The overall effect of the proposed rule on auto sector employment depends on the relative magnitude of the cost effect, the demand effect and the factor shift effect.  Because we do not have quantitative estimates of the demand and factor shift effects we cannot reach a quantitative estimate of the overall employment effects of the proposed rule on auto sector employment or even whether the total effect would be positive or negative.  However, given that the expected increase in production costs to the auto manufacturers is relatively small, we expect that the magnitudes of all these effects will be small as well.  Additionally, the cost and demand effects are expected to work in opposite directions. Thus while we do not have an estimate of the direction of the overall effect of the proposed rule on auto sector employment, we expect it will be imperceptible.
Additionally, the proposed rule is not expected to provide incentives for manufacturers to shift employment between domestic and foreign production. This is because the increased standards of the proposed rule would apply to vehicles sold in the U.S. regardless of where they are produced. If foreign manufacturers already have increased expertise in satisfying the requirements of the proposal, there may be some initial incentive for foreign production, but the opportunity for the U.S. to sell in other markets might increase.  To the extent that the requirements of this proposal might lead to installation and use of technologies that other countries may seek now or in the future, developing this capacity for domestic production now may provide some additional ability to serve those markets.  This potential benefit would not apply if other countries are not likely to have similar standards.
Refinery Employment Impacts
The Morgenstern et al. (2002) framework of demand effects, cost effects and factor shift effects can also be applied to the impact of the proposed rule on employment in the refinery sector.  Here we use a fully qualitative approach.  A qualitative discussion allows for a wider incorporation of additional considerations, such as timing of impacts and the effects of the rule on imports and exports.  Because the discussion is qualitative, we do not sum the net effects on employment.  The demand effect on refining sector employment is expected to be negative.  The discussion in Section X.C above suggested that the proposed rule would cause a small decrease in the quantity of gasoline demanded due to higher production costs being passed through to consumers.  This slightly reduced level of sales would likely have a negative impact on employment in the refining sector.  While we do not quantify the level of job losses that could be expected here, recall that the quantity of gasoline sold as a result of the standards proposed here is expected to decrease by only a very small amount over any time horizon.
The cost effect of the proposed rule on employment in the refining sector is expected to be positive as usual in the Morgenstern et al. (2002) framework.  In order to satisfy the requirements of the proposed rule, firms in the refining industry are expected to need to perform additional work that will require hiring more employees, especially perhaps in the short run.  Section V.A.2.c discusses the expected employment needed to reduce the sulfur content of fuels; as noted there, to meet the proposed Tier 3 sulfur standards, refiners are expected to invest $2.2 billion between 2014 and 2019 and utilize approximately 1,000 front-end design and engineering jobs and 6,000 construction jobs.  As the petroleum sector employed approximately 65,000 workers in 2009, this temporary increase in employment would be comparable to an increase of over 10 percent when compared to 2009 levels.
As with our analysis of the vehicle manufacturing sector, we do not have information on the direction the factor shift effect might take.  It is unclear whether the refining industry would become more or less capital intensive as a result of the proposed rule.  Thus the direction of the factor shift effect is ambiguous.
This rule is not expected to provide incentives to shift employment between domestic and foreign production.  First, the proposed standards would apply to gasoline sold in the U.S. regardless of where it has been produced. U.S. gasoline demand is projected to continue to decline for the foreseeable future in response to higher gasoline prices, more stringent vehicle and engine greenhouse gas and fuel economy standards as well as increased use of renewable fuels.  As a result, this analysis of incentives to shift employment between domestic and foreign production focuses on investments for existing capacity instead of expanding capacity.  In this case, what is relevant is whether the necessary modifications to comply with Tier 3 would be significantly cheaper overseas than in the U.S.
