Regulation of Fuels and Fuel Additives: Modification of Baselines for Gasoline Produced or Imported for Use in Hawaii, Alaska and U.S. Territories, 60570-60583 [E7-21061]

Agencies

• ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 206 (Thursday, October 25, 2007)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 60570-60583]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-21061]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 80

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0010 FRL-8487-2]
RIN 2060-AK02


Regulation of Fuels and Fuel Additives: Modification of Baselines 
for Gasoline Produced or Imported for Use in Hawaii, Alaska and U.S. 
Territories

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This final rule allows refiners and importers who produce or 
import conventional gasoline for use in Alaska, Hawaii, the 
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands the option to change 
the way in which they calculate emissions from such gasoline for 
purposes of establishing their conventional gasoline anti-dumping and 
toxics performance baselines and determining compliance with their 
baselines.
    Specifically, this final rule allows refiners and importers of 
gasoline sold for use in these areas to petition EPA to modify their 
baselines to replace the anti-dumping statutory baseline with the 
single seasonal statutory baseline that is most appropriate to the 
regional climate, and to use the seasonal component of the Complex 
Model that is most appropriate to the regional climate to calculate 
individual baselines and annual average emissions. The rule allows 
refiners and importers to petition EPA to use the summer statutory 
baseline and the summer Complex Model for all baseline and compliance 
calculations for conventional gasoline produced or imported for use in 
Hawaii, Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands, and allows refiners and 
importers to petition EPA to use the winter statutory baseline and the 
winter Complex Model for all baseline and compliance calculations for 
conventional gasoline produced or imported for use in Alaska. EPA is 
taking this action to address certain inconsistencies in the fuels 
regulations which may have significant unintended negative impacts on 
refiners and importers who produce or import gasoline for these areas.

DATES: This final rule is effective on November 26, 2007.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID 
No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0010. All documents in the docket are listed on the 
https://www.regulations.gov web site. Although listed in the index, some 
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information 
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such 
as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be 
publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket 
materials are available either electronically through https://
www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Air and Radiation Docket, 
EPA/DC, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, 
DC. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday 
through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the 
Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the 
Air and Radiation Docket is (202) 566-1742.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Marilyn Bennett, Transportation and 
Regional Programs Division, Office of Transportation and Air Quality 
(6406J), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, 
NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: (202) 343-9624; fax 
number: (202) 343-2803; e-mail address: bennett.marilyn@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

[[Page 60571]]

I. General Information

A. Does This Action Apply to Me?

    Entities potentially affected by this action include those involved 
with the production and importation of conventional gasoline motor 
fuel. Regulated categories and entities affected by this action 
include:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                         Examples of
          Category              NAICS    SIC codes       potentially
                              codes \a\     \b\       regulated parties
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry....................     324110       2911  Petroleum Refiners,
                                                     Importers.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ North American Industry Classification System (NAICS).
\b\ Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) system code.

    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 be potentially regulated by this action. Other types of entities 
not listed in the table could also be regulated. To determine whether 
your entity is regulated by this action, you should carefully examine 
the applicability criteria of Part 80, subparts D, E, F and J of title 
40 of the Code of Federal Regulations. If you have any question 
regarding applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult 
the person in the preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section 
above.

B. Outline of This Preamble

I. General Information
II. Anti-Dumping Compliance
III. Mobile Source Air Toxics Rule (MSAT) Compliance
IV. Comments on the NPRM
V. Final Rule
VI. Environmental Effects of This Action
VII. Public Participation
VIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
IX. Statutory Provisions and Legal Authority

