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 lightduty vehicles and light-duty trucks requiring vehicle manufacturers to reduce tailpipe 

emissions. Specifically, EPA sought to reduce emissions of nitrogen oxides and nonmethane hydrocarbons, pollutants which contribute to ozone pollution. The rulemaking 

also required oil refiners to limit the sulfur content of the gasoline they produce. Sulfur 

in gasoline has a detrimental impact on catalyst performance and the sulfur requirements 

have enabled the introduction of advanced technology emission control systems 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continued without change, or should be rescinded or amended to minimize adverse 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 significantly reduced emissions related to ozone and particulate 

matter from new passenger cars and light trucks, 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. 

Included 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 

their 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 types 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 muchreduced content of sulfur, primarily to protect the improved catalyst systems 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 rule, 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 rule
One of the factors that must be considered in a section 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 manufacturers 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 phasein 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 during the review period for the 

2000 final rule. (We received one comment related to diesel sulfur 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 complexity 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 by 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 conflicts 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 which 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 technology
have continued to evolve over the past decade. Also, EPA has issued additional 

regulatory requirements that apply to both the vehicle manufacturing and oil refining 

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 time. 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.