28808 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 101 / Thursday, May 24, 2001 / Rules and Regulations

1This area encompasses Denver’s entire sixcounty Consolidated Metropolitan Statistical Area,

with the exception of Rocky Mountain National

park in Boulder County and the eastern portions of

Adams and Arapahoe counties.

2Hawaii, Alaska and U.S. territories were

excepted.

3 54 FR 11868 (March 22, 1989).

4 55 FR 23658 (June 11, 1990).

5 56 FR 64704 (December 12, 1991).

6 55 FR 23658 (June 11, 1990).

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:

babst.richard@epamail.epa.gov.

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:

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 § 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. Groundlevel 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.

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 nonattainment 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

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 101 / Thursday, May 24, 2001 / Rules and Regulations 28809

7The 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).

8See 56 FR 24242 (May 29, 1991).

9See 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).

10The 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.

11Section 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.

12The standard applicable in other areas of

Colorado is 9.0 psi from May 1 to September 15.

13See 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).

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 longterm (i.e., 10 years) maintenance of the ozone

NAAQS.

15 62 FR 38856 (July 18, 1997).

16Similar rulemakings for other areas were

promulgated on July 22, 1998 (63 FR 39432) and

June 9, 1999 (64 FR 30911).

17American Trucking Assoc. v. EPA, 175 F.3d

1027 (D.C. Cir. 1999).

18Whitman v. Am. Trucking Assn’ns, 121 S.Ct.

903 (2001).

19 65 FR 45182 (July 20, 2000).

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 nonattainment 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.

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 area10 and classified it as

a ‘‘transitional area’’ as determined

under section 185A of the CAA.11

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

28810 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 101 / Thursday, May 24, 2001 / Rules and Regulations

20Memorandum from Stan Dempsey, Colorado

Petroleum Association, Denver, CO, to Kerri

Fiedler, EPA Region VIII, dated 2/27/2001.

21Memorandum from K.B. Livo, Colorado

Department of Public Health and Environment, to

Kerri Fiedler, Region VIII, dated 12/07/2000.

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.

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

Association20 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

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.

The Governor has requested a oneyear 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

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

28812 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 101 / Thursday, May 24, 2001 / Rules and Regulations

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 § 80.27(a)(2), the table is

amended by revising the entry for

Colorado and footnote 2 to read as

follows:

§ 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

1Standards are expressed in pounds per square inch (psi).

2The 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