[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 124 (Wednesday, June 26, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 33033-33039]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-16205]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 33034]]
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 80
[FRL-5522-3]
RIN 2060-AG43
Regulation of Fuels and Fuel Additives: Controls Applicable to
Gasoline Retailers and Wholesale Purchaser-Consumers; 10 Gallon Per
Minute Fuel Dispensing Limit Requirement Implementation
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Direct final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: On January 20, 1993 EPA finalized a requirement limiting
vehicle service station fuel dispensing rates to 10 gallons per minute
(gpm) maximum, beginning January 1, 1996, for retailers and wholesale
purchaser-consumers handling over 10,000 gallons of fuel per month (55
FR 16002, March 24, 1993). In 1995, various groups in the petroleum
industry requested that EPA delay the January 1, 1996 deadline, due
mainly to the lack of available retrofit parts needed for compliance
with the 10gpm requirement. This direct final rule delays the
implementation date of the 10gpm requirement from January 1, 1996 until
July 1, 1996. In addition, this direct final rule clarifies that the
hardware/software for controlling the fuel dispensing rate may be
located anywhere in the pump/dispenser system and that refueling
facilities are exempt from the 10gpm requirement if used exclusively to
refuel heavy-duty vehicles, boats or airplanes.
Today's action is beneficial to affected parties which are not
already in compliance with the 10gpm requirement. It provides
additional time for manufacturers of fuel dispensing hardware to
certify and produce the necessary equipment; and provides additional
time for service station owners and fleet managers handling over 10,000
gallons of fuel per month to install the equipment where it is needed.
It is not expected to result in any significant economic impact to any
of the affected parties. Today's action has no impact on service
station owners and fleet managers handling less than 10,000 gallons of
fuel per month because they are not required to meet the 10gpm
requirement until January 1, 1998.
Today's action does not result in any significant environmental
impacts. The six-month delay will only increase fuel spillage during
refueling events (on a fleet average basis) by approximately .03 grams
per gallon (or less) of fuel dispensed. For comparison purposes, the
onboard refueling vapor recovery refueling (ORVR) emission standard is
.20 grams per gallon of fuel dispensed for 1998 light-duty vehicles.
DATES: This rule will be effective August 26, 1996, unless adverse
comments are received by July 26, 1996. If such adverse comments are
received, EPA will publish a timely notice in the Federal Register
withdrawing this rule.
ADDRESSES: Materials relevant to the initial final rule, and today's
action are available for inspection in Public Dockets A-89-18 and A-95-
53 at Air Docket Section, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, First
Floor, Waterside Mall, Room M-1500, 401 M Street SW, Washington, DC
20460 (telephone 202-260-7548, fax 202-260-4400) between the hours of 8
a.m. and 5:30 p.m. A reasonable fee may be charged by EPA for copying
docket material. Any such notice or comments per the requirements of
this action should be submitted to this same address, with a
complimentary copy, if possible, to Karl Simon or Dave Good at the
address listed below.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Karl Simon at the U.S. EPA, 401 M
Street SW (mail code 6405J), Washington DC, 20460, telephone (202) 233-
9299; or Dave Good at the U. S. EPA, 2565 Plymouth Rd, Ann Arbor,
Michigan, 48105, telephone (313) 668-4450.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Regulated Entities
Entities potentially regulated by this action are retailers and
wholesale purchaser-consumers of gasoline and methanol which handle
over 10,000 gallons of fuel per month, for the purpose of refueling
passenger cars and light-duty trucks. Regulated entities would include
the following:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Category Examples of regulated entities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry..................... Service station owners, service station
managers, fleet managers who operate a
refueling facility to refuel motor
vehicles.
Federal Government........... Federal facilities, including military
bases, who operate a refueling facility
to refuel motor vehicles.
State, Local and Tribal State, local and tribal governments who
Governments. operate a refueling facilities to refuel
motor vehicles.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 potentially be regulated by this action. Other types of entities
not listed in the table could also be regulated. To determine whether
your facility is regulated by this action, you should carefully examine
the criteria contained in Sec. 80.22(j) of title 40 of the Code of
Federal Regulations, as modified by today's action. If you have
questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular
entity, consult one of the persons listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section.
