[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 101 (Thursday, May 24, 2001)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 28808-28812]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-13140]



[[Page 28807]]

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

Part III





Environmental Protection Agency





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



40 CFR Part 80



Approval of Colorado's Petition To Relax the Federal Gasoline Reid 
Vapor Pressure Volatility Standard for 2001; Final Rule and Proposed 
Rule

  Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 101 / Thursday, May 24, 2001 / Rules 
and Regulations  

[[Page 28808]]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 80

[FRL-6984-7]


Approval of Colorado's Petition To Relax the Federal Gasoline 
Reid Vapor Pressure Volatility Standard for 2001

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (``EPA'' or ``the 
Agency'') is taking direct final action approving the State of 
Colorado's June 23, 2000, petition to relax the federal Reid Vapor 
Pressure (``RVP'') gasoline standard that applies to gasoline 
introduced into commerce in the Denver/Boulder area from June 1 to 
September 15 (the ozone control season). By this action, the RVP 
standard will be relaxed from 7.8 pounds per square inch (``psi'') to 
9.0 psi for the 2001 ozone control season. The Agency does not believe 
that this action will cause environmental harm to the Denver/Boulder 
area. The area has been in compliance with the ozone standard since 
1987. The area's gasoline has been subject to a 9.0 psi RVP standard 
since 1992 because EPA has approved relaxations of Denver/Boulder's RVP 
standard from 7.8 psi to 9.0 psi for the past eight years.

DATES: This action will be effective July 23, 2001, unless the Agency 
receives adverse or critical comments or a request for a public hearing 
by June 25, 2001. If the Agency receives adverse or critical comments, 
EPA will publish in the Federal Register a timely withdrawal of this 
direct final rule informing the public that this rule will not take 
effect.

ADDRESSES: Any person wishing to submit comments should submit them (in 
duplicate, if possible) to the two dockets listed below, with a copy 
forwarded 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 petition are available 
for inspection in public docket A-2000-53 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 8:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m., Monday through 
Friday. A duplicate docket CO-RVP-01 has been established at U.S. EPA 
Region VIII, 999 18th Street, Suite 500, Denver, CO, 80202-2466, and is 
available for inspection during normal working hours. Interested 
persons wishing to examine the documents in this docket 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: 
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Regulated Entities

    Entities potentially affected by this rule are those regulated 
entities involved with the production, distribution, importation, and 
sale of gasoline that is supplied and consumed in the Denver/Boulder, 
Colorado nonattainment area.\1\ Regulated categories include:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ This area encompasses Denver's entire six-county 
Consolidated Metropolitan Statistical Area, with the exception of 
Rocky Mountain National park in Boulder County and the eastern 
portions of Adams and Arapahoe counties.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Category                  Examples of regulated entities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry...........................  Gasoline refiners and importers,
                                      gasoline terminals, gasoline
                                      truckers, blenders, gasoline
                                      retailers and wholeslae purchaser-
                                      consumers.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a 
guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this 
rule. To determine whether you are affected by this rule, you should 
carefully examine the requirements in Sec. 80.27 of title 40 of the 
Code of Federal Regulations (``CFR''). If you have any questions 
regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, 
consult the person listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION 
CONTACT section.

