[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 161 (Monday, August 19, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 42812-42817]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-21078]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 80
[FRL-5555-5]
State of Alaska Petition for Exemption From Diesel Fuel Sulfur
Requirement
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Notice of direct final decision.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: On March 14, 1994, EPA granted the State of Alaska a waiver
from the requirements of EPA's low sulfur diesel fuel program,
permanently exempting Alaska's remote areas and providing a temporary
exemption for areas of Alaska served by the Federal Aid Highway System
(FAHS). The exemption applied to certain requirements in section 211(i)
and (g) of the Clean Air Act, as implemented in EPA's regulations.
These exemptions were based on EPA's determination that it would be
unreasonable to require persons in these areas to comply with the low
sulfur diesel fuel requirements due to unique geographical,
meteorological and economic factors for
[[Page 42813]]
Alaska, as well as other significant local factors.
The temporary exemption for the areas of Alaska served by the FAHS
will expire on October 1, 1996. On December 12, 1995, the Governor of
Alaska petitioned EPA to permanently exempt the areas covered by the
temporary exemption. In this decision EPA is extending the temporary
exemption for an additional 24 months, but reserving a final decision
on whether it should be permanent.
Based on the factors and conditions identified in Alaska's December
12, 1995 petition, a continuation of the exemption is warranted at
least temporarily. However, EPA believes that recent comments submitted
to the agency merit further investigation before making a final
decision on a permanent exemption. EPA is therefore extending the
temporary exemption until October 1, 1998, or until such time that a
final decision is made on the permanent exemption, whichever is
shorter.
This decision will continue the current status in Alaska. It is not
expected to have a significant impact on the ability of Alaska's
communities to attain the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for
carbon monoxide and particulate matter, based on the limited
contribution of emissions from diesel motor vehicles in those areas and
the sulfur level currently found in motor vehicle diesel fuel used in
Alaska.
DATES: This action will become effective October 3, 1996 unless adverse
comments or a request for a public hearing are received by September
18, 1996. If EPA receives such comments or a request for a public
hearing, EPA will publish a timely notice in the Federal Register
withdrawing this rule.
ADDRESSES: Copies of information relevant to this petition are
available for inspection in public docket A-96-26 at the Air Docket of
the EPA, first floor, Waterside Mall, room M-1500, 401 M Street S.W.,
Washington, D.C. 20460, (202) 260-7548, between the hours of 8:00 a.m.
to 5:30 p.m. Monday through Friday. A reasonable fee may be charged for
copying docket materials.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Paul N. Argyropoulos,
Environmental Protection Specialist, Fuels Implementation Group, Fuels
and Energy Division (6406J), 401 M Street S.W., Washington, D.C. 20460,
(202) 233-9004.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. Regulated Entities
II. Electronic Copies of Rulemaking Documents
III. Background
IV. Petition for Exemption
V. Decision for Extending Current Temporary Exemption
VI. Public Participation
VII. Statutory Authority
VIII. Administrative Designation and Regulatory Analysis
IX. Compliance With the Regulatory Flexibility Act
X. Paperwork Reduction Act
XI. Submission to Congress and the General Accounting Office
XII. Unfunded Mandates Act
I. Regulated Entities
Entities potentially regulated by this action are refiners,
marketers, distributors, retailers and wholesale purchaser-consumers of
diesel fuel. Regulated categories and entities include:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Category Examples of regulated entities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry.................................................... Petroluem distributors, marketers, retailers
(service station owners and operators), wholesale
purchaser consumers (fleet managers who operate a
refueling facility to refuel motor vehicles).
Citizens.................................................... Any owner or operator of a diesel motor vehicle.
Federal Government.......................................... Federal facilities, including military bases which
operate a refueling facility 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. 80.29 and Sec. 80.30 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.
II. 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:
http://www.epa.gov/OMSWWW/
Gopher:
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: GATEWAY TO TTN TECHNICAL
AREAS (Bulletin Boards) (Command: T)
2. TTN TECHNICAL INFORMATION AREAS: OMS--Mobile Sources Information
(Command: M)
3. OMS BBS--MAIN MENU FILE TRANSFERS: 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 quit TTN BBS with the oodbye command.