Table of Contents
I. Need for Delayed Implementation
II. Public Participation and Effective Date
III. Administrative Requirements
IV. Unfunded Mandates Act
V. Judicial Review
I. Need for Delayed Implementation
A. Introduction and Background
On March 24, 1993 the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
published a final rule establishing the requirement to limit fuel pump
dispensing rates to 10 gallons per minute (37.9 liters per minute)
beginning January 1, 1996 for most facilities (58 FR 16002). This
requirement applies to retailers and wholesale purchaser-consumers of
gasoline and methanol. For businesses handling 10,000 gallons or less
of fuel per month, implementation of the limit on dispensing rates was
delayed until January 1, 1998.
The 10gpm requirement was originally proposed in the onboard
refueling vapor recovery (ORVR) Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM)
see 52 FR 31162, August 19, 1987. The final ORVR requirements for cars
and light trucks were published in 59 FR 16262, April 6, 1994. However,
to achieve earlier spillage emission reductions, the 10 gpm requirement
was finalized in the enhanced evaporative emission final rule along
with a spitback emissions test, and published on March 24, 1993.
The spitback test procedure was designed to ensure that no spillage
[[Page 33035]]
occurs when a vehicle is refueled at a rate of up to 10gpm. Fuel
spitback can be a problem when the design of the fuel filler neck is
inadequate to accommodate in-use fuel fill rates. The result can be
fuel spillage, which is both an environmental and a safety hazard.
In the rulemaking process, it was determined that the service
station pumping rates needed to be limited to assure compatibility with
the new ORVR systems. Note that approximately 20 percent of 1996 model
year vehicles are already subject to spitback emission standards. ORVR
requirements are scheduled to begin phase-in with the 1998 model year,
with the earliest models entering the marketplace as early as January
2, 1997.
During the summer of 1995, various groups in the petroleum industry
requested that EPA delay the January 1, 1996 deadline.\1\ \2\ \3\ \4\
Some of the reasons cited for this request were the lack of available
parts for retrofitting gas pumps to meet this requirement, and the need
for EPA enforcement guidance regarding procedures for determining
compliance with the 10gpm limit. EPA has reviewed the need for and the
potential impacts of delaying the January 1, 1996 deadline and
concluded that the date of implementation should be delayed until July
1, 1996. This direct final rule extends the deadline from January 1,
1996 until July 1, 1996.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Letter from Michael A. McCord, Esq. on behalf of the
Gasoline Pump Manufacturers Association; to Ms. Mary D. Nichols,
Assistant Administrator, Office of Air and Radiation, EPA; July 10,
1995; Docket A-95-53, document no. II-D-06.
\2\ Letter from C. J. Krambuhl, Director of Manufacturing,
Distribution and Marketing, American Petroleum Institute; to Ms.
Mary D. Nichols, Assistant Administrator, Office of Air and
Radiation, EPA; August 15, 1995; Docket A-95-53, document no. II-D-
10.
\3\ Letter from Gene Mittermaier, President, Data Action
Company; on behalf of the Petroleum Marketers Association of
America; to Ms. Mary D. Nichols, Assistant Administrator, Office of
Air and Radiation, EPA; July 1, 1995; Docket A-95-53, document no.
II-D-12.
\4\ Letter from S.D. Dermott, Manager of Marketing Department,
Legislative & Regulatory Affairs, Exxon Company, U.S.A.; to Ms. Mary
D. Nichols, Assistant Administrator, Office of Air and Radiation,
EPA; July 28, 1995; Docket A-95-53, document no. II-D-03.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA concurs with the industry's belief that there was insufficient
product availability of retrofit devices to ensure industry compliance
with the January 1, 1996 deadline for that segment of the industry not
already in compliance before January 1, 1996. While the Agency believes
that a large percentage of nozzles do not dispense fuel in excess of 10
gallons per minute, this shortfall of retrofit devices prevented the
affected companies from procuring and installing the necessary
equipment in the required time limit. Manufacturers of fuel dispensing
hardware, including nozzles, dispensers, pumps and other items, have
developed several widely differing designs to meet the dispensing
limit. However, most of these products were not available in sufficient
quantity until after January 1, 1996 as product development and
certification reached a conclusion. For example, the American Petroleum
Institute indicated in a November 8, 1995 letter to EPA, that
``industry has already begun to respond with the introduction of
devices, but many companies are just now gearing up for production.''
