[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 124 (Wednesday, June 26, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 33033-33039]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-16205]



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

[[Page 33034]]

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 80

[FRL-5522-3]
RIN 2060-AG43


Regulation of Fuels and Fuel Additives: Controls Applicable to 
Gasoline Retailers and Wholesale Purchaser-Consumers; 10 Gallon Per 
Minute Fuel Dispensing Limit Requirement Implementation

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: On January 20, 1993 EPA finalized a requirement limiting 
vehicle service station fuel dispensing rates to 10 gallons per minute 
(gpm) maximum, beginning January 1, 1996, for retailers and wholesale 
purchaser-consumers handling over 10,000 gallons of fuel per month (55 
FR 16002, March 24, 1993). In 1995, various groups in the petroleum 
industry requested that EPA delay the January 1, 1996 deadline, due 
mainly to the lack of available retrofit parts needed for compliance 
with the 10gpm requirement. This direct final rule delays the 
implementation date of the 10gpm requirement from January 1, 1996 until 
July 1, 1996. In addition, this direct final rule clarifies that the 
hardware/software for controlling the fuel dispensing rate may be 
located anywhere in the pump/dispenser system and that refueling 
facilities are exempt from the 10gpm requirement if used exclusively to 
refuel heavy-duty vehicles, boats or airplanes.
    Today's action is beneficial to affected parties which are not 
already in compliance with the 10gpm requirement. It provides 
additional time for manufacturers of fuel dispensing hardware to 
certify and produce the necessary equipment; and provides additional 
time for service station owners and fleet managers handling over 10,000 
gallons of fuel per month to install the equipment where it is needed. 
It is not expected to result in any significant economic impact to any 
of the affected parties. Today's action has no impact on service 
station owners and fleet managers handling less than 10,000 gallons of 
fuel per month because they are not required to meet the 10gpm 
requirement until January 1, 1998.
    Today's action does not result in any significant environmental 
impacts. The six-month delay will only increase fuel spillage during 
refueling events (on a fleet average basis) by approximately .03 grams 
per gallon (or less) of fuel dispensed. For comparison purposes, the 
onboard refueling vapor recovery refueling (ORVR) emission standard is 
.20 grams per gallon of fuel dispensed for 1998 light-duty vehicles.

DATES: This rule will be effective August 26, 1996, unless adverse 
comments are received by July 26, 1996. If such adverse comments are 
received, EPA will publish a timely notice in the Federal Register 
withdrawing this rule.

ADDRESSES: Materials relevant to the initial final rule, and today's 
action are available for inspection in Public Dockets A-89-18 and A-95-
53 at Air Docket Section, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, First 
Floor, Waterside Mall, Room M-1500, 401 M Street SW, Washington, DC 
20460 (telephone 202-260-7548, fax 202-260-4400) between the hours of 8 
a.m. and 5:30 p.m. A reasonable fee may be charged by EPA for copying 
docket material. Any such notice or comments per the requirements of 
this action should be submitted to this same address, with a 
complimentary copy, if possible, to Karl Simon or Dave Good at the 
address listed below.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Karl Simon at the U.S. EPA, 401 M 
Street SW (mail code 6405J), Washington DC, 20460, telephone (202) 233-
9299; or Dave Good at the U. S. EPA, 2565 Plymouth Rd, Ann Arbor, 
Michigan, 48105, telephone (313) 668-4450.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Regulated Entities

    Entities potentially regulated by this action are retailers and 
wholesale purchaser-consumers of gasoline and methanol which handle 
over 10,000 gallons of fuel per month, for the purpose of refueling 
passenger cars and light-duty trucks. Regulated entities would include 
the following:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Category                  Examples of regulated entities     
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry.....................  Service station owners, service station  
                                managers, fleet managers who operate a  
                                refueling facility to refuel motor      
                                vehicles.                               
Federal Government...........  Federal facilities, including military   
                                bases, who operate a refueling facility 
                                to refuel motor vehicles.               
State, Local and Tribal        State, local and tribal governments who  
 Governments.                   operate a refueling facilities to refuel
                                motor vehicles.                         
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a 
guide for readers regarding entities likely to be regulated by this 
action. This table lists the types of entities that EPA is now aware 
could potentially be regulated by this action. Other types of entities 
not listed in the table could also be regulated. To determine whether 
your facility is regulated by this action, you should carefully examine 
the criteria contained in Sec. 80.22(j) of title 40 of the Code of 
Federal Regulations, as modified by today's action. If you have 
questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular 
entity, consult one of the persons listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER 
INFORMATION CONTACT section.