II. Anti-Dumping Compliance

A. Background

1. The Anti-Dumping Requirements
    Section 211(k) of the Clean Air Act (``CAA'' or ``Act'') requires 
EPA to establish standards for cleaner burning reformulated gasoline 
(RFG) to be used in specified ozone nonattainment areas. The Act also 
requires EPA to establish requirements for non-RFG, or conventional 
gasoline, designed to prevent refiners from ``dumping'' into 
conventional gasoline the dirty gasoline components that are removed 
when RFG is produced. The requirements for conventional gasoline are 
called ``anti-dumping'' requirements. To be in compliance with these 
requirements, the exhaust toxics and nitrogen oxides (NOX) 
emissions performance of a refinery's or importer's conventional 
gasoline must be no dirtier than the refinery's or importer's 1990 
exhaust toxics and NOX emissions performance, on an annual 
average basis.
    The anti-dumping regulations require refiners to calculate the 
exhaust toxics and NOX emissions performance of gasoline 
using a predictive model, called the Complex Model. See 40 CFR 80.45. 
The Complex Model has a summer version and a winter version.\1\ For the 
same fuel composition (based on those fuel parameters evaluated in the 
Complex Model), the winter Complex Model predicts significantly higher 
emissions of exhaust toxics and NOX than the summer Complex 
Model, on a mg/mile basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The summer Complex Model is based on data reflecting the 
performance of gasoline sold in the summer; i.e., gasoline with 
lower RVP to comply with volatility requirements at 40 CFR 80.27 and 
which is typical of summer climatic conditions. The winter Complex 
Model is a modified version of the summer model which sets the RVP 
at 8.7 psi and adjusts for winter climate conditions. A detailed 
discussion of the development of the summer and winter versions of 
the Complex Model is included in the Final Regulatory Impact 
Analysis for Reformulated Gasoline (December 13, 1993). Public 
Docket No. A-92-12.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The anti-dumping regulations require refineries and importers of 
conventional gasoline to comply with an established baseline for 
exhaust toxics and NOX. The baseline is either an 
``individual baseline'' or the ``anti-dumping statutory baseline.'' An 
individual baseline is based on the average performance of the gasoline 
that the individual refinery or importer produced or imported during 
the calendar year 1990. The anti-dumping statutory baseline is based on 
the average quality of gasoline sold throughout the United States 
during 1990. The anti-dumping statutory baseline applies to refineries 
and importers that are unable to calculate an individual baseline based 
on 1990 gasoline performance. If a refinery or importer has an 
individual baseline, gasoline production during a given annual 
averaging period, up to the refinery's or importer's 1990 production or 
import volume, must be no ``dirtier'' than the refinery's or importer's 
individual 1990 baseline for exhaust toxics and NOX. 
Gasoline produced or imported during the annual averaging period in 
excess of the refinery's or importer's 1990 gasoline production or 
import volume must be no dirtier than the anti-dumping statutory 
baseline for exhaust toxics and NOX. For refineries and 
importers that do not have an individual baseline, all gasoline 
produced or imported during the annual averaging period must meet the 
anti-dumping statutory baseline for exhaust toxics and NOX.
    To comply with the anti-dumping requirements, each refinery and 
importer must evaluate the overall quality of the conventional gasoline 
that it produces or imports during each annual averaging period and 
compare it to the refinery's or importer's baseline (individual 1990 
baseline or anti-dumping statutory baseline, as appropriate). So long 
as the conventional gasoline produced or imported has overall 
emissions, as calculated by the Complex Model, that are no worse than 
the performance reflected in the refinery's or importer's baseline, the 
refinery or importer is in compliance with EPA's anti-dumping 
requirements.
    The anti-dumping statutory baseline includes both summertime and 
wintertime seasonal components. The anti-dumping statutory baseline, 
which approximates the average emissions of gasoline sold in the U.S. 
in 1990, is the volume-weighted average of the summertime and 
wintertime 1990 baseline gasoline emissions, as calculated using the 
appropriate seasonal version of the Complex Model. See 59 FR 7793 
(February 16, 1994).\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ For a discussion of the methodology used in determining the 
anti-dumping statutory baseline, see 56 FR 31179 (July 9, 1991).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Calculating Individual Baselines and Annual Average Emissions
    A refinery's or importer's individual 1990 baseline is calculated 
using the summer version of the Complex Model to assess the performance 
of the refinery's or importer's 1990 summer gasoline and the winter 
version of the Complex Model to assess the

[[Page 60572]]

performance of the refinery's or importer's 1990 winter gasoline. For 
purposes of these calculations, the regulations consider summer 
gasoline to be gasoline that is subject to EPA's volatility 
requirements, and winter gasoline to be gasoline that is not subject to 
EPA's volatility requirements. 40 CFR 80.91(e)(2)(ii)(A). Gasoline sold 
in Alaska and Hawaii, and in the territories of Puerto Rico and the 
Virgin Islands, is not subject to the volatility requirements. See CAA 
Section 211(h)(5).\3\ Thus, for purposes of calculating a refinery's or 
importer's individual 1990 baseline emissions, none of the gasoline 
produced or imported for use in these areas is summer gasoline under 
the current regulations. As a result, all of the gasoline produced or 
imported for use in these areas was evaluated using the winter Complex 
Model for purposes of calculating individual 1990 baseline emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The U.S. territories of Guam, the Commonwealth of the 
Northern Mariana Islands and American Samoa also are not subject to 
the volatility requirements pursuant to CAA section 211(h)(5); 
however, these territories have received exemptions from the anti-
dumping requirements. See 61 FR 53854 (October 16, 1996)(Guam); 62 
FR 63853 (December 3, 1997)(Northern Mariana Islands); 65 FR 71067 
(November 29, 2000)(American Samoa). Gasoline produced or imported 
for use in Guam, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands 
and American Samoa is also exempt from the Mobile Source Air Toxics 
requirements. See 40 CFR 80.820(d). As a result, gasoline produced 
or imported for use in these areas is not affected by today's rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Similarly, to determine annual average emissions for compliance 
purposes, each year refineries and importers calculate emissions from 
their summer gasoline using the summer Complex Model and emissions from 
their winter gasoline using the winter Complex Model. For purposes of 
calculating annual average emissions, the regulations specify that 
summer gasoline is gasoline that meets the volatility requirements and 
winter gasoline is gasoline that does not meet the volatility 
requirements. 40 CFR 80.101(g)(5) and (g)(6). Because gasoline produced 
or imported for use in Alaska, Hawaii, Puerto Rico and the Virgin 
Islands is not subject to the volatility requirements, refineries and 
importers currently are required to evaluate all of their gasoline 
produced or imported for use in these areas during the annual averaging 
period using the winter Complex Model.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Pursuant to a rulemaking on June 9, 1999 (64 FR 30904), 
refiners and importers who have Puerto Rico gasoline, or Puerto Rico 
and Virgin Islands gasoline, in their individual baseline are 
allowed to petition EPA to replace the winter Complex Model with the 
summer Complex Model for anti-dumping baseline and compliance 
calculations. See 40 CFR 80.93(d) and 80.101(f)(4)(iii) and 
(g)(1)(ii)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As discussed above, refiners and importers must provide gasoline 
that complies with their individual anti-dumping baseline up to their 
1990 baseline volume, after which any excess volumes must comply with 
the anti-dumping statutory baseline.\5\ Refiners and importers without 
an individual baseline must comply with the anti-dumping statutory 
baseline for all of the conventional gasoline they produce or import 
during each annual averaging period.\6\ This general approach to 
compliance applies to both refiners and importers of gasoline sold in 
the continental U.S. and refiners and importers of gasoline produced or 
imported for use in Alaska, Hawaii, Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ For refineries and importers with individual 1990 baselines 
who produce gasoline volumes in excess of their 1990 volume during 
an averaging period, the regulations require the use of a specified 
``compliance baseline'' equation. 40 CFR 80.101(f). In general, this 
equation adjusts the refinery's or importer's individual baseline to 
reflect the parameter values of the statutory baseline for that 
volume of the refinery's or importer's total annual gasoline 
production which is in excess of the refinery's or importer's 1990 
baseline volume. This adjusted compliance baseline then is the 
refinery's or importer's anti-dumping standard for that annual 
averaging period, and the annual average emissions from all 
conventional gasoline produced by that refinery or importer during 
the annual averaging period must meet that standard.
    \6\ Since most importers are unable to establish an individual 
1990 baseline, importers generally are required to comply with the 
anti-dumping statutory baseline.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Need for Action