The main impacts on capital and operating costs to comply with Tier 3 associated with adding hydrotreating capacity are likely to be similar overseas as in the U.S.  This is particularly true when analyzing likely sources of U.S. imports.  The majority of gasoline imported to the U.S. today comes into the East Coast and is sourced out of either Europe or refineries in Canada or the Caribbean that exist almost solely to supply the U.S. market.  These Canadian and Caribbean refineries, by virtue of their focus on the U.S. market, are very similar to U.S. based refineries and would be expected to have to incur similar capital and operating costs as their U.S. based competitors meeting the 10 ppm standard.   Furthermore, the European refineries are already producing gasoline to a 10 ppm sulfur cap for Europe.  To the extent they have refinery streams that are more difficult to hydrotreat, the U.S. market currently serves as an outlet for their higher sulfur gasoline streams.  As a result, they may incur capital and operating costs on a per gallon basis at least as high as for their U.S. based competitors for these remaining higher sulfur gasoline streams.  Alternatively, they may instead choose to find markets outside the U.S., opening the way for increased U.S. based refinery demand.
Finally, despite refining industry projections that previously imposed diesel rules would lead to greater U.S. reliance on imports through major negative impacts on domestic refining, the reverse has actually occurred.  Over the last 8 years, imports of gasoline and diesel fuel have continued to be the marginal supply, and have even dropped precipitously so that the U.S. is now a net exporter of diesel fuel and is importing half the gasoline that it did at its peak in 2006.  With the projected decline in future gasoline demand in the U.S. as vehicle fuel efficiency improves, gasoline imports are expected to continue to decline.
Thus it is expected that for the refining sector, the demand effect would lower employment, the cost effect would raise employment, and the factor shift effect would have an ambiguous effect on employment.  As a whole then, it is not evident whether the proposed rule would increase or decrease employment in the refining sector.  However, given the small anticipated reduction in quantity sold, it appears that the rule would not have major employment consequences for this sector.
The petroleum industry is one of the four industries studied by Morgenstern et al. (2002) when they look at the effect of environmental expenditures on employment.  They found a small but statistically significant increase in employment in this sector (2.17 jobs per million dollars of expenditures, using 1987$).   Using this factor (adjusted to 2010$), the estimated sulfur fuel control costs in 2017 of $1,289 million would imply an increase of approximately 1,600 jobs in the refinery sector.  We note that the regulations that this estimate is derived from are not directly comparable to the current proposed rule; it is based on the costs of reductions in refinery emissions instead of changing fuel properties, and therefore may not be applicable for the standards proposed here.
Section 5.3 of the draft RIA contains some historical discussion regarding the impact on refineries and refining capacity of earlier rules which resulted in higher costs for refiners.  Over the period 2003-2011, when a number of rules were being implemented, EIA data show a net of two net refinery closures on its website.  Meanwhile, over this same period the average size of U.S. refineries increased from 113,000 barrels per day to 123,000 barrels per day, and total U.S. refining capacity increased by six percent.  Thus, historically during a time when rules with much larger expected impacts were being implemented (the 2003 ultra-low sulfur nonroad diesel proposal alone was expected to have a cost impact on refineries more than five times greater than the current proposed rule), U.S. refining capacity increased even as the number of U.S. refineries slightly fell. While closing refineries has a negative effect on industry employment, it is likely that the increased refining capacity at many of the remaining plants had a positive effect on industry employment.
The proposed rule is also likely to have a positive impact on employment among producers of equipment that refiners will use to comply with the standards.  Section V.A.2.c notes that some refiners are expected to need to revamp their current treatment units, and others will need to add additional treatment units.  Producers of this equipment would be expected to hire additional labor to meet this increased demand.  We also note that the employment effects may be different in the immediate implementation phase than in the ongoing compliance phase. It is expected that the employment increases through the cost effect from revamping old equipment and installing additional equipment should occur in the near term, when current unemployment levels are high, and the opportunity cost of workers is relatively low.  Meanwhile, the employment decreases in the refining sector from the demand effect would not start until 2017, when compliance would be required, and when unemployment is expected to be reduced; in a time of full employment, any changes in employment levels in the regulated sector are mostly expected to be offset by changes in employment in other sectors.