\5\ The attachment to that letter contains a table showing the types of
10gpm flow limiters which will be marketed by seven manufacturers, for
both conventional and stage II nozzles. As shown in the table, several
of those devices are scheduled to begin production in November/
December, 1995 and several devices were awaiting approval by
Underwriters Laboratory and the California Air Resources Board. Since
manufacturers were just beginning production of these devices in the
last quarter of 1996, the Agency believes that a substantial number of
service stations were unable to comply with the 10gpm dispensing limit
before the January 1, 1996 deadline. The Agency believes that six
months additional lead time given to comply with the 10gpm dispensing
limit will provide manufacturers of fuel dispensing hardware sufficient
time to certify and produce any necessary equipment; and will allow
affected facilities to determine if they are in compliance with the
10gpm limit and if necessary, select the most appropriate control
technology and safely install the equipment where it is needed. The
Agency believes that delaying the implementation of the 10gpm
requirement for more than six months is unnecessary because flow
limiting devices are currently widely available, and a longer delay
would tend to penalize the facilities which were in compliance prior to
January 1, 1996 or shortly thereafter. As will be discussed later, EPA
believes that the environmental impact of today's action will be
minimal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Letter from C.J. Krambuhl, Director, Manufacturing,
Distribution and Marketing, American Petroleum Institute; to Ms.
Margo Oge, Director of the Office of Mobile Sources, EPA; November
8, 1995; Docket A-95-53, document no. II-D-11, page 3 of Attachment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Impact on the Automobile Industry
Automobile manufacturers have indicated that they would not be
opposed to a six month delay of the 10gpm requirement.6 They are
primarily concerned about the compatibility of in-use fuel dispensing
rates with vehicle ORVR systems (which are required on some 1998 model
year vehicles). These systems are designed and developed on the
presumption of a 10gpm maximum dispensing rate. Automobile
manufacturers also indicated that fuel dispensing rates greater than
10gpm ``may cause system problems that manufacturers have had little or
no time to evaluate.'' 7 EPA has determined that a six month delay
in the 10gpm requirement would not be detrimental to the automobile
manufacturers' design and development of ORVR systems. These systems
could be introduced as early as January 2, 1997. Therefore, a six month
delay in the 10gpm requirement effective date will not be detrimental.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Letter from Gerald A. Esper, Director of Vehicle Environment
Department, American Automobile Manufacturers Association, and
Gregory J. Dana, Vice President and Technical Director, Association
of International Automobile Manufacturers; to Alan Stout, EPA, dated
October 12, 1995; Docket A-95-53, document no. II-D-05.
\7\ Esper and Dana. See reference 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. Impact on State and Local Government Programs
This direct final rule is not expected to adversely impact state
and local programs, with respect to State Implementation Plans (SIPs)
or with respect to any fuel dispensing requirements which are imposed
separately by state or local governments.
The Agency believes that this direct final rule will have no effect
(or a minimal effect) on SIPs since the environmental impact is very
minimal.
The limitation on in-use dispensing rates in section 80.22(j) of
the regulations was issued under section 211(c) of the Act. As such,
non-identical state fuel controls are generally preempted under section
211(c)(4)(A) of the Act. This does not apply to state controls in
California, as California is not subject to this preemption
provision.8 In addition, non-identical state controls in other
states are not preempted where they have been submitted and approved as
a revision to the State Implementation Plan, based on a showing that
the state control is necessary to achieve the National Ambient Air
Quality Standard that the Plan implements.9
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Section 211(c)(4)(B) of the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. 7545.