    As discussed above, under the anti-dumping regulations, gasoline 
produced or imported in excess of a refinery's or importer's 1990 
baseline volume during the annual averaging period must comply with the 
anti-dumping statutory baseline. All gasoline produced or imported 
during each annual averaging period by refineries and importers who are 
unable to establish an individual baseline also must comply with the 
anti-dumping statutory baseline. In most cases, use of the anti-dumping 
statutory baseline is an appropriate and necessary tool to ensure that 
conventional gasoline quality does not degrade in comparison to the 
average quality of gasoline sold in 1990. However, for gasoline 
produced or imported for use in Alaska, Hawaii, Puerto Rico and the 
Virgin Islands that is subject to the anti-dumping statutory baseline, 
the current anti-dumping requirements can result in an inconsistent 
application of EPA's seasonal Complex Models.
    As discussed above, the anti-dumping statutory baseline is an 
estimate of the average quality of all 1990 gasoline. This estimate was 
calculated using the summer Complex Model to evaluate ``summer'' 
gasoline and the winter Complex Model for all other gasoline. 
Similarly, for compliance purposes, summer conventional gasoline sold 
in the continental United States is evaluated using the summer Complex 
Model, and all other conventional gasoline is evaluated using the 
winter Complex Model. Thus, for conventional gasoline subject to the 
anti-dumping statutory baseline that is sold in the continental U.S., 
we expect there to be general agreement between the seasonal models 
used to develop the baseline and the seasonal models used to evaluate 
annual compliance. Application of the anti-dumping statutory baseline 
for such gasoline provides reasonable assurance that the quality of the 
conventional gasoline will not degrade relative to the average quality 
of gasoline in 1990.
    Like gasoline produced or imported for use in the continental 
United States, gasoline produced or imported for use in Alaska, Hawaii, 
Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands in excess of the refinery's or 
importer's 1990 baseline volume of gasoline, and all gasoline produced 
or imported for use in these areas by a refiner or importer who does 
not have an individual baseline must comply with the anti-dumping 
statutory baseline. However, since the annual emissions performance of 
all gasoline produced or imported for use in these areas must be 
evaluated using only the winter Complex Model, for these areas there is 
not an agreement between the seasonal models reflected in the statutory 
baseline (which, as discussed above, was developed using both the 
summer and winter seasonal models) and the seasonal model used for 
calculating annual compliance.\7\ Because the winter Complex Model 
predicts higher emissions than the summer Complex Model, in these 
situations, the refinery or importer is required to comply with a 
standard that, in effect, is more stringent than intended. That is, the 
refiner or importer must produce or import gasoline that is actually 
cleaner than the average gasoline produced or imported for use

[[Page 60573]]

in 1990.\8\ This unintended result can have a significant adverse 
economic effect on those refineries and importers whose baselines 
include gasoline produced or imported for use in Alaska, Hawaii, Puerto 
Rico and the Virgin Islands and who have increased the volume of 
gasoline that they produce or import for these areas above their 1990 
baseline volumes of gasoline produced or imported for these areas, and 
those refineries and importers who are subject to the anti-dumping 
statutory baseline for all of their gasoline.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Gasoline produced or imported for Alaska, Hawaii, Puerto 
Rico and the Virgin Islands was evaluated using only the winter 
Complex Model for purposes of calculating a refinery's or importer's 
individual 1990 baseline. Since annual production or imports for 
these areas is also evaluated using the winter Complex Model, there 
is a general agreement between the seasonal model used to develop 
the baseline and the seasonal model used to calculate annual 
emissions for gasoline production or imports up to the refinery's or 
importer's individual 1990 baseline volume of gasoline produced or 
imported for these areas.
    \8\ Because the winter Complex Model predicts higher emissions 
for exhaust toxics and NOX than the summer Complex Model, 
the average emissions of gasoline produced or imported for use in 
Alaska, Hawaii, Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands during an annual 
averaging period, which is evaluated using only the winter Complex 
Model, will appear to have higher emissions than that same gasoline 
would appear to have if evaluated using the summer Complex Model for 
some of the volume of gasoline. If, for example, gasoline produced 
or imported for use in these areas has properties identical to the 
properties of anti-dumping baseline gasoline, that gasoline (as 
evaluated using only the winter Complex Model) will appear to have 
higher emissions than anti-dumping baseline gasoline, and would be 
deemed out of compliance with the anti-dumping statutory baseline 
emissions standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. NPRM

