Results of Section 610 Review of Emission Standards for Tier 2 Vehicles and Gasoline Sulfur
On February

10, 2000 (65 FR 6698), EPA published emission standards for light

duty vehicles and light

- duty

trucks requiring vehicle manufacturers to reduce tailp ipe emission s. Specifically , EPA sought to reduce emissions of nitrogen oxides and non

methane hydrocarbons, pollutants which contribute to ozone pollution. The rulemaking also required oil refiners to limit the sulfur content of the gasoline they produc e
. Sulfur in gasoline has a detrimental impact on catal ys t performance and the sulfur requirements have enabled the introduction of advanced technolog y emission control s ys tems on motor vehicles. Pursuant to Section 610 of the Regulatory Flexibility

Act, EPA has completed a review of this rule to determine if the provisions related to small entities should be continued without change, or should be rescinded or amended to minimize adverse economic impacts on small entities. The Agency published the Tier 2 Motor Vehicle Emissions Standards and Gasoline Sulfur Control Requirements rule (Tier 2 Program) on February 10, 2000 (65 FR 6698). The program significantl y reduced emissions related to ozone and particulate matter from new passenger cars and light tru cks, including pickup trucks, vans, minivans, and sport

- utility

vehicles. The program also required refiners to significantly reduce the level of sulfur in their gasoline. The Tier 2 program required vehicle manufacturers to reduce new vehicle emissions, primarily

nitrogen oxide, volatile organic compounds, and particulate matter. In cluded as 'manufacturers' were several companies that convert gasoline vehicles to operate on alternative fuel, and several that import vehicles into the U.S. and upgrade the ir emission control systems to comply with EPA specifications. Most of these companies are small entities, and a SBREFA panel recommended that EPA provide special flexibility

to these ty

pes of vehicle manufacturers. In the final rule, EPA adopted these recommendations, including providing more time before the companies' vehicles were required to meet the emission standards otherwise applicable to larger manufacturers. The Tier 2 program also required oil refiners to produce gasoline with much

reduced content of sulfur, primarily to protect the improved catal ys t sy stems anticipated on new Tier 2 vehicles. An informal coalition of small refining companies formed to participate in the rulemaking and the SBREFA panel. As with the vehicle provisions of the r ule, EPA adopted the recommendations of the small refiners, providing more lead time for meeting the gasoline sulfur requirements. Discussion of the Five Statutory Factors 1. Continued need for the ruleOne of the factors that must be considered in a se ction 610 review is the

continued need for the rule under review. The Agency finds that the provisions relating to small entities functioned well to bring small vehicle manufacturers into compliance with the overall standards. This limited set of manufact urers was able to successfully take advantage of the less aggressive phase

- in and yet ultimately comply with the primary emission standards. Similarly , small refiners took advantage of the less aggressive phase

i n provisions for gasoline sulfur control in order to ultimately comply with the overall gasoline sulfur requirements . EPA is not aware of any small entities that wished to use these provisions (or separate refiner hardship relief provisions) and yet were unable to use them to facilitate compliance with the overall Tier 2/Gasoline Sulfur program

. 2. Nature of complaints or comments received concerning the rule. EPA received no substantive public comments durin g the review period for the 2000 final rule. (We received one comment related to diesel s ulfur control, which was not relevant to the gasoline sulfur control program in the 2000 rule.) 3. Complexity

of the Rule The Agency

must also consider the complexity of the rule under review. The 2000 rule included a number of provisions aimed at easing the burden of compliance for both small manufacturers of vehicles and small refiners. In both cases, the provisions provided additional lead time before the overall requirements became effective for these companies. These provisions did not add complex ity to the rule, and , in some cases , reduced or postponed actions that these companies would have otherwise been required to undertake. EPA believes that the transitional flexibilities afforded b y these provisions mitigate the implementation complexity of the rule while meeting statutory objectives. 4. Extent to which the rule overlaps, duplicates, or conflicts with other Federal, State, or local government rules The Agency

must also consider the extent to which the 2000 rule overlaps, duplicates, or con flicts with other Federal, State, or local government rules. Throughout the development, proposal, and implementation of the rule, EPA worked closely with other federal agencies, and organizations representing California, other states, and local governments. The final rule does not duplicate, conflict with, or unnecessarily overlap with similar programs administered by these entities, and in some cases (e.g., the California light duty vehicle program) has been fully complementary

. 5. The degree to whic h technology , economic conditions, or other factors have changed in the area affected by the rule Finally , the Agency

must consider the degree to which technology , economic conditions, or other factors have changed in the area affected by the rule under review. Vehicle emission control technology and refinery

gasoline sulfur reduction technologyhave continued to evolve over the past decade. Also, EPA has issued additional

regulatory

requirements that apply

to both the vehicle manufacturing and oil refin ing industries. However, EPA does not believe that any of these factors, or the general economic fluctuations that these industries have faced, affect the value of the small entity related provisions of the final rule. Conclusion Based on EPA’s Section 610 review of the small

- entity related provisions of the 2000 Tier 2 Vehicle and Gasoline Sulfur final rule , including the fact that no relevant comments were received as a result of the review, we plan no amendments in response to this review at this tim e. As part of any future rulemakings in this area, EPA will continue to work with small

- entity representatives to reduce unfavorable impacts to the extent appropriate while meeting the need for emission reductions.