide to the Office
of Management and Budget a description of the extent of EPA's prior
consultation with representatives of affected State, local and tribal
governments, the nature of their concerns, copies of any written
communications from the governments, and a statement supporting the
need to issue the regulation. In addition, Executive Order 12875
requires EPA to develop an effective process permitting elected
officials and other representatives of State, local and tribal
governments ``to provide meaningful and timely input in the development
of regulatory proposals containing significant unfunded mandates.''
Today's proposed rule does not create a mandate on State, local or
tribal governments. The proposed rule does not impose any enforceable
duties on these entities. Accordingly, the requirements of section 1(a)
of Executive Order 12875 do not apply to this proposed rule.
C. Executive Order 13084: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments
Under Executive Order 13084, EPA 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 EPA consults with those
governments. If EPA complies by consulting, Executive Order 13084
requires EPA 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 EPA's 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 EPA to develop
an effective process permitting elected 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 proposed rule does not significantly or uniquely affect the
communities of Indian tribal governments. Today's proposed rule does
not create a mandate for any tribal governments. The proposed rule does
not impose any enforceable duties on these entities. Accordingly, the
requirements of section 3(b) of Executive Order 13084 do not apply to
this proposed rule.
D. Regulatory Flexibility
EPA has determined that it is not necessary to prepare a regulatory
flexibility analysis in connection with this proposed rule. EPA has
also determined that this rule will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities.
[[Page 50041]]
E. Paperwork Reduction Act
This action does not add any new requirements involving the
collection of information as defined by the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has
approved the information collection requirements contained in the final
RFG/anti-dumping rulemaking (See 59 FR 7716, February 16, 1994) and has
assigned OMB control number 2060-0277 (EPA ICR No. 1951.08).
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 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.
F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), P.L.
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 potentially 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.
Today's proposed rule contains no Federal mandates (under the
regulatory provisions of Title II of the UMRA) for State, local or
tribal governments or the private sector. The proposed rule would
impose no enforceable duty on any State, local or tribal governments or
the private sector. Today?s proposed rule would extend the existing
exemption for California gasoline from many of the regulatory
compliance requirements of the RFG program, relieving potentially
duplicative obligations.
G. Executive Order 13045: Children's Health Protection
Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children from Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks (62FR19885, April 23, 1997) applies to
any rule that: (1) Is determined to be economically significant as
defined under E.O. 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 E.O. 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 final rule is not subject to E.O. 13045,
entitled ``Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and
Safety Risks'' (62FR19885, April 23, 1997), because it does not involve
decisions on environmental health risks or safety risks that may
disproportionately affect children.
H. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (NTTAA)
Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Pub L. No. 104-113, 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 rule does not involved technical standards.
Therefore, EPA did not consider the use of any voluntary consensus
standards.
I. Statutory Authority
Sections 114, 211, and 301(a) of the Clean Air Act as amended (42
U.S.C. 7414, 7545, and 7601(a)).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 80
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, California
exemptions, Gasoline, Motor vehicle pollution, Reformulated Gasoline.
Dated: August 27, 1999.
Carol M. Browner,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 99-23708 Filed 9-14-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
![[logo] US EPA](https://webarchive.library.unt.edu/eot2008/20081109110214im_/http://www.epa.gov/epafiles/images/logo_epaseal.gif){kind=logo}