\9\ Section 211(c)(4)(C) of the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. 7545.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Today's direct final rule is not expected to have any impact on the
fuel dispensing requirements which are already in place for the State
of California. Currently, the California Air
[[Page 33036]]
Resources Board requires certification of stage II vapor recovery
systems, including a requirement that the dispensing rate of the system
not exceed 10gpm when only one nozzle associated with the product
supply pump is operating. Today's direct final rule does not affect
this requirement, either before or after the federal 10gpm requirements
are implemented.
The California Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD)
expressed concern that the petroleum industry's request for a two-year
delay ``should not apply to any area mandated to install Stage II vapor
recovery systems,'' 10 based on their belief that a two year delay
would result in increased fuel spillage emissions. Although the BAAQMD
letter supplied supporting fuel spillage data on one vehicle which was
refueled at 12.8 gpm, the Agency believes that the vast majority of
stage II nozzles are already in compliance with the 10gpm maximum flow
rate requirement, and that a separate phase-in schedule is not
justified for stage II nozzles. For the few possible cases of
noncompliance (only two stage II systems have been certified above
10gpm) the Agency believes that the incremental regulatory and
enforcement complexity to set up a separate compliance schedule for
stage II nozzles is not beneficial, especially since the delay period
is only six months. For these reasons, and because the State of
California is not preempted from regulating fuel dispensing rates, the
Agency believes that this direct final rule will have no impact on
California programs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ Letter from Milton Feldstein, Air Pollution Control
Officer, California Bay Area Air Quality Management District; to Ms.
Mary D. Nichols, Assistant Administrator, Office of Air and
Radiation, EPA; August 31, 1995; Docket A-95-53, document no. II-D-
04.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
D. Implementation Issues
A ``Question and Answer'' (Q&A) document has been prepared by the
EPA Mobile Source Enforcement Branch of the Office of Enforcement and
Compliance Assurance, Office of Regulatory Enforcement, Air Enforcement
Division to provide implementation guidance on the 10gpm requirements.
The most recent version of this document (as of today's publication
date) is available in Docket A-95-53 and also on the EPA electronic
bulletin board (TTN BBS) and the internet (http://www.epa.gov/omswww).
This direct final rule revises the regulations to incorporate
certain elements of this Agency guidance document. The changes clarify
that the hardware/software for controlling the fuel dispensing rate may
be located anywhere in the pump/dispenser system and that refueling
facilities are exempt from the 10gpm requirement if used exclusively to
refuel heavy-duty vehicles, boats or airplanes. [The provisions of 40
CFR 80.22(j) previously exempted facilities used exclusively to refuel
heavy-duty vehicles; this direct final rule and the Q & A document
clarify that facilities used to refuel boats and airplanes are also
exempt.]
Additionally, the Q&A document provides a description of the test
procedure that EPA intends to use to determine compliance with 10gpm
requirements. This guidance makes clear that the 10gpm requirement is a
maximum amount that must be met under all circumstances, including
``worst case'' conditions such as having no other nozzles in operation.
E. Outreach Efforts
The Agency and petroleum industry personnel are committed to (and
have already begun) communication outreach efforts to implement the
10gpm requirements, including today's action. For example, the American
Petroleum Institute (API) states in a November 8, 1995 letter to EPA,
that the ``Gasoline Pump Manufacturers Association, the American
Petroleum Institute and the Petroleum Marketers Association are
committed to helping the EPA ensure that all stakeholders are notified
of the pending requirements. This process has already begun through
communications with our memberships, conferences such as the Petroleum
Equipment Institute conference in Denver, Colorado in October, 1995 and
interviews with the trade press.'' 11
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ C. J. Krambuhl; p. 3 of Attachment. See reference 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The API letter also describes how information about the 10gpm
requirements will be disseminated to large volume and small volume
retailers and wholesale purchaser-consumers through various trade
associations and trade magazines. The EPA intends to provide supporting
information to these trade associations and magazines.
F. Environmental Impact
The Agency believes that the environmental impact of this direct
final rule will be minimal. The Agency estimates that this direct final
rule will result in a slight increase in the spitback emissions.