III. Background
Section 211(i)(1) of the Act prohibits the manufacture, sale,
supply, offering for sale or supply, dispensing, transport, or
introduction into commerce of motor
[[Page 42814]]
vehicle diesel fuel which contains a concentration of sulfur in excess
of 0.05 percent (by weight), or which fails to meet a cetane index
minimum of 40 beginning October 1, 1993. Section 211(i)(3) establishes
the sulfur content for fuel used in the certification of heavy-duty
diesel vehicles and engines. Section 211(i)(4) provides that the States
of Alaska and Hawaii may seek an exemption from the requirements of
this subsection in the same manner as provided in section 325 1 of
the Act, and requires the Administrator to take final action on any
petition filed under this section, which seeks exemption from the
requirements of section 211(i), within 12 months of the date of such
petition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Section 211(i) (4) mistakenly refers to exemptions under
Sec. 324 of the Act (``Vapor Recovery for Small Business Marketers
of Petroleum Products''). While the proper reference is to Sec. 325,
Congress clearly intended to refer to Sec. 325, as shown by the
language used in Sec. 211(i)(4), and the United States Code citation
used in Sec. 806 of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, Public Law
No. 101-549. Section 806 of the Amendments, which added paragraph
(i) to Sec. 211 of the Act, used 42 U.S.C. 7625-1 as the United
States Code designation for Sec. 324. This is the proper designation
for Sec. 325 of the Act. Also see 136 Cong. Rec. S17236 (daily ed.
October 26, 1990) (statement of Sen. Murkowski).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 325 of the Act provides that upon application by the
Governor of Guam, American Samoa, the Virgin Islands, or the
Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, the Administrator may
exempt any person or source in such territory from any requirement of
the Act, with some specific exceptions. Such exemption may be granted
if the Administrator finds that compliance with such requirements is
not feasible or is unreasonable due to unique geographical,
meteorological, or economic factors of such territory, or such other
local factors as the Administrator deems significant.
IV. Petition for Exemption
On February 12, 1993, the Honorable Walter J. Hickel, Governor of
the State of Alaska, submitted a petition to exempt motor vehicle
diesel fuel in Alaska from all of the requirements of section 211(i)
except the minimum cetane index requirement of 40. The petition
requested a short-term exemption for areas accessible by the Federal
Aid Highway System (``on-highway'') and a permanent exemption for areas
not accessible by the Federal Aid Highway System (``off-highway''). The
petition for a short-term exemption requested that EPA exempt motor
vehicle diesel fuel manufactured for sale, sold, supplied, or
transported within the Federal Aid Highway System (FAHS) from meeting
the sulfur content requirement specified in section 211(i) until
October 1, 1996. The petition also requested a permanent exemption from
such requirements for those areas of Alaska not reachable by the
Federal Aid Highway System. The petition was based on geographical,
meteorological, air quality, and economic factors unique to the State
of Alaska.
The petition was granted on March 14, 1994 and applied to all
persons in Alaska subject to section 211(i)(1) and (g) of the Act and
EPA's low sulfur requirement for motor vehicle diesel fuel in 40 CFR
Part 80.29. Persons in communities served by the FAHS are exempt from
compliance with the diesel fuel sulfur content requirement until
October 1, 1996. Persons in communities that are not served by the
Federal Aid Highway System are permanently exempt from compliance with
the diesel fuel sulfur content requirement. Both the permanent and
temporary exemption apply to all persons who manufacture, sell, supply,
offer for sale or supply, dispense, transport, or introduce into
commerce, in the State of Alaska, motor vehicle diesel fuel. Alaska's
exemption does not apply to the minimum cetane requirement for motor
vehicle diesel fuel.
On December 12, 1995, the Honorable Governor Knowles petitioned the
Administrator for a permanent exemption for all areas of the state
covered by the Federal Aid Highway System. This notice addresses EPA's
action on the petition submitted on December 12, 1995. We are making a
decision now for the 24 month extension and reserving the decision on
the state's request for a permanent exemption, so the agency may
consider possible alternatives for a longer period.
The following discussion summarizes the state's support for the
exemption as provided for in the petition, and the rationale for the
agency's extension of the temporary exemption.