    In the NPRM, EPA proposed to correct this inconsistency in the 
anti-dumping regulations by allowing gasoline produced or imported for 
use in Alaska, Hawaii, Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands to be 
compared to a baseline that is seasonally consistent with the 
compliance model that is used for purposes of compliance evaluation. 
Specifically, EPA proposed the following changes for refiners and 
importers who produce or import conventional gasoline for use in 
Alaska, Hawaii, Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands.
    First, EPA proposed to allow refiners and importers to petition EPA 
to change their baselines such that any gasoline produced or imported 
for use in these areas that is currently subject to the anti-dumping 
statutory baseline instead would be subject to the single seasonal 
component of the anti-dumping statutory baseline that agrees with the 
single seasonal model used for compliance. This approach alleviates the 
current inconsistency (as described above) by more accurately comparing 
the performance of the refiner's or importer's average 1990 gasoline 
with gasoline currently produced.
    Second, EPA proposed that any refiner or importer for whom a 
petition to change its baseline has been approved must use the single 
seasonal statutory baseline that is most appropriate to the regional 
climate for any gasoline that is not subject to an individual 1990 
baseline, and use the seasonal component of the Complex Model that is 
most appropriate to the regional climate for calculating both 1990 
individual baseline emissions and annual average emissions. Thus, 
refiners and importers with an approved petition that produce or import 
gasoline for use in Hawaii, Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands would 
use the summer statutory baseline component for any gasoline not 
subject to an individual baseline, and use the summer Complex Model for 
purposes of calculating 1990 individual baseline and annual average 
emissions. Refiners and importers with an approved petition that 
produce or import gasoline for use in Alaska would use the winter 
statutory baseline for any gasoline not subject to an individual 
baseline, and use the winter Complex Model for purposes of calculating 
1990 individual baseline and annual average emissions. A discussion of 
the rationale for these seasonal determinations is contained in the 
preamble to the NPRM. See 70 FR 646 (January 4, 2005).
    Under this approach, refiners and importers of gasoline produced or 
imported for use in Hawaii, Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands would 
need to establish a separate individual 1990 baseline for gasoline 
produced or imported for use in these areas using only the summer 
Complex Model. Gasoline produced or imported for use in these areas 
would be required to comply with this new individual baseline for 
gasoline up to the refinery's or importer's 1990 baseline volume of 
gasoline produced or imported for these areas. Gasoline production or 
imports in excess of the refinery's or importer's 1990 baseline volume 
would be subject to only the summer component of the statutory 
baseline. In the case of refiners and importers with an individual 1990 
baseline which does not include any gasoline produced or imported for 
use in these areas, any gasoline produced or imported for use in these 
areas during the annual averaging period would be subject to the 
refinery's or importer's individual summer 1990 baseline, and the 
summer Complex Model would be used for all compliance calculations. 
Such gasoline will not be considered in determining whether a refiner 
or importer has produced or imported any incremental gasoline volumes 
above the refinery's or importer's 1990 baseline volume.
    Similarly, refiners and importers of gasoline produced or imported 
for use in Alaska would need to establish a separate individual 1990 
baseline for gasoline produced or imported for use in Alaska using only 
the winter Complex Model. Gasoline produced or imported for use in 
Alaska would be required to comply with this individual baseline up to 
the refinery's or importer's 1990 baseline volume of Alaska gasoline. 
Gasoline produced or imported for use in Alaska in excess of the 
refinery's or importer's 1990 baseline volume of Alaska gasoline would 
be subject to only the winter component of the statutory baseline. 
Refiners and importers of gasoline produced or imported for use in 
Alaska would continue to use the winter Complex Model for all 
compliance calculations for Alaska gasoline. In the case of refineries 
and importers with an individual 1990 baseline that does not include 
any gasoline produced or imported for use in Alaska, any gasoline 
produced or imported for use in Alaska during the annual averaging 
period would be subject to the refinery's or importer's individual 
winter 1990 baseline, and the winter Complex Model would be used for 
all compliance calculations. Such gasoline will not be considered in 
determining whether a refiner or importer has produced or imported any 
incremental gasoline volumes above the refinery's or importer's 1990 
baseline volume.
    To implement the changes described above, EPA proposed to modify 
the individual baseline submission provisions at Sec.  80.93(d) to 
allow refineries and importers that produce or import gasoline for use 
in Hawaii, Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands the option to petition 
EPA to recalculate the emissions of their 1990 conventional gasoline 
produced or imported for use in these areas using the summer Complex 
Model.\9\ For refiners and importers who produced or imported gasoline 
in 1990 for use in both the continental U.S. and an affected area, this 
would require the calculation of a separate 1990 individual baseline 
for gasoline produced or imported for use in these areas, and 
recalculation of the refiner's or importer's current anti-dumping 
baseline (which would continue to be used for compliance

[[Page 60574]]