Table of Contents

I. Need for Delayed Implementation
II. Public Participation and Effective Date
III. Administrative Requirements
IV. Unfunded Mandates Act
V. Judicial Review

I. Need for Delayed Implementation

A. Introduction and Background

    On March 24, 1993 the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 
published a final rule establishing the requirement to limit fuel pump 
dispensing rates to 10 gallons per minute (37.9 liters per minute) 
beginning January 1, 1996 for most facilities (58 FR 16002). This 
requirement applies to retailers and wholesale purchaser-consumers of 
gasoline and methanol. For businesses handling 10,000 gallons or less 
of fuel per month, implementation of the limit on dispensing rates was 
delayed until January 1, 1998.
    The 10gpm requirement was originally proposed in the onboard 
refueling vapor recovery (ORVR) Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) 
see 52 FR 31162, August 19, 1987. The final ORVR requirements for cars 
and light trucks were published in 59 FR 16262, April 6, 1994. However, 
to achieve earlier spillage emission reductions, the 10 gpm requirement 
was finalized in the enhanced evaporative emission final rule along 
with a spitback emissions test, and published on March 24, 1993.
    The spitback test procedure was designed to ensure that no spillage

[[Page 33035]]

occurs when a vehicle is refueled at a rate of up to 10gpm. Fuel 
spitback can be a problem when the design of the fuel filler neck is 
inadequate to accommodate in-use fuel fill rates. The result can be 
fuel spillage, which is both an environmental and a safety hazard.
    In the rulemaking process, it was determined that the service 
station pumping rates needed to be limited to assure compatibility with 
the new ORVR systems. Note that approximately 20 percent of 1996 model 
year vehicles are already subject to spitback emission standards. ORVR 
requirements are scheduled to begin phase-in with the 1998 model year, 
with the earliest models entering the marketplace as early as January 
2, 1997.
    During the summer of 1995, various groups in the petroleum industry 
requested that EPA delay the January 1, 1996 deadline.\1\ \2\ \3\ \4\ 
Some of the reasons cited for this request were the lack of available 
parts for retrofitting gas pumps to meet this requirement, and the need 
for EPA enforcement guidance regarding procedures for determining 
compliance with the 10gpm limit. EPA has reviewed the need for and the 
potential impacts of delaying the January 1, 1996 deadline and 
concluded that the date of implementation should be delayed until July 
1, 1996. This direct final rule extends the deadline from January 1, 
1996 until July 1, 1996.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Letter from Michael A. McCord, Esq. on behalf of the 
Gasoline Pump Manufacturers Association; to Ms. Mary D. Nichols, 
Assistant Administrator, Office of Air and Radiation, EPA; July 10, 
1995; Docket A-95-53, document no. II-D-06.
    \2\ Letter from C. J. Krambuhl, Director of Manufacturing, 
Distribution and Marketing, American Petroleum Institute; to Ms. 
Mary D. Nichols, Assistant Administrator, Office of Air and 
Radiation, EPA; August 15, 1995; Docket A-95-53, document no. II-D-
10.
    \3\ Letter from Gene Mittermaier, President, Data Action 
Company; on behalf of the Petroleum Marketers Association of 
America; to Ms. Mary D. Nichols, Assistant Administrator, Office of 
Air and Radiation, EPA; July 1, 1995; Docket A-95-53, document no. 
II-D-12.
    \4\ Letter from S.D. Dermott, Manager of Marketing Department, 
Legislative & Regulatory Affairs, Exxon Company, U.S.A.; to Ms. Mary 
D. Nichols, Assistant Administrator, Office of Air and Radiation, 
EPA; July 28, 1995; Docket A-95-53, document no. II-D-03.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA concurs with the industry's belief that there was insufficient 
product availability of retrofit devices to ensure industry compliance 
with the January 1, 1996 deadline for that segment of the industry not 
already in compliance before January 1, 1996. While the Agency believes 
that a large percentage of nozzles do not dispense fuel in excess of 10 
gallons per minute, this shortfall of retrofit devices prevented the 
affected companies from procuring and installing the necessary 
equipment in the required time limit. Manufacturers of fuel dispensing 
hardware, including nozzles, dispensers, pumps and other items, have 
developed several widely differing designs to meet the dispensing 
limit. However, most of these products were not available in sufficient 
quantity until after January 1, 1996 as product development and 
certification reached a conclusion. For example, the American Petroleum 
Institute indicated in a November 8, 1995 letter to EPA, that 
``industry has already begun to respond with the introduction of 
devices, but many companies are just now gearing up for production.'' 
\5\ The attachment to that letter contains a table showing the types of 
10gpm flow limiters which will be marketed by seven manufacturers, for 
both conventional and stage II nozzles. As shown in the table, several 
of those devices are scheduled to begin production in November/
December, 1995 and several devices were awaiting approval by 
Underwriters Laboratory and the California Air Resources Board. Since 
manufacturers were just beginning production of these devices in the 
last quarter of 1996, the Agency believes that a substantial number of 
service stations were unable to comply with the 10gpm dispensing limit 
before the January 1, 1996 deadline. The Agency believes that six 
months additional lead time given to comply with the 10gpm dispensing 
limit will provide manufacturers of fuel dispensing hardware sufficient 
time to certify and produce any necessary equipment; and will allow 
affected facilities to determine if they are in compliance with the 
10gpm limit and if necessary, select the most appropriate control 
technology and safely install the equipment where it is needed. The 
Agency believes that delaying the implementation of the 10gpm 
requirement for more than six months is unnecessary because flow 
limiting devices are currently widely available, and a longer delay 
would tend to penalize the facilities which were in compliance prior to 
January 1, 1996 or shortly thereafter. As will be discussed later, EPA 
believes that the environmental impact of today's action will be 
minimal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Letter from C.J. Krambuhl, Director, Manufacturing, 
Distribution and Marketing, American Petroleum Institute; to Ms. 
Margo Oge, Director of the Office of Mobile Sources, EPA; November 
8, 1995; Docket A-95-53, document no. II-D-11, page 3 of Attachment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Impact on the Automobile Industry