Spitback emission reductions were originally estimated to be ``a fleet
average value of .15 grams per gallon (0.04 g/liter)'' 12 of
dispensed fuel. Using this estimate, spitback spillage was originally
estimated (in 1987) to be 3.7 million gallons of gasoline spilled in
1995. The Agency estimates the environmental impact of this direct
final rule to be approximately 20 percent or less of the .15 grams per
gallon and the 3.7 million gallon estimates, for the following reasons:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ ``Final Regulatory Impact Analysis and Summary and Analysis
of Comments'' February, 1993; for the enhanced evaporative final
rule, 58 FR 16002, March 24, 1993; Docket No. A-89-18, document no.
V-B-1, p. 40, 41.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
First, while EPA data ``indicate that higher flow rates are
associated with a more frequent occurrence of spitback,13 the
Agency has no data quantifying only the effect of limiting in-use
dispensing rates to 10 gpm. The previously quoted spitback benefits
assume that vehicles are designed to meet applicable spitback emission
standards and the in-use dispensing rates are less than the 10gpm used
in the spitback compliance testing. Based on the types of vehicles and
the refueling rates in the field today, the effect of limiting in-use
dispensing rates to 10 gpm (by itself) is expected to be a small
portion of the original estimates. However, to be conservative and also
consistent with the original estimate 14, today's environmental
impact estimate assumed that a 10gpm dispensing rate limit would have
eliminated spitback from approximately one-half of the vehicles in the
field during the delayed time period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ ``Final Regulatory Impact Analysis and Summary and Analysis
of Comments;'' p. 42. See reference 10.
\14\ Technical Report ``Investigation of the Need for In-Use
Dispensing Rate Limits and Fuel Nozzle Geometry Standardization;''
May, 1987; Docket No. A-89-18, document no. IV-A-2, p. 13.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Second, the Agency believes that the majority of in-use facilities
are now in compliance with the 10gpm requirement. EPA's original 1987
data indicate that ``most in-use dispensing rates fall in the range of
8 to 10 gpm with evidence of a trend toward higher rates in new
stations using higher horsepower pumps.'' 15 Since 1987, the trend
in non-stage II areas seems to have continued toward higher rates,
however the trend in stage II areas is toward dispensing rates which
are already in compliance with the 10gpm dispensing rate. All states
subject to Stage II mandates require Stage II systems which have been
certified by the California Air Resources Board (CARB). Except for two
systems which were CARB certified at 12 and 13 gpm, all CARB-certified
systems are limited to 10gpm or less. Today's environmental impact
estimate assumed that there has been no significant change from the
original estimate in the total number of nozzles
[[Page 33037]]
in the field which are already in compliance with the 10gpm
requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ Technical Report, p. 6. See reference 12.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Third, data supplied by API 16 indicate that ``since 1987
940,000 new nozzle positions have been shipped and installed that
exceed the 10 gallon per minute restriction under normal conditions
with clean fuel filters and no other nozzles in use at the site.''
Based on the station count supplied in the April, 1995 issue of
``National Petroleum News'' (of approximately 195,455 total stations in
the U.S. in 1995) and assuming a conservative average of 10 nozzles per
station, this would equate to approximately 48 percent of the nozzles
in the field today. The actual figure would be less than 48 percent,
because some of these nozzles would replace non-complying nozzles.
Additionally, the Agency believes many of these nozzles may actually be
in compliance during normal use, for the following reasons:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ C. J. Krambuhl, p. 2 of Attachment. See reference 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
* In-use filters tend to clog up with residue which reduces the
actual flow rate.
* Nozzles located farthest from the pump tend to have a reduced
flow rate than nozzles which are located near the pump.
* Operating several nozzles at the same time tends to reduce the
flow rate.
While the Agency is not contesting API's data that up to 940,000
nozzles may need retrofitting to assure compliance, the Agency still
believes that the majority of nozzles in the field today are operated
at or below the 10gpm limit. This rationale supports the assumption
that there has been no significant change from the original estimate in
the total number of nozzles in the field which are already in
compliance with the 10gpm requirements.