purposes for gasoline produced or imported for other areas) to reflect 
the subtraction of baseline gasoline produced or imported for use in 
Hawaii, Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands.\10\ As discussed above, 
under the current regulations, the winter Complex Model is required to 
be used to evaluate Alaska gasoline for purposes of establishing the 
individual 1990 baseline and for determining annual average compliance. 
Since the winter Complex Model is the appropriate seasonal model for 
Alaska, we did not propose to change this requirement, however, we did 
propose to clarify this requirement in the baseline submission 
provisions in Sec.  80.93(d). Under the proposal, refiners and 
importers who produced or imported gasoline in 1990 for use in both the 
continental U.S. and Alaska would be required to calculate a separate 
baseline for Alaska gasoline and recalculate their current anti-dumping 
baseline for use with other gasoline to reflect the subtraction of 1990 
baseline Alaska gasoline. EPA also proposed to revise the anti-dumping 
compliance baseline provisions at Sec.  80.101(f)(3) and (f)(4)(iii). 
EPA proposed a new (f)(3) which establishes compliance baselines for 
refiners and importers with 1990 individual baselines that did not 
include any gasoline produced or imported for use in the affected 
areas. As discussed above, for these refiners and importers, any 
conventional gasoline produced or imported for use in the affected 
areas would be subject to the refiner's or importer's appropriate 
seasonal individual baseline. EPA proposed to revise Sec.  
80.101(f)(4)(iii) to provide equations for calculating a compliance 
baseline for refiners and importers with individual 1990 baselines that 
have approved petitions and that produce or import gasoline for use in 
one or more of the affected areas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ As discussed in footnote 4 above, in a final rule dated June 
9, 1999 (64 FR 30904), EPA modified the anti-dumping regulations to 
allow refiners and importers who have Puerto Rico gasoline, or 
Puerto Rico and Virgin Islands gasoline, in their 1990 baseline to 
petition EPA to replace the winter Complex Model with the summer 
Complex Model for purposes of compliance calculations. Today's rule 
does not substantively change the provisions for Puerto Rico 
gasoline promulgated on June 9, 1999. Rather, today's rule extends 
the use of the summer only Complex Model to Puerto Rico gasoline 
produced or imported by refiners and importers that do not have 
individual baselines and those that have an individual baseline but 
do not have any Puerto Rico gasoline, or Puerto Rico and Virgin 
Islands gasoline, in their baselines.
    \10\ For refineries and importers with individual baselines that 
produce or import gasoline for the continental U.S. as well as 
Alaska, Hawaii, Puerto Rico or the Virgin Islands, the approach in 
today's rule likely would result in a reduction of the total volume 
of gasoline that currently would be subject to the anti-dumping 
statutory baseline, since gasoline produced or imported for Alaska, 
Hawaii, Puerto Rico or the Virgin Islands in excess of the 
refinery's or importer's baseline volume of gasoline for these areas 
would no longer be included in the volume of gasoline subject to the 
anti-dumping statutory baseline. This may have an impact on the 
refinery's or importer's compliance baseline for the annual 
averaging period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed modifications of the baseline submission provisions at 
Sec.  80.93(d) also would allow refiners and importers currently 
subject to the anti-dumping statutory baseline for all of their 
gasoline (i.e., parties without a 1990 individual baseline) the option 
to petition EPA to change their baseline to only the summer component 
of the statutory baseline for any conventional gasoline produced or 
imported for use in Hawaii, Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands, and the 
winter component of the statutory baseline for any conventional 
gasoline produced or imported for use in Alaska. EPA proposed to modify 
Sec.  80.101(f)(2) to require such refiners and importers to comply 
with the summer statutory baseline component for gasoline produced or 
imported for use in Hawaii, Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands, and the 
winter statutory baseline component for gasoline produced or imported 
for use in Alaska. In addition, EPA proposed to modify Sec.  
80.101(g)(1) to require refiners and importers with approved petitions 
under Sec.  80.93(d) to evaluate all of their gasoline produced or 
imported for use in Hawaii, Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands during 
the annual averaging period using only the summer Complex Model, and 
clarify that gasoline produced or imported for use in Alaska during the 
annual averaging period must be evaluated using only the winter Complex 
Model.
    A refiner or importer that produces or imports gasoline for Alaska 
and also for Hawaii and/or Puerto Rico and/or the Virgin Islands, and 
that wishes to change its baseline for all of these areas, would submit 
separate petitions, one for Alaska gasoline under Sec.  80.93(d)(1) and 
one for Hawaii, Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands gasoline under Sec.  
80.93(d)(2). In this case, the refiner or importer would have two 
separate baselines, one for gasoline produced or imported for Alaska, 
and one for gasoline produced or imported for Hawaii, Puerto Rico and 
the Virgin Islands. Such refiner or importer would also have another 
separate baseline for any gasoline produced or imported for the 
continental United States.
    In addition to the proposed changes to the anti-dumping regulations 
discussed above, EPA proposed conforming changes to Sec. Sec.  
80.91(e)(2)(ii)(A), and 80.101(g)(2) and (g)(6) to clarify the summer/
winter distinction with regard to gasoline produced or imported for use 
in Alaska, Hawaii, Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands.
    EPA proposed that the changes would be optional for any refiner or 
importer that produces or imports gasoline intended for use in Alaska, 
Hawaii, Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands, and would be limited to 
those refiners and importers that petition the Agency for these 
changes. However, EPA proposed that a refiner or importer that changes 
from the anti-dumping statutory baseline to a single statutory baseline 
component must use the appropriate seasonal statutory baseline 
component and must use it for all gasoline produced or imported for use 
in any of the areas subject to this rule. Such refiner or importer must 
use the appropriate seasonal Complex Model for all future calculations. 
For example, an importer of Puerto Rico gasoline that petitions EPA to 
change from the anti-dumping statutory baseline to a single seasonal 
statutory baseline component must change to the summer statutory 
baseline component and must use the summer Complex Model for all future 
calculations for Puerto Rico gasoline and also for any gasoline the 
importer imports into Hawaii and/or the Virgin Islands. Refiners and 
importers with approved petitions whose 1990 individual baselines 
include gasoline produced or imported for these areas would be required 
to recalculate their individual baselines, as described above, and 
submit the new baselines with their petition.
    EPA proposed to require refiners and importers that change their 
baseline in accordance with the proposed rule to retain documents which 
substantiate that gasoline complying with the new baseline, in fact, 
was produced or imported for use in the affected area.
    EPA proposed that refiners and importers of gasoline produced or 
imported for use in the affected areas who do not petition EPA to 
change their baselines would continue to be subject to their current 
baselines and would continue to use the Complex Model that is required 
for calculating emissions under the current regulations.