    Automobile manufacturers have indicated that they would not be 
opposed to a six month delay of the 10gpm requirement.<SUP>6 They are 
primarily concerned about the compatibility of in-use fuel dispensing 
rates with vehicle ORVR systems (which are required on some 1998 model 
year vehicles). These systems are designed and developed on the 
presumption of a 10gpm maximum dispensing rate. Automobile 
manufacturers also indicated that fuel dispensing rates greater than 
10gpm ``may cause system problems that manufacturers have had little or 
no time to evaluate.'' <SUP>7 EPA has determined that a six month delay 
in the 10gpm requirement would not be detrimental to the automobile 
manufacturers' design and development of ORVR systems. These systems 
could be introduced as early as January 2, 1997. Therefore, a six month 
delay in the 10gpm requirement effective date will not be detrimental.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Letter from Gerald A. Esper, Director of Vehicle Environment 
Department, American Automobile Manufacturers Association, and 
Gregory J. Dana, Vice President and Technical Director, Association 
of International Automobile Manufacturers; to Alan Stout, EPA, dated 
October 12, 1995; Docket A-95-53, document no. II-D-05.
    \7\ Esper and Dana. See reference 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Impact on State and Local Government Programs

    This direct final rule is not expected to adversely impact state 
and local programs, with respect to State Implementation Plans (SIPs) 
or with respect to any fuel dispensing requirements which are imposed 
separately by state or local governments.
    The Agency believes that this direct final rule will have no effect 
(or a minimal effect) on SIPs since the environmental impact is very 
minimal.
    The limitation on in-use dispensing rates in section 80.22(j) of 
the regulations was issued under section 211(c) of the Act. As such, 
non-identical state fuel controls are generally preempted under section 
211(c)(4)(A) of the Act. This does not apply to state controls in 
California, as California is not subject to this preemption 
provision.<SUP>8 In addition, non-identical state controls in other 
states are not preempted where they have been submitted and approved as 
a revision to the State Implementation Plan, based on a showing that 
the state control is necessary to achieve the National Ambient Air 
Quality Standard that the Plan implements.<SUP>9
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Section 211(c)(4)(B) of the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. 7545.
    \9\ Section 211(c)(4)(C) of the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. 7545.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Today's direct final rule is not expected to have any impact on the 
fuel dispensing requirements which are already in place for the State 
of California. Currently, the California Air