Public Participation
We request comment on all aspects of this proposal. This section describes how you can participate in this process.
How Do I Submit Comments?
EPA hasannounced the comment period and the public hearing dates for this proposal in a supplemental Federal Register Notice.  We will accept comments during the period indicated in the supplemental notice.  If you have an interest in the proposed program described in this document, we encourage you to comment on any aspect of this rulemaking.  We also request comment on specific topics identified throughout this proposal.
Your comments will be most useful if you include appropriate and detailed supporting rationale, data, and analysis.  Commenters are especially encouraged to provide specific suggestions for any changes to any aspect of the regulations that they believe need to be modified or improved.  You should send all comments, except those containing proprietary information, to our Air Docket (see ADDRESSES in the first part of this proposal) before the end of the comment period.
You may submit comments electronically, by mail, or through hand delivery/courier.  To ensure proper receipt by EPA, identify the appropriate docket identification number in the subject line on the first page of your comment.  Please ensure that your comments are submitted within the specified comment period.  Comments received after the close of the comment period will be marked "late."  EPA is not required to consider these late comments.  If you wish to submit Confidential Business Information (CBI) or information that is otherwise protected by statute, please follow the instructions in Section XI.B.
How Should I Submit CBI to the Agency?
Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI electronically through the electronic public docket, www.regulations.gov, or by e-mail.  Send or deliver information identified as CBI only to the following address:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Assessment and Standards Division, 2000 Traverwood Drive, Ann Arbor, MI, 48105, Attention Docket ID EPA - HQ -  OAR - 2011 - 0135.  You may claim information that you submit to EPA as CBI by marking any part or all of that information as CBI (if you submit CBI on disk or CD - ROM, mark the outside of the disk or CD - ROM as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD - ROM the specific information that is CBI).  Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.
In addition to one complete version of the comments that include any information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comments that does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket.  If you submit the copy that does not contain CBI on disk or CD - ROM, mark the outside of the disk or CD - ROM clearly that it does not contain CBI.  Information not marked as CBI will be included in the public docket without prior notice.  If you have any questions about CBI or the procedures for claiming CBI, please consult the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.
A. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA?
You may find the following suggestions helpful for preparing your comments:
            * Explain your views as clearly as possible.
            * Describe any assumptions that you used.
            * Provide any technical information and/or data you used that support your views.
            * If you estimate potential burden or costs, explain how you arrived at your estimate.
            * Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns.
            * Offer alternatives.
            * Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline identified.
            * To ensure proper receipt by EPA, identify the appropriate docket identification number in the subject line on the first page of your response.  It would also be helpful if you provided the name, date, and Federal Register citation related to your comments.
Will There Be a Public Hearing?
EPA will announce the public hearing dates for this proposal in a supplemental Federal Register Notice.
If you would like to present testimony at the public hearing, we ask that you notify the contact person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT in the first part of this proposal at least seven days before the hearing.  Once EPA learns how many people have registered to speak at the public hearing, we will allocate an appropriate amount of time to each participant, allowing time for lunch and necessary breaks throughout the day. For planning purposes, each speaker should anticipate speaking for approximately ten minutes, although we may need to adjust the time for each speaker if there is a large turnout. We suggest that you bring copies of your statement or other material for the EPA panel and the audience.  It would also be helpful if you send us a copy of your statement or other materials before the hearing. To accommodate as many speakers as possible, we prefer that speakers not use technological aids (e.g., audio-visuals, computer slideshows). However, if you plan to do so, you must notify the contact persons in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section in the supplemental hearing notice. You also must make arrangements to provide your presentation or any other aids to EPA in advance of the hearing in order to facilitate set-up.
We will make a tentative schedule for the order of testimony based on the notifications we receive.  This schedule will be available on the morning of the hearing.  In addition, we will reserve a block of time for anyone else in the audience who wants to give testimony.
The hearing will be held at a site accessible to individuals with disabilities. Individuals who require accommodations such as sign language interpreters should contact the persons listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section in the supplemental hearing notice seven days before the date of the hearing.