Fourth, since May, 1992, one nozzle manufacturer representing
approximately one-third of the U.S. market, has been marketing nozzles
which are meeting the 10gpm requirement.17 The fact that this
manufacturer's nozzles continue to be in compliance also supports the
assumption that there has been no significant change from the original
estimate in the total number of nozzles in the field which are already
in compliance with the 10gpm requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ Telephone contact between Alan Stout, EPA and Arthur Fink,
Husky Corporation, May 29, 1992. Docket No. A-89-18, document no.
IV-E-27.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fifth, today's action has no impact on retailers and wholesale
purchaser-consumers handling 10,000 gallons per month or less, since
they are not required to meet the 10gpm requirement until January 1,
1998. However, to be conservative, today's environmental impact
estimate assumed that the effect of delaying 10gpm dispensing rate
requirements would apply to all nozzles in the field.
Sixth, it seems unlikely that service station owners will wait
until July 1, 1996 to comply with the 10gpm requirement. The Agency
believes that some service station owners will install retrofit
hardware several months prior to the delayed implementation date of
this direct final rule, as more and more hardware becomes available in
late 1995 and early 1996. Today's environmental impact estimate assumed
that on the average, all nozzles will be in compliance by May 15, 1995.
For this reason, the environmental impact of this direct final rule is
estimated to be a factor of nine-twenty-fourths of the estimate
contained in the 1993 rulemaking; based on an assumed delay in
compliance of 4\1/2\ months for today's action as compared to a one
year basis for the 1993 estimate.
Therefore, the total impact of this direct final rule is estimated
to be approximately 20 percent (or less) of the original estimate for
spitback savings contained in the March 24, 1993 final rule, or
approximately .03 grams per gallon of fuel dispensed (or less) on a
fleet average basis. The 20 percent is the product of the (1/2) factor
and the (9/24) factor previously discussed in the first and sixth
points of this section. The total impact =.15 g/gal x 1/2 x 9/24=.03 g/
gal or less.
G. Economic Impact
This direct final rule is expected to have a slight economic impact
on consumers, due to fuel spillage. As stated previously, this direct
final rule is expected to delay fuel spillage benefits to consumers,
estimated to be a small percentage (approximately 20 percent or less)
of approximately 3.7 million gallons of gasoline spilled per year.
Thus, the environmental impact of this direct final rule could
conceivably increase consumer costs by the cost of approximately
740,000 gallons of gasoline, i.e. approximately $1 million (or less)
due to reduced fuel spillage benefits.
H. Conclusion
The Agency believes that a six month delay in the original January
1, 1996 effective date of the 10gpm requirement is appropriate given
the logistical limits on the feasibility of achieving compliance by
January 1, 1996, and the limited environmental impacts of the delay.
The Agency believes that a six month delay (combined with increased EPA
and industry outreach efforts to make service station owners aware of
the 10gpm requirement) will have very little (if any) effect on the
environment. Therefore, for the reasons discussed previously, the
Agency intends to delay the implementation of the 10gpm requirements
for six months. EPA expects no negative impact for any of the affected
parties.
II. Public Participation and Effective Date
The Agency is publishing this action as a direct final rule because
it views the changes contained herein as non-controversial and based on
outreach efforts with all affected parties, EPA anticipates no adverse
or critical comments. Representatives of automobile and petroleum
industry associations have indicated that their constituents will not
be adversely affected by this direct final rule and therefore the
Agency expects no adverse comments from the members of those
associations. Similarly, the Agency does not expect adverse comments
from the environmental community or state and local governments, since
the environmental impact is very minimal.
This action will become effective August 26, 1996. If the Agency
receives adverse comments by July 26, 1996, EPA will publish a
subsequent Federal Register document withdrawing this rule. In the
event that adverse or critical comments are received, EPA is also
publishing a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) in a separate action
today, which proposes the same rule changes contained in this direct
final rule. Any adverse comments received by the date listed above will
be addressed in a subsequent final rule. That final rule will be based
on the relevant portion of the rule revision that is noticed as a
proposed rule in the Proposed Rule Section of this Federal Register and
that is identical to this direct final rule. The EPA will not institute
a second comment period on this action. Any parties interested in
commenting on this action should do so at this time. If no such
comments are received, the public is advised that this action will be
effective August 26, 1996.