I. Background

A. History of Gasoline Volatility Regulation

    In 1987, EPA determined that gasoline had become increasingly 
volatile, causing an increase in evaporative emissions from gasoline-
powered sources. The most common measure of fuel volatility under 
ambient conditions--which is useful in evaluating vehicle evaporative 
emissions--is the Reid Vapor Pressure (``RVP''). These emissions from 
gasoline, referred to as volatile organic compounds (``VOCs''), are 
precursors for ozone and contribute to the nation's ground-level ozone 
problem. Ground-level ozone causes health problems, including damaged 
lung tissue, reduced lung function, and lung sensitization to other 
pollutants.
    Under authority in section 211(c) of the Clean Air Act (as amended 
in 1977), EPA promulgated regulations on March 22, 1989 that set 
maximum volatility levels for gasoline sold during the summer ozone 
control season. These regulations were referred to as Phase I of a two-
phase nationwide \2\ program, which was designed to reduce the 
volatility of commercial gasoline during the summer high ozone season 
by setting maximum RVP standards.\3\ On June 11, 1990, EPA promulgated 
more stringent volatility controls for Phase II.\4\ The requirements 
established maximum volatility standards of 9.0 psi and 7.8 psi 
(depending on the state, the month, and the area's ozone attainment 
status) during the ozone control season--June 1 to September 15.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Hawaii, Alaska and U.S. territories were excepted.
    \3\ 54 FR 11868 (March 22, 1989).
    \4\ 55 FR 23658 (June 11, 1990).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The 1990 CAA Amendments established a new section 211(h) to address 
fuel volatility. Section 211(h) requires EPA to promulgate regulations 
making it unlawful to sell, offer for sale, dispense, supply, offer for 
supply, transport, or introduce into commerce gasoline with an RVP 
level in excess of 9.0 psi during the high ozone season. It further 
requires EPA to establish more stringent RVP standards in non-
attainment areas if EPA finds such standards ``necessary to generally 
achieve comparable evaporative emissions (on a per vehicle basis) in 
non-attainment areas, taking into consideration the enforceability of 
such standards, the need of an area for emission control and economic 
factors.'' Section 211(h) bans EPA from establishing a volatility 
standard more stringent than 9.0 psi in an attainment area, except that 
EPA may impose a lower (more stringent) standard in any former ozone 
non-attainment area redesignated to attainment.
    On December 12, 1991, EPA promulgated regulations to modify the 
Phase II volatility regulations pursuant to section 211(h).\5\ The 
modified regulations prohibited the sale of gasoline with an RVP above 
9.0 psi in all areas designated attainment for ozone, beginning in 
1992. Areas designated as non-attainment retained the original Phase II 
standards published in 1990.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 56 FR 64704 (December 12, 1991).
    \6\ 55 FR 23658 (June 11, 1990).

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

[[Page 28809]]

    As stated in the preamble for the Phase II volatility controls,\7\ 
and reiterated in the proposed change to the volatility standards 
published in 1991,\8\ EPA will rely on states to initiate changes to 
the EPA volatility program that they believe will enhance local air 
quality and/or increase the economic efficiency of the program within 
the statutory limits.\9\ The Governor of a state may petition EPA to 
set a volatility standard less stringent than 7.8 psi for some month or 
months in a non-attainment area. The petition must demonstrate the 
existence of a particular local economic impact that makes such changes 
appropriate and must demonstrate that sufficient alternative programs 
are available to achieve attainment and maintenance of the ozone NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ The Phase II final rulemaking discussed procedures by which 
states could petition EPA for more or less stringent volatility 
standards. See 55 FR 23660 (June 11, 1990).
    \8\ See 56 FR 24242 (May 29, 1991).
    \9\ See CAA section 211(h)(1) (allowing EPA to set a standard 
more stringent than 9.0 psi as necessary to achieve comparative 
emissions in nonattainment areas considering enforceability, the 
need of an area for emissions control and economic factors).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. History of Federal RVP Requirements for the Denver/Boulder Area