[[Page 33036]]

Resources Board requires certification of stage II vapor recovery 
systems, including a requirement that the dispensing rate of the system 
not exceed 10gpm when only one nozzle associated with the product 
supply pump is operating. Today's direct final rule does not affect 
this requirement, either before or after the federal 10gpm requirements 
are implemented.
    The California Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) 
expressed concern that the petroleum industry's request for a two-year 
delay ``should not apply to any area mandated to install Stage II vapor 
recovery systems,'' <SUP>10 based on their belief that a two year delay 
would result in increased fuel spillage emissions. Although the BAAQMD 
letter supplied supporting fuel spillage data on one vehicle which was 
refueled at 12.8 gpm, the Agency believes that the vast majority of 
stage II nozzles are already in compliance with the 10gpm maximum flow 
rate requirement, and that a separate phase-in schedule is not 
justified for stage II nozzles. For the few possible cases of 
noncompliance (only two stage II systems have been certified above 
10gpm) the Agency believes that the incremental regulatory and 
enforcement complexity to set up a separate compliance schedule for 
stage II nozzles is not beneficial, especially since the delay period 
is only six months. For these reasons, and because the State of 
California is not preempted from regulating fuel dispensing rates, the 
Agency believes that this direct final rule will have no impact on 
California programs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Letter from Milton Feldstein, Air Pollution Control 
Officer, California Bay Area Air Quality Management District; to Ms. 
Mary D. Nichols, Assistant Administrator, Office of Air and 
Radiation, EPA; August 31, 1995; Docket A-95-53, document no. II-D-
04.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

D. Implementation Issues

    A ``Question and Answer'' (Q&A) document has been prepared by the 
EPA Mobile Source Enforcement Branch of the Office of Enforcement and 
Compliance Assurance, Office of Regulatory Enforcement, Air Enforcement 
Division to provide implementation guidance on the 10gpm requirements. 
The most recent version of this document (as of today's publication 
date) is available in Docket A-95-53 and also on the EPA electronic 
bulletin board (TTN BBS) and the internet (http://www.epa.gov/omswww).
    This direct final rule revises the regulations to incorporate 
certain elements of this Agency guidance document. The changes clarify 
that the hardware/software for controlling the fuel dispensing rate may 
be located anywhere in the pump/dispenser system and that refueling 
facilities are exempt from the 10gpm requirement if used exclusively to 
refuel heavy-duty vehicles, boats or airplanes. [The provisions of 40 
CFR 80.22(j) previously exempted facilities used exclusively to refuel 
heavy-duty vehicles; this direct final rule and the Q & A document 
clarify that facilities used to refuel boats and airplanes are also 
exempt.]
    Additionally, the Q&A document provides a description of the test 
procedure that EPA intends to use to determine compliance with 10gpm 
requirements. This guidance makes clear that the 10gpm requirement is a 
maximum amount that must be met under all circumstances, including 
``worst case'' conditions such as having no other nozzles in operation.

E. Outreach Efforts

    The Agency and petroleum industry personnel are committed to (and 
have already begun) communication outreach efforts to implement the 
10gpm requirements, including today's action. For example, the American 
Petroleum Institute (API) states in a November 8, 1995 letter to EPA, 
that the ``Gasoline Pump Manufacturers Association, the American 
Petroleum Institute and the Petroleum Marketers Association are 
committed to helping the EPA ensure that all stakeholders are notified 
of the pending requirements. This process has already begun through 
communications with our memberships, conferences such as the Petroleum 
Equipment Institute conference in Denver, Colorado in October, 1995 and 
interviews with the trade press.'' <SUP>11
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ C. J. Krambuhl; p. 3 of Attachment. See reference 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The API letter also describes how information about the 10gpm 
requirements will be disseminated to large volume and small volume 
retailers and wholesale purchaser-consumers through various trade 
associations and trade magazines. The EPA intends to provide supporting 
information to these trade associations and magazines.