III. Administrative Requirements
A. Administrative Designation
Pursuant to Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993),
the Agency must determine whether a regulatory action is
``significant'' and therefore subject to OMB review and the
[[Page 33038]]
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 entitlements, 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.
Pursuant to the terms of Executive Order 12866, the Agency has
determined that this direct final rule is not a ``significant
regulatory action'' under the terms of Executive Order 12866 and is
therefore not subject to OMB review. This direct final rule will not
have an adverse effect on either the refueling facilities or the
manufacturers of fuel dispensing equipment.
B. Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements
This direct final rule does not change the information collection
requirements submitted to and approved by OMB in association with the
Evaporative Emissions Final Rule (58 FR 16002, March 24, 1993) which
was approved by the Office of Management and Budget on May 9, 1994.
C. Impact on Small Entities
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 requires federal agencies to
examine the impact of federal regulations on small entities. The Small
Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 amended these
requirements.
Today's action to delay the implementation of the 10gpm fuel
dispensing requirements until July 1, 1996 will not result in any
additional economic burden on any of the affected parties, including
small entities involved in the oil industry, the automobile industry
and the automobile service industry. EPA is not imposing any new
requirements on regulated entities, but instead is revising a current
requirement to make it less restrictive.
Today's action is applicable to, and beneficial to retailers and
wholesale purchaser-consumers handling over 10,000 gallons of fuel per
month. It provides these affected parties with six months additional
lead time, allowing affected parties to determine if they are in
compliance with the 10gpm limit and if necessary, select the most
appropriate control technology and safely install the equipment where
needed. As previously discussed in section I.F., EPA believes that a
substantial number of these facilities are already in compliance and
thus are unaffected by today's action. Retailers and wholesale
purchaser-consumers handling 10,000 gallons of fuel per month or less
are also unaffected by today's action, because they are not required to
meet the 10gpm fuel dispensing requirements until January 1, 1998.
Today's action is also expected to have a beneficial effect on gas
pump equipment manufacturers, who are the main beneficiaries of the
change in the fuel dispensing limit's effective date. While these
entities had, before the original effective date of January 1, 1996,
produced equipment that would limit fuel dispensing rates, they had not
produced such equipment in sufficient quantities that would allow all
affected fuel dispensing facilities time to purchase and safely install
it. Today's action provides these manufacturers with six months
additional lead time to produce and certify equipment necessary for
compliance with the 10gpm dispensing limit. The introduction of this
equipment into the marketplace has already begun and EPA does not
expect the gas pump manufacturers to experience any significant
difficulty in meeting market demand for their products. Today's action
has given these entities sufficient time to produce the necessary
equipment.
Therefore, pursuant to section 605 of the Regulatory Flexibility
Act, 5 U.S.C. 605, the Administrator certifies that this direct final
rule will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of
small entities.
D. Paperwork Reduction Act
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980, 544 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., and
implementing regulations, 5 CFR Part 1320, do not apply to this direct
final rule as it does not involve the collection of information as
defined therein.
E. Submission to Congress and the General Accounting Office
Under section 801(a)(1)(A) of the Administrative Procedures Act
(APA), as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness
Act of 1996, EPA submitted a report containing this rule and other
required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives and the Comptroller General of the General Accounting
Office prior to publication of the rule in today's Federal Register.
This rule is not a ``major rule'' as defined by section 804(2) of the
APA as amended.