A. Geography and Location of the State of Alaska
Alaska is about one-fifth as large as the combined area of the
lower 48 states. Because of its extreme northern location, rugged
terrain and sparse population, Alaska relies on barges to deliver a
large percentage of its petroleum products. No other state relies on
this type of delivery system to the extent Alaska does.
Only 35% of Alaska's communities are served by the Federal Aid
Highway System, which is a combination of road and marine highways. The
remaining 65% of Alaska's communities are served by barge lines and are
referred to as off-highway or ``remote'' communities. Although barge
lines can directly access some off-highway communities, those
communities that are not located on a navigable waterway are served by
a two-stage delivery system: over water by barge line and then over
land to reach the community.
Because of the State's high latitude, it experiences seasonal
extremes in the amount of daily sunlight and temperature, which in turn
affects the period of time during which construction can occur, and,
ultimately, the cost of construction in Alaska.
According to the petition, Alaska's extreme northern location
places it in a unique position to fuel transcontinental cargo flights
between Europe, Asia, and North America. Roughly 75% of all air transit
freight between Europe and Asia lands in Anchorage, as does that
between Asia and the United States. The result is a large market for
Jet-A fuel produced by local refiners, which decreases the importance
of highway diesel fuel to these refiners. Based on State tax revenue
receipts and estimates by Alaska's refiners, diesel fuel consumption
for highway use represents roughly 5% of total state distillate fuel
consumption.
B. Climate, Meteorology and Air Quality
Alaska's climate is colder than that of the other 49 states. The
extremely low temperatures experienced in Alaska during the winter
imposes a more severe fuel specification requirement for diesel fuel in
Alaska than in the rest of the country. This specification, known as a
``cloud point'' specification 2 significantly affects vehicle
start-up and other engine operations. Alaska has the most severe cloud
point specification for diesel fuel in the U.S. at -56 deg.F. Because
Alaska experiences extremely low temperatures in comparison to the
other 49 state's and the cloud point specifications are not as severe
for fuel in the lower 48 states, most diesel fuel used in the State of
Alaska is produced by refiners located in Alaska. Jet-A kerosene meets
the same cloud point specification as No. 1 diesel fuel (which is
marketed primarily during the winter in Alaska as opposed to No. 2
diesel fuel which is marketed primarily in the summer) and is commonly
mixed with or used as a substitute for No. 1 diesel fuel. However,
because Jet-A kerosene can have a sulfur content as high as 0.3%, the
diesel fuel sulfur requirement
[[Page 42815]]
of 0.05% would generally prohibit using Jet-A and No. 1 low sulfur
diesel fuel interchangeably.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ The cloud point defines the temperature at which cloud or
haze or wax crystals appears in the oil. Its purpose is to ensure a
minimum temperature above which fuel lines and other engine parts
are not plugged by solids that form in the fuel.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ice formation on the navigable waters during the winter months
restricts fuel delivery to off-highway areas served by barge lines.
Therefore, fuel is generally only delivered to these areas between the
months of May and October. This further restricts the ability of fuel
distributors in Alaska to supply multiple grades of petroleum products
to these communities.
The only violations of national ambient air quality standards in
Alaska have been for carbon monoxide (CO) and particulate matter
(PM10). CO violations have only been recorded in the State's two
largest communities: Anchorage and Fairbanks. PM10 violations have
only been recorded in two rural communities, Mendenhall Valley of
Juneau and Eagle River, a community within the boundaries of Anchorage.
The most recent PM10 inventories for these two communities show
that these violations are largely the result of fugitive dust from
paved and unpaved roads, and that motor vehicle exhaust is responsible
for less than one percent of the overall PM10 being emitted within
the borders of each of these areas. 3 Moreover, Eagle River has
not had a violation of the PM10 standard since 1986 and plans to
apply to EPA for redesignation to attainment for PM10. Mendenhall
Valley has initiated efforts for road paving to be implemented to
control road dust. The sulfur content of diesel fuel is not expected to
have a significant impact on ambient PM10 or CO levels in any of
these areas because of the minimal contribution by motor vehicles to
PM10 in these areas and the insignificant effect of diesel fuel
sulfur content on CO emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ ``PM10 Emission Inventories for the Mendenhall Valley
and Eagle River Areas,'' prepared for the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region X, by Engineering-Science, February 1988.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, EPA recognizes that the primary purpose of reducing the
sulfur content of diesel fuel is to reduce vehicle particulate
emissions. Additional benefits cited in the final rule (55 FR 34120,
August 21, 1990) include a reduction in sulfur dioxide (SO2)
emissions and the ability to use exhaust after-treatment devices on
diesel fueled vehicles, which would result in some reduction of HC and
CO exhaust emissions. Despite the possibility that the use of high-
sulfur diesel fuel may cause plugging or increased particulate sulfate
emissions in diesel vehicles equipped with trap systems or oxidation
catalysts, any increase in sulfate particulate emissions would likely
have an insignificant effect on ambient PM levels in Alaska since
current motor vehicle contributions to PM10 emissions are minimal.