    On November 6, 1991, EPA issued ozone nonattainment designations 
pursuant to section 107(d)(4)(A) of the Act (56 FR 56694). In that 
notice, EPA designated the Denver-Boulder area as a nonattainment 
area\10\ and classified it as a ``transitional area'' as determined 
under section 185A of the CAA.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ The nonattainment area encompasses Denver's entire six-
county Consolidated Metropolitan Statistical Area, with the 
exception of Rocky Mountain National Park in Boulder County and the 
eastern portions of Adams and Arapahoe Counties.
    \11\ Section 185A defines a transitional area as ``an area 
designated as an ozone nonattainment area as of the date of 
enactment of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 [that] has not 
violated the national primary ambient air quality standard for ozone 
for the 36-month period commencing on January 1, 1987, and ending on 
December 31, 1989.'' In fact, according to monitoring data, the 
Denver-Boulder area attained and has continued to maintain the 0.12 
parts per million (ppm) 1-hour standard since 1987.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Because the Denver/Boulder area was designated as a transitional 
nonattainment area, the volatility standard applicable under the 
federal RVP rule promulgated on December 12, 1991, was 9.0 psi RVP in 
May and 7.8 psi from June 1 to September 15, beginning in 1992.\12\ 
Since 1992, in response to petitions from the Governor of Colorado, EPA 
has waived the 7.8 psi RVP requirement for the Denver/Boulder area and 
required only 9.0 psi RVP in the area for the ozone control season.\13\ 
For in-depth discussions of these actions, please refer to the Federal 
Register notices. In general, EPA granted these petitions to relax the 
7.8 psi standard based on evidence presented by Colorado that showed 
economic hardship to consumers and industry if the 7.8 psi standard 
were retained. EPA's decision to grant these petitions was also based 
on evidence that demonstrated that the 7.8 psi standard was not 
necessary given the area's record of continued attainment of the 1-hour 
ozone standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ The standard applicable in other areas of Colorado is 9.0 
psi from May 1 to September 15.
    \13\ See 53 FR 26067 (April 30, 1993); 59 FR 15629 (April 4, 
1994); 61 FR 16391 (April 15, 1996); and 63 FR 31627 (June 10, 
1998).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On August 8, 1996, the Governor of Colorado submitted a maintenance 
plan and requested EPA to redesignate the Denver/Boulder area to 
attainment for the 1-hour ozone NAAQS.\14\ EPA did not proceed with any 
action on the Governor's request as the maintenance plan had both legal 
and technical problems which precluded EPA's full approval.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ In order for EPA to redesignate an area to attainment under 
section 107(d)(3)(D) of the CAA, the Governor must submit a 
redesignation request and a maintenance plan that meets the 
requirements of section 107(d)(3)(E) and section 175A of the CAA, 
the redesignation requirement of the General Preamble for the 
Implementation of Title I of CAA Amendments of 1990 (57 FR 13498 
(April 16, 1991), and 57 FR 18070 (April 28, 1992)), and addresses 
the provisions of EPA's redesignation policies and guidance 
documents. In general, the ozone maintenance plan must demonstrate 
long-term (i.e., 10 years) maintenance of the ozone NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In July 1997,\15\ EPA established a new 8-hour ozone NAAQS of 0.08 
parts per million (ppm). At that time, EPA also promulgated regulations 
governing when the 1-hour ozone standard would no longer apply to 
areas. On June 5, 1998 (63 FR 31014), in accordance with these 
regulations, EPA issued final rules for several areas that were 
attaining the 1-hour standard, including the Denver/Boulder area, 
finding that the 1-hour ozone standard no longer applied to these 
areas.\16\ As a result of the finding that the 1-hour ozone standard no 
longer applied to the Denver/Boulder area, the August 8, 1996, 1-hour 
ozone redesignation and maintenance plan became moot and no further 
action was contemplated by either the State or EPA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 62 FR 38856 (July 18, 1997).
    \16\ Similar rulemakings for other areas were promulgated on 
July 22, 1998 (63 FR 39432) and June 9, 1999 (64 FR 30911).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In 1998, the governor of Colorado again requested that EPA waive 
the federal 7.8 psi RVP requirement for the Denver/Boulder area. 
Finding that while a 9.0 psi RVP standard was in place, the Denver/
Boulder area had attained the 1-hour ozone standard and was monitoring 
attainment of the 8-hour standard since 1994, EPA concluded that 
retaining the 9.0 psi RVP standard would not cause the area's air 
quality to significantly deteriorate. See 63 FR 31627, (June 10, 1998). 
Moreover, EPA concluded that imposing a 7.8 psi standard would result 
in significant costs for consumers and refiners. EPA therefore extended 
its waiver relaxing the federal RVP standard for the area to 9.0 psi 
for the ozone control seasons of 1998 through 2000. EPA explained that 
designations under the new 8-hour standard would be made by July 2000, 
and that consideration of a permanent revision to the federal RVP 
standard for the area would be appropriate at that time.
    On May 14, 1999, the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia 
Circuit (D.C. Circuit) remanded, but did not vacate, the revised 8-hour 
ozone standard.\17\ On February 27, 2001, the Supreme Court affirmed in 
part and reversed in part the judgment of the Court of Appeals and 
remanded the decision to the Court of Appeals for further 
proceedings.\18\ In the interim period, while the Supreme Court was 
considering the case, EPA reinstated the l-hour ozone standard in all 
areas of the nation to ensure the availability of a fully enforceable 
Federal ozone standard to protect public health.\19\ With reinstatement 
of the 1-hour ozone standard, the 1-hour standard designations and 
classifications that applied in such areas at the time the standard was 
revoked were also reinstated. Reinstatement of the 1-hour standard in 
the Denver/Boulder area became effective January 16, 2001. With 
reinstatement of the standard, the Denver/Boulder area returned to 
nonattainment for the 1-hour ozone standard with a ``transitional'' 
classification.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ American Trucking Assoc. v. EPA, 175 F.3d 1027 (D.C. Cir. 
1999).
    \18\ Whitman v. Am. Trucking Assn'ns, 121 S.Ct. 903 (2001).
    \19\ 65 FR 45182 (July 20, 2000).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As a result of the reinstatement of the nonattainment designation, 
the Denver Regional Air Quality Council and the State have developed a 
revised maintenance plan that updates the August 8, 1996, Governor's 
submittal and addresses EPA's technical and legal concerns with the 
1996 submittal. The Governor submitted a new redesignation request and 
revised maintenance plan to EPA on November 30, 2000. The revised 
maintenance plan submittal incorporates a gasoline RVP limit of 9.0 
psi. Since maintenance of the 1-hour ozone NAAQS is shown for the 
entire