We will conduct the hearing informally, and technical rules of evidence will not apply. We will arrange for a written transcript of the hearing and keep the official record of the hearing open for 30 days to allow you to submit supplementary information.  You may make arrangements for copies of the transcript directly with the court reporter.
Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review
Under section 3(f)(1) of Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this action is an "economically significant regulatory action" because it is likely to have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more.  Accordingly, EPA submitted this action to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review under Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011) and any changes made in response to OMB recommendations have been documented in the docket for this action.
In addition, EPA prepared an analysis of the potential costs and benefits associated with this action.  This analysis is contained in Sections VII and VIII of this preamble and in Chapter 8 of the draft RIA.  A copy of the analysis is available in the docket for this action.
Paperwork Reduction Act
The information collection requirements in this proposed rule have been 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 Request (ICR) documents prepared by EPA have been assigned EPA ICR number 0783.63 for the vehicles provisions and EPA ICR 2482.01 and ICR 2459.01 for the fuels provisions.
This proposed rule contains reporting and recordkeeping requirement within the context of EPA's motor vehicle certification program and the manufacturers' in-use testing program (IUVP).  Current regulations require manufacturers to submit emissions information to EPA in conjunction with these two programs (Information Collections).  Manufacturers must submit an application for emission certification prior to production.  The application describes the major aspects of the proposed product line, technical details of the emission control systems, and the results of tests to indicate compliance with the emissions and, greenhouse gases, and fuel economy limitations.  The application and supporting test results are reviewed and, if appropriate, a certificate of conformity is issued.  Subsequently, low- and high-mileage vehicles in use are tested for emissions by manufacturers and the results of those tests reported to EPA.  EPA estimates the total number of respondents to be 55, the total burden hours to be 73,567 and the total cost to respondents to be $7,690,934.
This proposed rule also contains reporting and recordkeeping requirements for refiners and importers of motor vehicle gasoline. The recordkeeping and reporting requirements for these entities under the proposed Tier 3 program are the same requirements that exist under the Tier 2 sulfur program.  The recordkeeping and Product Transfer Document (PTD) requirements for gasoline additive producers and PTD requirements for downstream parties under the proposed Tier 3 program are new but should be minimal since we expect that they are already followed as part of normal business practices.  Finally, there are new recordkeeping and PTD requirements for producers of denatured fuel ethanol under the proposed Tier 3 program.  EPA estimates the total number of respondents to be 1,500, the total burden hours to be 76,743 and the total cost to respondents to be $5,908,504.
Finally, this proposed rule also contains provisions for qualifications of laboratories on test methods.  We have proposed recordkeeping and reporting requirements that would apply to fuel testing laboratories.  The collected data will permit EPA to: (1) Qualify laboratories to use test methods based upon accuracy and precision criteria supported by industry; and (2) Ensure that various fuels meet the standards required under the regulations at 40 CFR part 80 and that the associated benefits to human health and the environment are realized.  We estimate that 750 laboratories may be subject to the proposed information collection.  This estimate is based upon our experience with qualification of laboratories under the existing diesel sulfur program.  We estimate an annual reporting burden of 95 hours per respondent and an annual recordkeeping burden of 104 hours, yielding a total of 199 hours.  For those laboratories that elect to be reference installations, the annual reporting burden would be 95 hours and the annual recordkeeping burden would be 128 hours.
Supporting statements for all 3 ICRs can be found in Docket ID number EPA - HQ - OAR - 2011 - 0135.
Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).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.
To comment on the Agency's need for this information, the accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods for minimizing respondent burden, EPA has established a public docket for this rule, which includes these ICR numbers, under Docket ID number EPA - HQ - OAR - 2011 - 0135.   See the `ADDRESSES' section at the beginning of this notice for where to submit comments to EPA.  Send comments to OMB at the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street, NW, Washington, DC 20503, Attention: Desk Office for EPA.  Since OMB is required to make a decision concerning the ICR between 30 and 60 days after [Insert date of publication in the FEDERAL REGISTER], a comment to OMB is best assured of having its full effect if OMB receives it by [Insert date 30 days after publication in the FEDERAL REGISTER].  The final rule will respond to any OMB or public comments on the information collection requirements contained in this proposal.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
Overview
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 (SBA) regulations at 13 CFR 121.201 (see table below); (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.