Also, the lower sulfur requirement for motor vehicle diesel fuel will
have no impact on the attainment prospects of Fairbanks and Anchorage
with respect to CO, since reducing sulfur content has no direct affect
on CO emissions. Since Alaska is in attainment with ozone and SO2
air quality standards, there is currently no concern for reducing HC or
SO2 emissions.
The Agency recognizes that granting this extension to the temporary
exemption means Alaska will forego the potential benefits to its air
quality resulting from the use of low-sulfur diesel fuel. However, the
Agency believes that the potential benefits to Alaska's air quality are
minimal and far outweighed by the increased costs resulting from
factors unique to Alaska, at this time, to communities served by the
FAHS.
C. Economic Factors
In complying with the section 211(i) sulfur requirement, refiners
have the option to invest in the process modifications necessary to
produce low-sulfur diesel fuel for use in motor vehicles, or not invest
in the process modifications and only supply diesel fuel for off-
highway purposes (e.g., heating, generation of electricity, fuel for
non-road vehicles). Most of Alaska's refiners indicated that local
refineries would choose to exit the market for highway diesel fuel if
an exemption from the low sulfur requirement is not granted, because of
limited refining capabilities, the small size of the market for highway
diesel fuel in Alaska, and the costs that would be incurred to produce
low-sulfur diesel fuel.
Demand for Jet-A kerosene, which is also sold as No. 1 diesel fuel
because it meets Alaska's winter cloud point specification, accounts
for almost fifty percent (50%) of Alaska's distillate consumption and
dominates refiner planning. A survey of the refiners in Alaska,
conducted by the State, revealed that it would cost over $100,000,000
in construction and process modifications to refine Alaska North Slope
(ANS) crude into 0.05% sulfur diesel fuel to meet the demand for
highway diesel fuel. Among the reasons for the high cost include the
construction costs in Alaska, which are 25% to 65% higher than costs in
the lower 48 states, and the cost of modifying the fuel production
process itself. The petition states that because there is such a small
demand for highway diesel fuel in Alaska, the costs that would be
incurred to comply with section 211(i)'s sulfur requirement are
excessive in light of the expected benefits. Without an exemption from
having to meet this requirement, most refiners would choose to exit the
market for highway diesel fuel.
Whether low-sulfur diesel fuel is produced in Alaska or imported
from the lower 48 states or Canada, there remains the problem of
segregating the two fuels for transport to communities accessible only
by navigable waterways and storage of the fuels thereafter. Fuel is
delivered to these communities only between the months of May and
October due to ice formation which blocks waterways leading to these
communities for much of the remainder of the year. The fuel supplied to
these communities during the summer months must last through the winter
and spring months until resupply can occur. Additionally, the existing
fuel storage facilities limit the number of fuel types that can be
stored for use in these communities. The cost of constructing separate
storage facilities and providing separate tanks for transport of low-
sulfur diesel fuel is prohibitive. This is largely due to the high cost
of construction in Alaska relative to the lower 48, and the constraints
inherent in distributing fuel in Alaska. One alternative to
constructing separate storage facilities is to supply only low-sulfur
diesel fuel to these communities. However, the result would require use
of the higher cost, low-sulfur diesel fuel for all diesel fuel needs.
This would greatly increase the already high cost of living in these
communities, since a large percentage of distillate consumption in
these communities is for off-highway uses, such as operating diesel
powered electrical generators.