III. Mobile Source Air Toxics Rule (MSAT) Compliance

A. Background

    The Mobile Source Air Toxics (MSAT) rule published on March 29, 
2001, contains provisions which require refiners and importers to 
determine a baseline and compliance value for air toxics. See 40 CFR 
part 80, subpart J. A refiner, for each refinery, and an importer must 
identify the appropriate toxics performance baseline for its 
conventional gasoline and its reformulated gasoline. The refiner or 
importer must then demonstrate compliance with each applicable baseline 
on an annual average basis using the Complex Model.
    Under the MSAT toxics performance rule, refiners, for each 
refinery, and importers are required to produce or import gasoline that 
is no dirtier than the gasoline they produced or imported during the 
baseline period, 1998 through 2000. Accordingly, refiners and

[[Page 60575]]

importers are required to establish an individual toxics baseline, 
separately for RFG and conventional gasoline, based on the average 
toxics performance of their gasoline during the baseline period. 
Refiners and importers are also required to establish a total baseline 
volume based on their volume of gasoline production during the baseline 
period. If a refinery or importer did not have sufficient production or 
imports during the baseline period to calculate an average toxics 
performance for their gasoline, they are subject to a default toxic 
baseline established by EPA. Refineries or importers subject to the 
default baseline do not have an MSAT baseline volume.
    Compliance with the MSAT toxics performance requirements is 
determined on an annual average basis. The gasoline produced or 
imported during the annual averaging period can be no more polluting 
than the refiner's or importer's baseline level for that type of 
gasoline (RFG or conventional). For RFG, total toxics emissions are 
evaluated, and toxics performance is reported as a percent reduction 
from the statutory baseline. For conventional gasoline, only exhaust 
toxics emissions are evaluated, and toxics performance is reported in 
mg/mile. Any volume produced or imported in excess of a refiner's or 
importer's individual baseline volume can be no more polluting than the 
RFG toxics standard, or the refiner's or importer's conventional 
gasoline anti-dumping toxics baseline level, as applicable.

B. NPRM

    EPA proposed to modify the MSAT toxics performance requirements in 
a manner that is consistent with the changes that were proposed for the 
conventional gasoline anti-dumping program. The changes to the MSAT 
requirements are necessary because, generally, the MSAT toxics 
performance provisions applicable to conventional gasoline are of the 
same form as the anti-dumping provisions, and because such changes are 
needed to maintain agreement between methods used to establish 
baselines and those used to evaluate gasoline performance for purposes 
of compliance. Thus, we proposed to require a refiner or importer that 
submits a petition under the anti-dumping program as described in the 
NPRM to also petition for a separate or modified MSAT baseline 
applicable to gasoline produced or imported into Alaska and/or Hawaii, 
Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands.
    EPA proposed the following MSAT baseline and compliance 
determinations for refiners and importers who submit petitions under 
this rule for gasoline produced or imported for use in Alaska and/or 
Hawaii, Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands.
    Affected parties who did not produce or import any gasoline during 
the baseline period (1998-2000), may petition EPA to have the 
appropriate seasonal MSAT conventional gasoline default baseline for 
gasoline produced or imported for use in Alaska and/or Hawaii, Puerto 
Rico, and the Virgin Islands, and use the appropriate seasonal version 
of the Complex Model for evaluating gasoline produced or imported for 
these areas. Such parties would be subject to the annual MSAT 
conventional gasoline default baseline for all other gasoline produced 
or imported (i.e., gasoline for use in the continental U.S.)
    Affected parties who produced gasoline during the baseline period, 
but who did not produce or import gasoline for Alaska and/or Hawaii, 
Puerto Rico, or the Virgin Islands during the baseline period, may 
petition EPA to have the appropriate individual refinery or importer 
conventional gasoline seasonal MSAT baseline for these areas, and 
evaluate any gasoline produced or imported for use in these areas using 
the appropriate seasonal Complex Model. Such gasoline will not be 
considered in determining whether a refiner or importer has produced or 
imported any incremental gasoline volumes above the refiner's or 
importer's MSAT baseline volume.
    Affected parties who only produced or imported gasoline for Alaska 
and/or Hawaii, Puerto Rico, or the Virgin Islands during the baseline 
period may petition EPA for a revised MSAT baseline using the 
appropriate seasonal version of the Complex Model, and use the 
appropriate seasonal version of the Complex Model for all compliance 
determinations for such gasoline. Gasoline produced or imported for use 
in these areas up to the refiner's or importer's MSAT baseline volume 
would be subject to the refiner's or importer's seasonally appropriate 
MSAT baseline. Any incremental volumes above the baseline volume would 
be subject to the refiner's or importer's appropriate seasonal anti-
dumping baseline. Any gasoline produced or imported for use in the 
continental U.S. would be subject to the annual MSAT conventional 
gasoline default baseline.
    Affected parties who produced or imported gasoline during the 
baseline period for use in the continental U.S. and for use in Alaska 
and/or Hawaii, Puerto Rico, or the Virgin Islands may petition EPA to 
have a separate, seasonally appropriate MSAT baseline and a separate 
MSAT baseline volume for gasoline produced or imported for use in 
Alaska and/or Hawaii, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands. Such 
refiners or importers must then use the appropriate seasonal component 
of the Complex Model to evaluate gasoline sold in these areas. 
Additionally, such refiners must establish a separate annual baseline 
and baseline volume for all other gasoline, which must be evaluated 
using the annual Complex Model.
    Under the current regulations, refiners and importers who produce 
or import gasoline for use in Alaska, and/or Hawaii, Puerto Rico or the 
Virgin Islands who are subject to the MSAT default baseline are, in 
fact, required to produce or import gasoline that is cleaner than the 
national annual average during the MSAT baseline period. This is 
because the MSAT default baseline was determined using both seasonal 
components of the Complex Model, while parties in the affected areas 
are required to evaluate their gasoline using only the winter Complex 
Model (which, as discussed above, gives higher emission values for the 
same gasoline than if the gasoline were evaluated using both seasonal 
components of the model). EPA proposed to correct this inconsistency 
while continuing to require such parties to produce or import gasoline 
that is no more polluting than the average gasoline during the MSAT 
baseline period, as required under the MSAT rule. Similarly, parties 
with individual MSAT baselines will continue to meet the requirements 
under the MSAT rule for gasoline produced or imported up to their 
baseline volume, without being required to produce or import gasoline 
that is cleaner than their average gasoline during the MSAT baseline 
period.
    For parties with an individual MSAT baseline who produce or import 
gasoline in excess of their MSAT baseline volume, the MSAT regulations 
require the excess volume to meet the refiner's or importer's standard 
under the anti-dumping rule (i.e., excess volume may not be more 
polluting than the refiner's or importer's individual anti-dumping 
baseline level). Therefore, EPA proposed that gasoline produced or 
imported in excess of the MSAT baseline volume be subject to the anti-
dumping baseline that is established for purposes of anti-dumping 
compliance under today's rule.
    To implement the changes described above, EPA proposed appropriate 
modifications to Sec. Sec.  80.825, 80.850, 80.855, 80.910 and 80.915 
of subpart J.