F. Environmental Impact

    The Agency believes that the environmental impact of this direct 
final rule will be minimal. The Agency estimates that this direct final 
rule will result in a slight increase in the spitback emissions. 
Spitback emission reductions were originally estimated to be ``a fleet 
average value of .15 grams per gallon (0.04 g/liter)'' <SUP>12 of 
dispensed fuel. Using this estimate, spitback spillage was originally 
estimated (in 1987) to be 3.7 million gallons of gasoline spilled in 
1995. The Agency estimates the environmental impact of this direct 
final rule to be approximately 20 percent or less of the .15 grams per 
gallon and the 3.7 million gallon estimates, for the following reasons:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ ``Final Regulatory Impact Analysis and Summary and Analysis 
of Comments'' February, 1993; for the enhanced evaporative final 
rule, 58 FR 16002, March 24, 1993; Docket No. A-89-18, document no. 
V-B-1, p. 40, 41.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    First, while EPA data ``indicate that higher flow rates are 
associated with a more frequent occurrence of spitback,<SUP>13 the 
Agency has no data quantifying only the effect of limiting in-use 
dispensing rates to 10 gpm. The previously quoted spitback benefits 
assume that vehicles are designed to meet applicable spitback emission 
standards and the in-use dispensing rates are less than the 10gpm used 
in the spitback compliance testing. Based on the types of vehicles and 
the refueling rates in the field today, the effect of limiting in-use 
dispensing rates to 10 gpm (by itself) is expected to be a small 
portion of the original estimates. However, to be conservative and also 
consistent with the original estimate <SUP>14, today's environmental 
impact estimate assumed that a 10gpm dispensing rate limit would have 
eliminated spitback from approximately one-half of the vehicles in the 
field during the delayed time period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ ``Final Regulatory Impact Analysis and Summary and Analysis 
of Comments;'' p. 42. See reference 10.
    \14\ Technical Report ``Investigation of the Need for In-Use 
Dispensing Rate Limits and Fuel Nozzle Geometry Standardization;'' 
May, 1987; Docket No. A-89-18, document no. IV-A-2, p. 13.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Second, the Agency believes that the majority of in-use facilities 
are now in compliance with the 10gpm requirement. EPA's original 1987 
data indicate that ``most in-use dispensing rates fall in the range of 
8 to 10 gpm with evidence of a trend toward higher rates in new 
stations using higher horsepower pumps.'' <SUP>15 Since 1987, the trend 
in non-stage II areas seems to have continued toward higher rates, 
however the trend in stage II areas is toward dispensing rates which 
are already in compliance with the 10gpm dispensing rate. All states 
subject to Stage II mandates require Stage II systems which have been 
certified by the California Air Resources Board (CARB). Except for two 
systems which were CARB certified at 12 and 13 gpm, all CARB-certified 
systems are limited to 10gpm or less. Today's environmental impact 
estimate assumed that there has been no significant change from the 
original estimate in the total number of nozzles

[[Page 33037]]