D. Environmental Factors
Information provided to EPA by the State of Alaska indicates that
refiners supply and distribute standard diesel fuel in the summer which
has a sulfur content of approximately 0.3% by weight, and supply and
distribute Jet-A fuel in the winter as an Arctic-grade diesel, which
has a sulfur content between 0.065 and 0.11. Thus, the reported level
of sulfur in motor vehicle diesel fuel used in Alaska is below the
current ASTM sulfur specification which allows up to 0.5% (by weight).
Therefore, in general, the impact of not requiring the low sulfur
diesel fuel program in Alaska are not as significant as they would be
if the fuel were to approach the ASTM allowable sulfur content level.
Although the State's largest communities, Fairbanks and Anchorage,
[[Page 42816]]
are CO nonattainment areas, extending this exemption is not expected to
have any significant impact on ambient CO levels because the sulfur
content in diesel fuel does not significantly affect CO emissions. Two
rural communities are designated nonattainment areas with respect to
particulate matter (PM10); however, motor vehicle exhaust is
responsible for less than one percent of the overall PM10 being
emitted within the borders of these two areas where fugitive dust is
reported to be a problem. Thus, EPA believes that granting a 24-month
extension to the current temporary exemption to communities served by
the FAHS will not have a significant impact on the ability of any of
these communities to meet the NAAQS.
V. Decision for Extending the Current Temporary Exemption
In this notice, the Agency is extending the temporary exemption for
those areas in Alaska served by FAHS from the diesel fuel sulfur
content requirement of 0.05% (by weight), for a period of 24 months
from October 1, 1996, or until such time as a decision is made on the
petition for a permanent exemption, whichever is shorter. For the same
reasons, the Agency also extends the exemption for those areas in
Alaska covered by the FAHS from those provisions of section 211(g)(2)
4 of the Act that prohibit the fueling of motor vehicles with
high-sulfur diesel fuel. Sections 211(g) and 211(i) both restrict the
use of high-sulfur motor vehicle diesel fuel. Therefore, areas in
Alaska served by the Federal Aid Highway System are also exempt from
the related 211(g)(2) provisions until such time as a decision has been
made on the state's petition for a permanent exemption.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ This subsection makes it unlawful for any person to
introduce or cause or allow the introduction into any motor vehicle
of diesel fuel which they know or should know contains a
concentration of sulfur in excess of 0.05 percent (by weight). It
would clearly be impossible to hold persons liable for misfueling
with diesel fuel with a sulfur content higher than 0.05%, when such
fuel is permitted to be sold or dispensed for use in motor vehicles.
The proposed exemptions would include exemptions from this
prohibition, but not include the prohibitions in Sec. 211(g)(2)
relating to the minimum cetane index or alternative aromatic levels.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The basis for this decision is that compliance with this
requirement is unreasonable during such time period because, at this
time, it would continue to create a severe economic burden for
refiners, distributors and consumers of diesel fuel in the State of
Alaska. This economic burden is created by unique meteorological
conditions in Alaska and a set of unique distillate product demands in
the state. As a result of these conditions, during the term of this
exemption, it is not mandated that low-sulfur diesel fuel be available
for commercial use in Alaska. The Agency will make a final
determination on the state's petition for a permanent exemption, as
discussed below.
The EPA believes that a 24-month continuation of the current
exemption for areas served by the Federal Aid Highway System from the
diesel fuel sulfur content requirement is reasonable and appropriate so
that the Agency can consider recent comments on the state's petition. A
permanent exemption is not appropriate at this time because EPA has not
yet verified all relevant information and comments submitted by other
interested parties.
Alaska's most recent petition included a compilation of
information, provided by a Task Force (in which an EPA representative
participated) that was established after the first petition, to further
evaluate the conditions as described in that petition. These conditions
included: the availability of arctic-grade, low-sulfur diesel fuel from
out-of-state refiners, the costs associated with importing the fuel,
and the costs of storing and distributing the fuel to areas on the
highway system. The conditions and factors that were identified in the
initial petition were expanded upon in the task force review. At this
time there is sufficient evidence to support granting an extension to
the current exemption, however, the Agency believes there are several
issues that merit further investigation prior to making a final
decision to act on the state's request for a permanent exemption. These
issues include: consideration of an alternative fuel standard or fuel,
local environmental effects, manufacturer's emissions warranty and
recall liability, and the potential for tightening future heavy-duty
emission standards for model year 2004 engines.