[[Page 28810]]

maintenance time period of 1993 through 2013 with this 9.0 psi limit, 
Colorado has requested that the 9.0 psi summertime RVP limit (10.0 psi 
for ethanol blends) be made permanent for the Denver/Boulder area once 
EPA approves the redesignation request and maintenance plan. EPA 
anticipates a final approval of the State's redesignation request in 
the late spring of 2001.

II. Colorado's Petition

A. What Did Colorado Request in Its Petition?

    On June 23, 2000, The Honorable Bill Owens, Governor of Colorado, 
sent a letter to Ms. Rebecca Hammer, Acting Administrator of EPA's 
Region VIII, requesting that EPA provide a waiver of the 7.8 psi 
federal RVP standard and that ``the 9.0 psi volatility standard be 
continued in the Denver/Boulder metropolitan area for the summertime 
ozone season in 2001.''

B. Justification for Granting Colorado's Petition To Waive the 7.8 RVP 
Standard for 2001

    As described above, for changes to the federal volatility standard 
EPA must find the following: (1) The existence of a particular local 
economic impact that makes changes to the otherwise applicable standard 
appropriate; and (2) that sufficient alternative programs are available 
to achieve attainment and maintenance of the ozone NAAQS. The petition 
and available evidence indicate that imposing the 7.8 psi standard 
would result in costs to consumers and industry and that these costs 
are not reasonable given that the 7.8 psi RVP standard is not necessary 
to ensure continued attainment of the 1-hour ozone standard.
    The Colorado Petroleum Association\20\ has estimated that the cost 
of providing gasoline to the Denver market without the waiver would 
cost the refiners who supply the Denver area approximately $15-25 
million. Six refiners supply the Denver market and these refiners vary 
in size, refining capacity and complexity. The Colorado Petroleum 
Association estimates that all of the refiners would have to spend 
capital dollars to upgrade and reconfigure their facilities to provide 
gasoline blended at the 7.8 psi RVP level for the Denver market. 
Documentation submitted in support of Colorado's petition for 
relaxation of the 7.8 psi RVP standard indicate that implementation of 
that standard would cost the consumer about 1.5 cents more per gallon 
of gasoline with an overall seasonal cost of $4,500,000.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ Memorandum from Stan Dempsey, Colorado Petroleum 
Association, Denver, CO, to Kerri Fiedler, EPA Region VIII, dated 2/
27/2001.
    \21\ Memorandum from K.B. Livo, Colorado Department of Public 
Health and Environment, to Kerri Fiedler, Region VIII, dated 12/07/
2000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The record also supports the conclusion that retention of the 9.0 
psi standard will not cause deterioration of air quality in the Denver/
Boulder area. As stated above, the area has continued to meet the 1-
hour ozone standard since 1987 without the implementation of the 7.8 
psi standard. With continued vehicle fleet turnover to lower-emitting 
vehicles and continued implementation of the State's existing VOC and 
NOX control programs,\22\ we believe sufficient controls are 
in place to ensure maintenance of the ozone NAAQS in the short-term.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ In particular, EPA notes that Colorado has had a motor 
vehicle inspections and maintenance program since 1981 (Automobile 
Inspection and Readjustment, State Regulation No. 11 (``Motor 
Vehicle Emissions Inspection Program'')). A more stringent and 
effective ``enhanced'' inspection and maintenance program began in 
the Denver/Boulder area in 1995.
    In addition, Regulation No. 3 (``Air Contaminant Emissions 
Notices'') and Regulation No. 6 (``Standards of Performance for New 
Stationary Sources'') control emissions from industrial facilities 
and cap VOC and NOX emission from new or modified major 
stationary sources, and Regulation No. 7 (``Emissions of Volatile 
Organic Compounds'') contains RACT requirements for commercial and 
industrial sources of VOCs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Governor has requested a one-year extension of EPA's waiver of 
the federal 7.8 psi RVP standard for the Denver/Boulder area, pending 
final approval of the State's redesignation request. EPA believes that 
the appropriate time to assign a permanent RVP standard for the area 
will be following redesignation of the Denver/Boulder area.