[[Page 60576]]

IV. Comments on the NPRM

    Comments on the NPRM were generally very favorable. One commenter 
suggested that we clarify the regulations regarding the effective date 
for petitions granted under the rule, and that we clarify whether there 
is a deadline for submitting a petition. In the NPRM we proposed that 
the baseline and compliance method changes in today's rule would become 
effective beginning with the annual averaging period in which a 
refiner's or importer's petition is granted. As a result, a petition 
may be submitted at any time during an annual averaging period. Once a 
petition is granted, the new method for determining compliance with the 
anti-dumping and air toxics requirements will apply beginning with the 
annual averaging period in which the petition was granted, and will 
continue to apply in each annual averaging period thereafter. As 
discussed in the NPRM, once a petition has been granted, the refinery 
or importer will not be able to revert back to its original baseline. 
The new baseline will apply to the refinery regardless of ownership; 
i.e., if a refinery obtains a new baseline under today's rule, the new 
baseline will apply to the refinery even if the refinery is 
subsequently sold to another refiner. We have added language in the 
final rule to clarify when a petition may be submitted and the 
effective date of an approved petition.
    Another commenter believes that the default toxics baselines in 
Sec.  80.855(b)(2) (i.e., the seasonal default toxics baselines 
applicable to parties with approved petitions under Sec.  80.93(d)) 
should apply only to refiners that submit petitions under Sec.  
80.93(d) after this rule is finalized. A refiner who previously 
received approval to use the summer Complex Model under Sec.  80.93(d), 
and who was unable to establish an individual toxics baseline under the 
MSAT rule, currently is subject to the conventional gasoline MSAT 
default toxics baseline. The rule as proposed would apply a more 
stringent default toxics baseline (i.e., seasonal default baseline) to 
such a refiner, which, the commenter believes, would impose a burden on 
the refiner that was not anticipated at the time the refiner applied 
for use of the summer Complex Model under Sec.  80.93(d).
    The default baselines in Sec.  80.855(b)(2) are the average 
seasonal toxics levels during the MSAT baseline years calculated using 
the appropriate seasonal Complex Model. As discussed above, where a 
refiner uses a seasonal Complex Model for annual average compliance 
calculations, we believe it is appropriate for the refiner to also be 
subject to the appropriate seasonal default baseline. A refiner with a 
previously approved baseline change under Sec.  80.93(d) (which as 
noted above applies to refiners who produce gasoline for use in Puerto 
Rico) uses the summer Complex Model for calculating its annual average 
toxics emissions. Therefore, we believe it is appropriate for the 
summer MSAT default baseline in Sec.  80.855(b)(2)(ii) to apply to such 
a refiner. However, since refiners with previously approved petitions 
under Sec.  80.93(d) have been using the conventional gasoline default 
toxics baseline under the current regulations, we believe that the 
summer default baseline in Sec.  80.855(b)(2)(ii) should only apply to 
such refiners prospectively, and that such refiners should be afforded 
the opportunity to withdraw their petitions under Sec.  80.93(d). As a 
result, we have included provisions in the final rule which specify 
that the appropriate seasonal default toxics baseline would apply to 
any refiner with a previously approved petition under Sec.  80.93(d) 
beginning with the 2008 annual averaging period, and that any such 
refiner may petition EPA to withdraw approval of its petition under 
Sec.  80.93(d) beginning with the 2008 annual averaging period. 
Although these provisions were not included in the NPRM, we believe 
they are necessary in order to clarify the application of the 
provisions in Sec.  80.855(b)(2) with regard to parties with previously 
approved petitions, and are a logical outgrowth of the proposal to 
apply the seasonal default toxics baselines in Sec.  80.855(b)(2) to 
any refiner with a previously approved petition under Sec.  80.93(d).
    Another commenter suggested that we clarify that a refiner or 
importer that produces or imports gasoline for Alaska and also for 
Hawaii, and/or Puerto Rico and/or the Virgin Islands would have two 
separate baselines and baseline volumes under today's rule, one for 
gasoline produced or imported for Alaska, and one for gasoline produced 
or imported for Hawaii, Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands. We have 
added language to clarify this in today's final rule.
    One commenter suggested that we clarify the requirements for new 
refineries or importers in the final rule. As discussed above, the rule 
provides an alternative to the existing regulatory baseline and 
compliance requirements for gasoline produced or imported for use in 
Alaska, Hawaii, Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands. Any new refinery or 
importer (which would not have an individual anti-dumping or MSAT 
baseline) would be subject to the anti-dumping statutory and MSAT 
default baselines, unless the refiner or importer petitions EPA under 
the provisions of today's rule to have the appropriate seasonal anti-
dumping and MSAT baselines and seasonal Complex Model apply. We have 
added a provision to clarify the regulations in this regard.
    One commenter requested that we make certain references to Sec.  
80.93(d) in the regulations more specific with regard to the 
subparagraphs being referenced. We have made these changes in today's 
final rule.