The information which is summarized in this notice and other
pertinent information is being investigated in more detail by the
Agency, prior to issuing a decision on the States request for a
permanent exemption.
The Agency will publish a separate notice in the Federal Register
to take action on the state's petition for a permanent exemption.
VI. Public Participation
The Agency is publishing this action as a direct final rule because
this action is only extending Alaska's current temporary exemption from
the diesel fuel sulfur standards as established in section 211(i) of
the Act. The Agency views the changes contained herein as non-
controversial and based on outreach efforts with affected parties, EPA
anticipates no adverse or critical comments.
Following the August 27, 1993 publication of EPA's proposed
decision to grant the first exemption from the low sulfur diesel fuel
requirements requested by Alaska, there was a thirty day comment
period, during which interested parties could request a hearing or
submit comments on the proposal. The Agency received no request for a
hearing. Comments were received both in support of the proposal to
grant the exemption and expressing concerns over the impact of granting
the exemption. These comments were considered in the Agency's decision
to grant the previous exemption. The Agency received Alaska's request
for a permanent exemption for the FAHS areas in December of 1995. Since
that time, the Agency has received comment on the petition from the
Alaska Center for the Environment and the Engine Manufacturers of
America. Although the Agency believes that the petition does support an
extension of the current exemption, EPA believes the information in
these comments and the possible tightening of heavy duty engine
standards in 2004 necessitate further consideration before the Agency
proposes a decision on Alaska's request for a permanent waiver.
This action will become effective October 3, 1996 unless the Agency
receives adverse comments or a request for a public hearing by
September 18, 1996. If EPA receives such comments or request for a
public hearing, EPA will publish a timely notice in the Federal
Register withdrawing this rule. In the event that adverse or critical
comments are received, EPA is also publishing a Notice of Proposed
Decision in a separate action today, which proposes the same exemption
contained in this direct final decision. Any adverse comments received
by the date listed above will be addressed in a subsequent final
decision. That final decision will be based on the relevant portion of
the revision that is noticed as a proposed decision in the Federal
Register and that is identical to this direct final decision. 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 October 3, 1996.
VII. Statutory Authority
Authority for the action in this document is in sections 211(i)(4)
(42
[[Page 42817]]
U.S.C. 7545(i)(4)) and 325(a)(1) (42 U.S.C. 7625-1(a)(1)) of the Clean
Air Act, as amended.
VIII. Administrative Designation and Regulatory Analysis
Under Executive Order 12866,5 the Agency must determine
whether a regulation is ``significant'' and therefore subject to OMB
review and the requirements of the Executive Order. The Order defines
``significant regulatory action'' as one that is likely to result in a
rule that may:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ 58 FR 51736 (October 4, 1993)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(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 of 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
this Executive Order.6
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Id. at section 3(f)(1)-(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
It has been determined that this rule is not a ``significant
regulatory action'' under the terms of Executive Order 12866 and is
therefore not subject to OMB review.
IX. Compliance With the Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, requires that
Federal Agencies examine the impacts of their regulations on small
entities. The act requires an Agency to prepare a regulatory
flexibility analysis in conjunction with notice and comment rulemaking,
unless the Agency head certifies that the rule will not have a
significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. 5 U.S.C.
605(b).
Today's action to extend the temporary exemption of the low sulfur
diesel fuel requirements in the State of Alaska until October 1, 1998,
or until such time as the Agency proposes to act on the states request
for a permanent exemption, whichever period of time is shorter, will
not result in any additional economic burden on any of the affected
parties, including small entities involved in the oil industry, the
automotive industry and the automotive service industry. EPA is not
imposing any new requirements on regulated entities, but instead is
continuing an exemption from a requirement which makes it less
restrictive.
Therefore, the Administrator has determined that this direct final
decision will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of
small entities, and that a regulatory flexibility analysis is not
necessary in connection with this decision.
X. 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 action
as it does not involve the collection of information as defined
therein.
XI. 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.
XII. 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.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 80
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Diesel fuel, Motor
vehicle pollution.
Dated: August 12, 1996.
Carol M. Browner,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 96-21078 Filed 8-16-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