III. Final EPA Action

    EPA has decided to grant Denver/Boulder's petition for approval of 
a waiver of the federal volatility standard of 7.8 psi RVP for the 2001 
ozone control season. The applicable federal volatility standard for 
the Denver/Boulder area for the 2001 ozone control season, therefore, 
will be 9.0 psi RVP. This action represents a continuation of 
previously approved relaxations of the RVP standard.
    Because this rulemaking merely extends for one additional year the 
waiver allowing the Denver/Boulder area to continue to receive gasoline 
containing up to 9.0 psi RVP as it has since 1992, EPA is publishing 
this rule without prior proposal because we view this as a 
noncontroversial action and anticipate no adverse comment. In the 
``Proposed Rules'' section of today's Federal Register, however, we are 
publishing a separate document that will serve as the proposal to grant 
Colorado's petition if adverse comments are filed. This direct final 
rule will be effective on July 23, 2001 without further notice unless 
we receive adverse comment by June 25, 2001. If EPA receives adverse 
comment, we will publish a timely withdrawal of this direct final rule 
in the Federal Register informing the public that the rule will not 
take effect. We will address all public comments in a subsequent final 
rule based on today's proposed rule. We will not institute a second 
comment period on this action. Any parties interested in commenting 
must do so at this time.

IV. 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 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 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 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

[[Page 28811]]

Federal agencies to assess the effects of their regulatory actions on 
State, local, and tribal governments and the private sector. Under 
section 202 of the UMRA, EPA generally must prepare a written 
statement, including a cost-benefit analysis, for proposed and final 
rules with ``Federal mandates'' that may result in expenditures to 
State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or to the 
private sector of $100 million or more in any one year. Before 
promulgating an EPA rule for which a written statement is needed, 
section 205 of the UMRA generally requires EPA to identify and consider 
a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt the least 
costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative that 
achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of section 205 do 
not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover, 
section 205 allows EPA to adopt an alternative other than the least 
costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative if the 
Administrator publishes with the final rule an explanation why that 
alternative was not adopted. Before EPA establishes any regulatory 
requirements that may significantly or uniquely affect small 
governments, including tribal governments, it must have developed under 
section 203 of the UMRA a small government agency plan. The plan must 
provide for notifying affected small governments, enabling officials of 
affected small governments to have meaningful and timely input in the 
development of EPA regulatory proposals with significant Federal 
intergovernmental mandates, and informing, educating, and advising 
small governments on compliance with the regulatory requirements.
    EPA has determined that this 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 continues the current relaxation 
of the Federal 7.8 psi RVP standard and thus avoids imposing the costs 
that the existing Federal regulations would otherwise impose. Today's 
rule, therefore, is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 and 
205 of the UMRA. In addition, because small governments will not be 
significantly or uniquely affected by this rule, the Agency is not 
required to develop a plan with regard to small governments.