in the field which are already in compliance with the 10gpm 
requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ Technical Report, p. 6. See reference 12.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Third, data supplied by API <SUP>16 indicate that ``since 1987 
940,000 new nozzle positions have been shipped and installed that 
exceed the 10 gallon per minute restriction under normal conditions 
with clean fuel filters and no other nozzles in use at the site.'' 
Based on the station count supplied in the April, 1995 issue of 
``National Petroleum News'' (of approximately 195,455 total stations in 
the U.S. in 1995) and assuming a conservative average of 10 nozzles per 
station, this would equate to approximately 48 percent of the nozzles 
in the field today. The actual figure would be less than 48 percent, 
because some of these nozzles would replace non-complying nozzles. 
Additionally, the Agency believes many of these nozzles may actually be 
in compliance during normal use, for the following reasons:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ C. J. Krambuhl, p. 2 of Attachment. See reference 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    * In-use filters tend to clog up with residue which reduces the 
actual flow rate.
    * Nozzles located farthest from the pump tend to have a reduced 
flow rate than nozzles which are located near the pump.
    * Operating several nozzles at the same time tends to reduce the 
flow rate.
    While the Agency is not contesting API's data that up to 940,000 
nozzles may need retrofitting to assure compliance, the Agency still 
believes that the majority of nozzles in the field today are operated 
at or below the 10gpm limit. This rationale supports the assumption 
that there has been no significant change from the original estimate in 
the total number of nozzles in the field which are already in 
compliance with the 10gpm requirements.
    Fourth, since May, 1992, one nozzle manufacturer representing 
approximately one-third of the U.S. market, has been marketing nozzles 
which are meeting the 10gpm requirement.<SUP>17 The fact that this 
manufacturer's nozzles continue to be in compliance also supports the 
assumption that there has been no significant change from the original 
estimate in the total number of nozzles in the field which are already 
in compliance with the 10gpm requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ Telephone contact between Alan Stout, EPA and Arthur Fink, 
Husky Corporation, May 29, 1992. Docket No. A-89-18, document no. 
IV-E-27.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Fifth, today's action has no impact on retailers and wholesale 
purchaser-consumers handling 10,000 gallons per month or less, since 
they are not required to meet the 10gpm requirement until January 1, 
1998. However, to be conservative, today's environmental impact 
estimate assumed that the effect of delaying 10gpm dispensing rate 
requirements would apply to all nozzles in the field.
    Sixth, it seems unlikely that service station owners will wait 
until July 1, 1996 to comply with the 10gpm requirement. The Agency 
believes that some service station owners will install retrofit 
hardware several months prior to the delayed implementation date of 
this direct final rule, as more and more hardware becomes available in 
late 1995 and early 1996. Today's environmental impact estimate assumed 
that on the average, all nozzles will be in compliance by May 15, 1995. 
For this reason, the environmental impact of this direct final rule is 
estimated to be a factor of nine-twenty-fourths of the estimate 
contained in the 1993 rulemaking; based on an assumed delay in 
compliance of 4\1/2\ months for today's action as compared to a one 
year basis for the 1993 estimate.
    Therefore, the total impact of this direct final rule is estimated 
to be approximately 20 percent (or less) of the original estimate for 
spitback savings contained in the March 24, 1993 final rule, or 
approximately .03 grams per gallon of fuel dispensed (or less) on a 
fleet average basis. The 20 percent is the product of the (1/2) factor 
and the (9/24) factor previously discussed in the first and sixth 
points of this section. The total impact =.15 g/gal x 1/2 x 9/24=.03 g/
gal or less.

G. Economic Impact

    This direct final rule is expected to have a slight economic impact 
on consumers, due to fuel spillage. As stated previously, this direct 
final rule is expected to delay fuel spillage benefits to consumers, 
estimated to be a small percentage (approximately 20 percent or less) 
of approximately 3.7 million gallons of gasoline spilled per year. 
Thus, the environmental impact of this direct final rule could 
conceivably increase consumer costs by the cost of approximately 
740,000 gallons of gasoline, i.e. approximately $1 million (or less) 
due to reduced fuel spillage benefits.

H. Conclusion

    The Agency believes that a six month delay in the original January 
1, 1996 effective date of the 10gpm requirement is appropriate given 
the logistical limits on the feasibility of achieving compliance by 
January 1, 1996, and the limited environmental impacts of the delay. 
The Agency believes that a six month delay (combined with increased EPA 
and industry outreach efforts to make service station owners aware of 
the 10gpm requirement) will have very little (if any) effect on the 
environment. Therefore, for the reasons discussed previously, the 
Agency intends to delay the implementation of the 10gpm requirements 
for six months. EPA expects no negative impact for any of the affected 
parties.

II. Public Participation and Effective Date

    The Agency is publishing this action as a direct final rule because 
it views the changes contained herein as non-controversial and based on 
outreach efforts with all affected parties, EPA anticipates no adverse 
or critical comments. Representatives of automobile and petroleum 
industry associations have indicated that their constituents will not 
be adversely affected by this direct final rule and therefore the 
Agency expects no adverse comments from the members of those 
associations. Similarly, the Agency does not expect adverse comments 
from the environmental community or state and local governments, since 
the environmental impact is very minimal.
    This action will become effective August 26, 1996. If the Agency 
receives adverse comments by July 26, 1996, EPA will publish a 
subsequent Federal Register document withdrawing this rule. In the 
event that adverse or critical comments are received, EPA is also 
publishing a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) in a separate action 
today, which proposes the same rule changes contained in this direct 
final rule. Any adverse comments received by the date listed above will 
be addressed in a subsequent final rule. That final rule will be based 
on the relevant portion of the rule revision that is noticed as a 
proposed rule in the Proposed Rule Section of this Federal Register and 
that is identical to this direct final rule. The EPA will not institute 
a second comment period on this action. Any parties interested in 
commenting on this action should do so at this time. If no such 
comments are received, the public is advised that this action will be 
effective August 26, 1996.

