Relaxation of Summer Gasoline Volatility Standard for the Denver/
Boulder Area
Related Material
[Federal Register: January 24, 2002 (Volume 67, Number 16)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 3468-3470]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr24ja02-20]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 80
[FRL-7131-1]
RIN 2060-AJ80
Relaxation of Summer Gasoline Volatility Standard for the Denver/
Boulder Area
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In this action, EPA is proposing approval of the State of
Colorado's request to relax the Federal Reid Vapor Pressure (``RVP'')
gasoline standard that applies to gasoline that is supplied to the
Denver/Boulder area (hereafter ``Denver area'') from June 1st to
September 15th (the ozone control season) of each year. This action
proposes to amend our regulations to change the summertime RVP standard
for the Denver area from 7.8 pounds per square inch (``psi'') to 9.0
psi. EPA has determined that this change to our federal RVP regulations
would be consistent with criteria EPA has enumerated for making such
changes: that the State has demonstrated it has sufficient alternative
programs to attain and maintain the National Ambient Air Quality
Standards for ozone; and that amendments are appropriate to avoid
adverse local economic impacts.
In the ``Rules and Regulations'' section of today's Federal
Register, we are approving this amendment to the federal RVP
regulations as a direct final rule without prior proposal because we
view this as a noncontroversial amendment and anticipate no adverse
comment. We have explained our reasons for this approval in the
preamble to the direct final rule. If we receive no adverse comment, we
will not take further action on this proposed rule. If we receive
adverse comment, we will withdraw the direct final rule and it will not
take effect. 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.
DATES: Comments on this proposed rule must be received in writing by
February 25, 2002.
ADDRESSES: Any person wishing to submit comments should submit a copy
to both dockets listed below, and if possible, should also submit a
copy to Richard Babst, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Transportation and Regional Programs Division, 1200 Pennsylvania
Avenue, NW., (Mail Code: 6406J), Washington, DC 20460.
Public Docket: Materials relevant to this rule are available for
inspection in public docket A-2001-26 at the Air Docket Office of the
EPA, Room M-1500, 401 M Street, SW., Washington, DC 20460, (202) 260-
7548, between the hours of 8 a.m. to 5:30 p.m., Monday through Friday.
A duplicate docket CO-RVP-02 has been established at U.S. EPA Region
VIII, 999 18th Street, Suite 300, Denver, CO, 80202-2466, and is
available for inspection during normal business hours. Interested
persons wishing to examine the documents in docket number CO-RVP-02
should contact Kerri Fiedler at (303) 312-6493 at least 24 hours before
the visiting day. As provided in 40 CFR part 2, a reasonable fee may be
charged for copying docket material.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Richard Babst at (202) 564-9473
facsimile: (202) 565-2085, e-mail address: babst.richard@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This document concerns the amendment to
EPA's regulations governing the RVP of gasoline supplied to the Denver/
Boulder area of Colorado. For further information, please see the
information provided in the direct final rule of the same title which
is located in the ``Rules and Regulations'' section of this Federal
Register.
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 under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C.
3501 et seq., and therefore is not subject to these requirements.
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
[[Page 3469]]
governments, it must have developed under section 203 of the UMRA a
small government agency plan. The plan must provide for notifying
affected small governments, enabling officials of affected small
governments to have meaningful and timely input in the development of
EPA regulatory proposals with significant Federal intergovernmental
mandates, and informing, educating, and advising small governments on
compliance with the regulatory requirements.
EPA has determined that this rule does not contain a Federal
mandate that may result in expenditures of $100 million or more for
State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or the private
sector in any one year. Today's rule merely permanently continues the
current relaxation of the Federal RVP standard for gasoline in the
Denver/Boulder area, and thus avoids the costs imposed by the existing
Federal regulations. Today's rule, therefore, is not subject to the
requirements of sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA.
EPA has determined that this proposed rule contains no regulatory
requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small
governments. As discussed above, the rule relaxes an existing standard
and affects only the gasoline industry.
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.