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 (April 23, 1997)) applies 
to any rule that: (1) Is determined to be ``economically significant'' 
as defined under Executive Order 12866, and (2) concerns an 
environmental health or safety risk that 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 rule is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is not 
an economically significant action as defined by Executive Order 12866, 
and because it does not address an environmental health or safety risk 
that would have a disproportionate effect on children.

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 rule does not have federalism implications. Today's rule 
affects the level of the Federal RVP standard with which businesses 
supplying gasoline to the Denver/Boulder area must comply. It will not 
have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship 
between the national government and the States or or on the 
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of 
government as specified in Executive Order 13132. Therefore, Executive 
Order 13132 does not apply to this rule.

F. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement 
Act of 1995 (``NTTAA''), Public Law 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 use available and applicable voluntary consensus standards. This 
rule does not involve technical standards. Therefore, EPA did not 
consider the use of any voluntary consensus standards.

G. Congressional Review

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the 
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally 
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating 
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, 
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the 
United States. EPA will submit 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 United States prior 
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A ``major rule'' 
cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal 
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 
804(a).

H. Regulatory Flexibility

    After considering the economic impacts of today's final rule on 
small entities, EPA has concluded 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 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. 603 
and 604. Thus, an agency may conclude 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. We 
have therefore concluded that today's final rule will relieve 
regulatory burden for all small entities.

[[Page 28812]]

I. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian 
Tribal Governments

    ``On January 1, 2001, Executive Order 13084 was superseded by 
Executive Order 13175. However, this rule was developed during the 
period when Executive Order 13084 was still in force, and so tribal 
considerations were addressed under Executive Order 13084''. Executive 
Order 13175, entitled ``Consultation and Coordination with Indian 
Tribal Governments'' (65 FR 67249 (November 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 rulemaking does not have tribal implications. The 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 and will not have substantial direct effects on 
tribal governments, on the relationship between the Federal government 
and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities 
between the Federal government and Indian tribes, as specified in 
Executive Order 13175. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to 
this rule.

J. Electronic Copies of Rulemaking

    A copy of this action is available on the Internet at http://www.epa.gov/otaq under the title: ``Direct Final Rule--Approval of 
Colorado's Petition to Relax the Federal Gasoline Reid Vapor Pressure 
Volatility Standard for 2001.''

K. Statutory Authority

    Authority for this action is in sections 211(h) and 301(a) of the 
Clean Air Act as amended by the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 (42 
U.S.C. 7545(h) and 7601(a).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 80

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedures, 
Air pollution control, Fuel additives, Gasoline, Motor vehicle and 
motor vehicle engines, Motor vehicle pollution, Penalties, Reporting 
and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: May 16, 2001.
Christine Todd Whitman,
Administrator.

    For the reasons set forth in the preamble, part 80 of title 40 of 
the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:

PART 80--REGULATIONS OF FUELS AND FUEL ADDITIVES

    1. The authority citation for part 80 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: Sections 114, 211, and 301(a) of the Clean Air Act as 
amended, 42 U.S.C. 7414, 7545 and 7601(a).


    2. In Sec. 80.27(a)(2), the table is amended by revising the entry 
for Colorado and footnote 2 to read as follows:


Sec. 80.27  Controls and prohibitions on gasoline volatility.

* * * * *
    (a) * * *
    (2) * * *

                               Applicable Standards \1\ 1992 and Subsequent Years
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                     State                           May          June         July        August     September
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Colorado \2\...................................         9.0          7.8          7.8          7.8         7.8
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Standards are expressed in pounds per square inch (psi).
\2\ The standard for 1992 through 2001 in the Denver-Boulder area designated nonattainment for the 1-hour ozone
  NAAQS in 1991 (see 40 CFR 81.306) will be 9.0 for June 1 through September 15.

[FR Doc. 01-13140 Filed 5-23-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P