III. Administrative Requirements

A. Administrative Designation

    Pursuant to Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), 
the Agency must determine whether a regulatory action is 
``significant'' and therefore subject to OMB review and the

[[Page 33038]]

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 entitlements, 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.
    Pursuant to the terms of Executive Order 12866, the Agency has 
determined that this direct final rule is not a ``significant 
regulatory action'' under the terms of Executive Order 12866 and is 
therefore not subject to OMB review. This direct final rule will not 
have an adverse effect on either the refueling facilities or the 
manufacturers of fuel dispensing equipment.

B. Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements

    This direct final rule does not change the information collection 
requirements submitted to and approved by OMB in association with the 
Evaporative Emissions Final Rule (58 FR 16002, March 24, 1993) which 
was approved by the Office of Management and Budget on May 9, 1994.

C. Impact on Small Entities

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 requires federal agencies to 
examine the impact of federal regulations on small entities. The Small 
Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 amended these 
requirements.
    Today's action to delay the implementation of the 10gpm fuel 
dispensing requirements until July 1, 1996 will not result in any 
additional economic burden on any of the affected parties, including 
small entities involved in the oil industry, the automobile industry 
and the automobile service industry. EPA is not imposing any new 
requirements on regulated entities, but instead is revising a current 
requirement to make it less restrictive.
    Today's action is applicable to, and beneficial to retailers and 
wholesale purchaser-consumers handling over 10,000 gallons of fuel per 
month. It provides these affected parties with six months additional 
lead time, allowing affected parties to determine if they are in 
compliance with the 10gpm limit and if necessary, select the most 
appropriate control technology and safely install the equipment where 
needed. As previously discussed in section I.F., EPA believes that a 
substantial number of these facilities are already in compliance and 
thus are unaffected by today's action. Retailers and wholesale 
purchaser-consumers handling 10,000 gallons of fuel per month or less 
are also unaffected by today's action, because they are not required to 
meet the 10gpm fuel dispensing requirements until January 1, 1998.
    Today's action is also expected to have a beneficial effect on gas 
pump equipment manufacturers, who are the main beneficiaries of the 
change in the fuel dispensing limit's effective date. While these 
entities had, before the original effective date of January 1, 1996, 
produced equipment that would limit fuel dispensing rates, they had not 
produced such equipment in sufficient quantities that would allow all 
affected fuel dispensing facilities time to purchase and safely install 
it. Today's action provides these manufacturers with six months 
additional lead time to produce and certify equipment necessary for 
compliance with the 10gpm dispensing limit. The introduction of this 
equipment into the marketplace has already begun and EPA does not 
expect the gas pump manufacturers to experience any significant 
difficulty in meeting market demand for their products. Today's action 
has given these entities sufficient time to produce the necessary 
equipment.
    Therefore, pursuant to section 605 of the Regulatory Flexibility 
Act, 5 U.S.C. 605, the Administrator certifies that this direct final 
rule will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of 
small entities.

D. Paperwork Reduction Act

    The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980, 544 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., and 
implementing regulations, 5 CFR Part 1320, do not apply to this direct 
final rule as it does not involve the collection of information as 
defined therein.

E. Submission to Congress and the General Accounting Office

    Under section 801(a)(1)(A) of the Administrative Procedures Act 
(APA), as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness 
Act of 1996, EPA submitted 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 General Accounting 
Office prior to publication of the rule in today's Federal Register. 
This rule is not a ``major rule'' as defined by section 804(2) of the 
APA as amended.