V. Final Rule

    With the exceptions noted above and minor editorial changes, 
today's rule finalizes the provisions in the NPRM as proposed.
    Although the current anti-dumping and MSAT toxics performance 
requirements will be superseded by more stringent mobile source 
emissions controls by 2011, we believe it is appropriate to provide 
this relief to the affected parties at this time in order to address 
the inequity caused by the inconsistencies in the current regulations 
and to avoid any gasoline supply problems that may result from this 
inequity.

VI. Environmental Effects of This Action

    As discussed in the NPRM, we believe that allowing refiners and 
importers to change their baselines in accordance with today's rule 
will not undermine the environmental goals of the anti-dumping program 
(i.e., to ensure that conventional gasoline will be no dirtier than 
1990 gasoline), or the MSAT toxics performance rule (i.e., to ensure 
that gasoline, RFG and conventional, will be no dirtier than gasoline 
during the MSAT baseline years.) The changes in today's rule will not 
result in gasoline with exhaust toxics or NOX emissions that 
are greater than conventional gasoline in these areas, or nationwide, 
compared to 1990 levels, or toxics emissions that are greater than 
gasoline in these areas, or nationwide, compared to the MSAT baseline 
years. Today's rule provides an alternative compliance method for 
refiners and importers who, under the current regulations, are required 
to produce or import gasoline for use in the affected areas that is 
actually cleaner than that required under the anti-dumping and MSAT 
programs. As a result, even if all of these affected parties choose the 
new compliance method, the goals of the anti-dumping and MSAT programs 
would be met. To the extent that parties choose to retain their current

[[Page 60577]]

compliance method, there would continue to be an added environmental 
benefit above and beyond that specifically required to meet the goals 
of these programs.

VII. Public Participation

    In the NPRM, we requested comment on the need to take this action 
and the proposed changes to the regulations. We have reviewed and 
considered all comments. The comments and EPA's responses to the 
comments are discussed above.

VIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review

    This action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under the 
terms of Executive Order (EO) 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 
is therefore not subject to review under the EO.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    The information collection requirements in this rule will be 
submitted for approval to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) 
under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. The 
information collection requirements are not enforceable until OMB 
approves them.
    This final rule addresses certain adverse impacts on refiners and 
importers of conventional gasoline under the current fuels regulations, 
and provides refiners and importers with additional flexibility to 
comply with the regulations. The flexibility afforded under this rule 
is optional. Modest information collection requirements in the form of 
a one-time only petition to EPA and minimal recordkeeping requirements 
are required of those refiners who wish to avail themselves of the 
flexibility provided in this rule.
    The estimated hour burden for this rule is 20 hours per petition. 
The estimated number of petitions is 10. The estimated cost burden for 
the petition is $70 per hour. The total estimated cost for each 
respondent is $1,400. The total estimated cost for all respondents is 
$14,000. We do not anticipate that any burdens will be associated with 
the additional recordkeeping requirements, since the information 
required to be retained normally is included on business documents 
retained by refiners and importers.
    Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources 
expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or 
provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time 
needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize 
technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and 
verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and 
disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to 
comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; 
train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; 
search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; 
and transmit or otherwise disclose the information.
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required 
to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a 
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's 
regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9. When this ICR is 
approved by OMB, the Agency will publish a technical amendment to 40 
CFR part 9 in the Federal Register to display the OMB control number 
for the approved information collection requirements contained in this 
final rule.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (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 rule on small 
entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business as defined 
by the Small Business Administration's regulations at 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 final 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 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 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.
    This final rule provides provisions intended to address existing 
adverse economic impacts of the current rule on certain refiners and 
importers while continuing to promote successful implementation of the 
requirements for conventional gasoline. Specifically, this rule 
provides all affected refiners and importers, including small refiners 
and importers, options for evaluating the emissions of conventional 
gasoline, which will have the effect of relieving regulatory burden. We 
have therefore concluded that today's final rule will relieve 
regulatory burden for all affected small entities.

D. 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 governments, it must have developed under 
section 203 of the UMRA a small government agency plan. The plan must 
provide for notifying potentially

[[Page 60578]]

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.
    Today's final rule contains no Federal mandates (under the 
regulatory provisions of Title II of the UMRA) for State, local or 
tribal governments or the private sector. 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 that will result 
in expenditures of $100 million or more. This rule affects gasoline 
refiners and importers of conventional gasoline by providing optional 
provisions for evaluating the emissions of conventional gasoline in 
certain situations. This rule will have the effect of reducing the 
burden of the conventional gasoline regulations on these regulated 
parties. Thus, today's rule is not subject to the requirements of 
sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR 43255, August 
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 final 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. This rule provides options for 
evaluating the emissions of conventional gasoline. The requirements of 
the rule will be enforced by the federal government at the national 
level. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this rule.

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian 
Tribal Governments

    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. This final 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. Today's action finalizes certain modifications 
to the federal requirements for conventional gasoline, and does not 
impose any enforceable duties on communities of Indian tribal 
governments. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this rule.

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental 
Health 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.
    EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those 
regulatory actions that are based on health or safety risks, such that 
the analysis required under section 5-501 of the Order has the 
potential to influence the regulation. This final rule is not subject 
to Executive Order 13045 because it is not economically significant and 
does not establish an environmental standard intended to mitigate 
health or safety risks.

H. Executive Order 13211: Acts That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 
Distribution, or Use

    This final 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.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    As noted in the proposed rule, 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 rulemaking does not involve technical standards. Therefore, 
EPA did not consider the use of any voluntary consensus standards.

J. Congressional Review Act

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the 
Small Business regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally 
provide