F. Electronic Copies of Rulemaking Documents
A copy of this document is also available electronically from the
EPA internet site and via dial-up modem on the Technology Transfer
Network (TTN), which is an electronic bulletin board system (BBS)
operated by EPA's Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards. Both
services are free of charge, except for your existing cost of internet
connectivity or the cost of the phone call to TTN. Users are able to
access and download files on their first call using a personal computer
per the following information. Any one of the following Internet
addresses may be used:
World Wide Web:
http://www.epa.gov/OMSWWW/
Gopher:
gopher://gopher.epa.gov/ Follow menus for: Offices/Air/OMS
FTP:
ftp://ftp.epa.gov/ Change Directory to pub/gopher/OMS
The steps required to access information on this rulemaking on the
TTN bulletin board system are listed below.
TTN BBS: 919-541-5742 (1,200-14,400 bps, no parity, eight data bits,
one stop bit)
Voice help: 919-541-5384
Internet address: TELNET ttnbbs.rtpnc.epa.gov
Off-line: Mondays from 8:00-12:00 Noon ET
1. Technology Transfer Network Top Menu: GATEWAY TO TTN TECHNICAL
AREAS (Bulletin Boards) (Command: T)
2. TTN TECHNICAL INFORMATION AREAS: OMS--Mobile Sources Information
(Command: M)
3. OMS BBS === MAIN MENU FILE TRANSFERS: Other OMS Documents
(Command: O)
At this stage, the system will list all available files in this
area. To download a file, select a transfer protocol that will match
the terminal software on your computer, then set your own software to
receive the file using that same protocol. If unfamiliar with handling
compressed (that is, ZIP'd) files, go to the TTN top menu, System
Utilities (Command: 1) for information and the necessary program to
download in order to unZIP the files of interest after downloading to
your computer. After getting the files you want onto your computer, you
can
[[Page 33039]]
quit TTN BBS with the oodbye command.
IV. Unfunded Mandates Act
Under section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995, EPA
must prepare a budgetary impact statement to accompany any proposed or
final rule that includes a federal mandate with estimated costs to the
private sector of $100 million or more, or to state, local, or tribal
governments of $100 million or more in the aggregate. Under section
205, EPA must select the most cost-effective and least burdensome
alternative that achieves the objectives of the rule and is consistent
with statutory requirements. Section 203 requires EPA to establish a
plan for informing and advising any small governments that may be
significantly or uniquely impacted by the rule.
EPA has determined that this direct final rule imposes no new
federal requirements and does not include any federal mandate with
costs to the private sector or to state, local, or tribal governments.
Therefore, the Administrator certifies that this direct final rule does
not require a budgetary impact statement.
V. Judicial Review
Under section 307(b) of the Clean Air Act, EPA hereby finds that
these regulations are of national applicability. Accordingly, judicial
review of this action is available only by filing a petition for review
in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia
Circuit within 60 days of publication. Under section 307(b)(2) of the
Act, the requirements that are the subject of this document may not be
challenged later in judicial proceedings brought by EPA to enforce
these requirements.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 80
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedures,
Air pollution control, Gasoline, Motor vehicle pollution.
Dated: June 12, 1996.
Carol M. Browner,
Administrator.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, title 40, chapter I, part
80 of the Code of Federal Regulations, is amended as set forth below.
PART 80--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 80 continues to read as follows:
Authority: Secs. 114, 211, and 301(a), Clean Air Act as amended
(42 U.S.C. 7414, 7545, and 7601(a)).
2. Section 80.22 is amended by revising paragraph (j) to read as
follows:
Sec. 80.22 Controls and prohibitions.
* * * * *
(j) After July 1, 1996 every retailer and wholesale purchaser-
consumer handling over 10,000 gallons (37,854 liters) of fuel per month
shall limit each nozzle from which gasoline or methanol is introduced
into motor vehicles to a maximum fuel flow rate not to exceed 10
gallons per minute (37.9 liters per minute). The flow rate may be
controlled through any means in the pump/dispenser system, provided the
nozzle flow rate does not exceed 10 gallons per minute (37.9 liters per
minute). After January 1, 1998 this requirement applies to every
retailer and wholesale purchaser-consumer. Any dispensing pump that is
dedicated exclusively to heavy-duty vehicles, boats, or airplanes is
exempt from this requirement.
[FR Doc. 96-16205 Filed 6-25-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P