F. Electronic Copies of Rulemaking Documents

    A copy of this document is also available electronically from the 
EPA internet site and via dial-up modem on the Technology Transfer 
Network (TTN), which is an electronic bulletin board system (BBS) 
operated by EPA's Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards. Both 
services are free of charge, except for your existing cost of internet 
connectivity or the cost of the phone call to TTN. Users are able to 
access and download files on their first call using a personal computer 
per the following information. Any one of the following Internet 
addresses may be used:

World Wide Web:
    <a href="http://www.epa.gov/OMSWWW/
Gopher">http://www.epa.gov/OMSWWW/
Gopher</a>:
    gopher://gopher.epa.gov/ Follow menus for: Offices/Air/OMS
FTP:
    ftp://ftp.epa.gov/ Change Directory to pub/gopher/OMS

    The steps required to access information on this rulemaking on the 
TTN bulletin board system are listed below.

TTN BBS: 919-541-5742 (1,200-14,400 bps, no parity, eight data bits, 
one stop bit)
Voice help: 919-541-5384
Internet address: TELNET ttnbbs.rtpnc.epa.gov
Off-line: Mondays from 8:00-12:00 Noon ET
1. Technology Transfer Network Top Menu: <T> GATEWAY TO TTN TECHNICAL 
AREAS (Bulletin Boards) (Command: T)
2. TTN TECHNICAL INFORMATION AREAS: <M> OMS--Mobile Sources Information 
(Command: M)
3. OMS BBS === MAIN MENU FILE TRANSFERS: <O> Other OMS Documents 
(Command: O)

    At this stage, the system will list all available files in this 
area. To download a file, select a transfer protocol that will match 
the terminal software on your computer, then set your own software to 
receive the file using that same protocol. If unfamiliar with handling 
compressed (that is, ZIP'd) files, go to the TTN top menu, System 
Utilities (Command: 1) for information and the necessary program to 
download in order to unZIP the files of interest after downloading to 
your computer. After getting the files you want onto your computer, you 
can

[[Page 33039]]

quit TTN BBS with the <G>oodbye command.

IV. Unfunded Mandates Act

    Under section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995, EPA 
must prepare a budgetary impact statement to accompany any proposed or 
final rule that includes a federal mandate with estimated costs to the 
private sector of $100 million or more, or to state, local, or tribal 
governments of $100 million or more in the aggregate. Under section 
205, EPA must select the most cost-effective and least burdensome 
alternative that achieves the objectives of the rule and is consistent 
with statutory requirements. Section 203 requires EPA to establish a 
plan for informing and advising any small governments that may be 
significantly or uniquely impacted by the rule.
    EPA has determined that this direct final rule imposes no new 
federal requirements and does not include any federal mandate with 
costs to the private sector or to state, local, or tribal governments. 
Therefore, the Administrator certifies that this direct final rule does 
not require a budgetary impact statement.

V. Judicial Review

    Under section 307(b) of the Clean Air Act, EPA hereby finds that 
these regulations are of national applicability. Accordingly, judicial 
review of this action is available only by filing a petition for review 
in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia 
Circuit within 60 days of publication. Under section 307(b)(2) of the 
Act, the requirements that are the subject of this document may not be 
challenged later in judicial proceedings brought by EPA to enforce 
these requirements.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 80

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedures, 
Air pollution control, Gasoline, Motor vehicle pollution.

    Dated: June 12, 1996.
Carol M. Browner,
Administrator.

    For the reasons set out in the preamble, title 40, chapter I, part 
80 of the Code of Federal Regulations, is amended as set forth below.

PART 80--[AMENDED]

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

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

    2. Section 80.22 is amended by revising paragraph (j) to read as 
follows:


Sec. 80.22   Controls and prohibitions.

* * * * *
    (j) After July 1, 1996 every retailer and wholesale purchaser-
consumer handling over 10,000 gallons (37,854 liters) of fuel per month 
shall limit each nozzle from which gasoline or methanol is introduced 
into motor vehicles to a maximum fuel flow rate not to exceed 10 
gallons per minute (37.9 liters per minute). The flow rate may be 
controlled through any means in the pump/dispenser system, provided the 
nozzle flow rate does not exceed 10 gallons per minute (37.9 liters per 
minute). After January 1, 1998 this requirement applies to every 
retailer and wholesale purchaser-consumer. Any dispensing pump that is 
dedicated exclusively to heavy-duty vehicles, boats, or airplanes is 
exempt from this requirement.

[FR Doc. 96-16205 Filed 6-25-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P