[Federal Register Volume 67, Number 16 (Thursday, January 24, 2002)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 3468-3470]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 02-1494]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

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: [email protected].

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'' (65 FR 67249, 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