This proposed rule is not subject to the Executive Order because it
is not economically significant as defined in Executive Order 12866,
and because the Agency does not have reason to believe the
environmental health or safety risks addressed by this action present a
disproportionate risk to children. As previously discussed, the Denver/
Boulder area has continued to meet the 1-hour ozone standard since 1987
without the implementation of the 7.8 psi standard. The revised
maintenance plan we approved on September 11, 2001 shows maintenance of
the 1-hour ozone NAAQS for the entire maintenance time period of 1993
through 2013 with the 9.0 psi standard.
The public is invited to submit or identify peer-reviewed studies
and data, of which the agency may not be aware, that assess results of
early life exposure to incremental evaporative emissions, or to ozone
caused by incremental evaporative emissions, resulting from a relaxed
RVP standard of 9.0 psi for gasoline in the Denver/Boulder area.
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. Today's proposed rule merely
affects the level of the Federal RVP standard with which businesses
supplying gasoline to the Denver/Boulder area must comply. 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''), Public Law 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 rulemaking does not involve technical standards.
Therefore, EPA is not considering the use of any voluntary consensus
standards. EPA welcomes comments on this aspect of the proposed
rulemaking and, specifically, invites the public to identify
potentially-applicable voluntary consensus standards and to explain why
such standards should be used in this regulation.
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 proposed rule on
small entities, a small entity is defined as:
(1) A small business, including its affiliates: a refinery that has
a maximum of 1500 employees--NAICS code 324110, a bulk gasoline station
or terminal or gasoline wholesaler that has a maximum of 100
employees--NAICS codes 422710 and 422720, respectively; a gasoline
pipeline transporter that has a maximum of 1,500 employees--NAICS code
486910; a gasoline station that has a maximum of $6.5 million annual
receipts--NAICS code 447190; and a gasoline station with a convenience
store that has a maximum of $20 million annual receipts--NAICS code
447110 (see 13 CFR 121.201);
(2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government of a
city, county, town, school district or special district with a
population of less than 50,000; and
(3) a small organization that is any not-for-profit enterprise
which is independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its
field.
After considering the economic impacts of today's proposed rule on
small entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. In
determining whether a rule has a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities, the impact of concern is any
significant adverse economic impact on small entities, since the
primary purpose of
[[Page 3470]]
the regulatory flexibility analyses is to identify and address
regulatory alternatives ``which minimize any significant economic
impact of the proposed rule on small entities.'' 5 U.S.C. Sections 603
and 604. Thus, an agency may certify that a rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities
if the rule relieves regulatory burden, or otherwise has a positive
economic effect on all of the small entities subject to the rule.
Today's proposed rule relaxes an existing standard and affects only the
gasoline industry. It relaxes the level of the Federal RVP standard
with which businesses supplying gasoline to the Denver/Boulder area
must comply. We have therefore concluded that today's proposed rule
will relieve regulatory burden for any small entity.
We continue to be interested in the potential impacts of the
proposed rule on small entities and welcome comments on issues related
to such impacts.
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. It 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.
The proposed rule affects the level of the Federal RVP standard
applicable to gasoline supplied to the Denver/Boulder area. It
therefore affects only refiners, distributors and other businesses
supplying gasoline to the Denver/Boulder area. Thus, Executive Order
13175 does not apply to this proposed rule.
I. Executive Order 13211 (Energy Effects)
This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211, ``Actions
Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR. 28355 (May 22, 2001)) because it is not
a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.
Electronic Copies of Rulemaking
For more information about this proposed rule and more details as
described in the preamble to the direct final rule see a copy of this
rule on the Internet at http://www.epa.gov/otaq under the title:
Relaxation of Summer Gasoline Volatility Standard for Denver/Boulder
Area
Statutory Authority
Authority for this action is in sections 211(h) and 301(a) of the
Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. 7545(h) and 7601(a).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 80
Administrative practice and procedures, Air pollution control,
Environmental protection, Fuel additives, Gasoline, Motor vehicle and
motor vehicle engines, Motor vehicle pollution, Penalties, Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements.
Dated: January 15, 2002.
Christine Todd Whitman,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 02-1494 Filed 1-23-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
![[logo] US EPA](https://webarchive.library.unt.edu/eot2008/20090510220359im_/http://www.epa.gov/epafiles/images/logo_epaseal.gif){kind=logo}