The following table provides an overview of the primary SBA small business categories potentially affected by this regulation:
Industry
NAICS[a]  Code (2007)
Defined as small entity by SBA if less than or equal to:

Gasoline fuel refiners and importers
324110
1,500 employees
Ethanol producers
325193
1,000 employees
Gasoline additive manufacturers
325199, 325998, 424690
1,000 employees
500 employees
100 employees
Transmix processors
Varied
1,500 employees
Petroleum bulk stations and terminals
424710
100 employees
Other warehousing and storage- bulk petroleum storage
493190
$25.5 million (annual receipts)
Light-duty vehicle and light-duty truck manufacturers
336111,
336112
1,000 employees
Independent commercial importers
811111, 811112, 811198
$7 million (annual receipts)
Alternative fuel converters
335312,
336312,
336322,
336399,
811198
1,000 employees
750 employees
"
"
$7 million (annual receipts)
On-highway heavy-duty engine & vehicle (>8,500 lbs GVWR) manufacturers
333618,
336120,
336211,
336312
1,000 employees
"
"
750 employees
Note:
[a] North American Industrial Classification System
Background
EPA's Tier 2 Vehicle and Gasoline Sulfur Program, which was finalized in February 2000, took a systems-based approach to motor vehicle pollution by setting standards for both passenger vehicles and their fuel (gasoline).  The program set stricter tailpipe and evaporative emissions standards for criteria pollutants from vehicles beginning with model year (MY) 2004 and phasing in through 2009.  The program also lowered the sulfur content of gasoline, to a 30-ppm refinery average, 80-ppm per-gallon cap, and 95-ppm downstream cap; beginning in 2004 and phasing in through 2008.  The potential to extend the phase-in for small refiners and approved Gasoline Phase-In Area (GPA) refiners through the end of 2010 was provided in the Highway Diesel Rule in exchange for early compliance with the diesel program.  Similar to the Tier 2 rule, the Tier 3 rule being proposed today is a comprehensive, systems-based approach to address the impact of light-duty vehicles and certain heavy-duty vehicles on air quality and health.
Pursuant to section 603 of the RFA, EPA prepared an initial regulatory flexibility analysis (IRFA) that examines the impact of the proposed rule on small entities along with regulatory alternatives that could reduce that impact.  The IRFA is available for review in the rulemaking docket (in Chapter 10 of the draft RIA) and is summarized below.
As required by section 609(b) of the RFA, as amended by SBREFA, EPA also conducted outreach to small entities and convened a Small Business Advocacy Review Panel to obtain advice and recommendations of representatives of the small entities that potentially would be subject to the rule's requirements.
Consistent with the RFA/SBREFA requirements, the Panel evaluated the assembled materials and small-entity comments on issues related to elements of the IRFA.  A copy of the Panel Report is included in the docket for this proposed rule, and a summary of the Panel process, and subsequent Panel recommendations, is summarized below.
Reason for Today's Proposed Rule
This rule proposes to establish more stringent vehicle emissions standards and reduce the sulfur content of gasoline beginning in 2017, as part of a systems approach in addressing the impacts of motor vehicles and fuels on air quality and public health.  The proposed gasoline sulfur standard would make emission control systems more effective and enable more stringent vehicle emissions standards, and the proposed vehicle standards would reduce vehicle tailpipe and evaporative emissions.  This would result in significant reductions in pollutants such as ozone, particulate matter, and air toxics.  For a more detailed discussion of the reasoning for today's proposed rule, please see Sections II and III of this preamble.  The proposed vehicle and fuel programs are further discussed in Sections IV and V, respectively.
Legal Basis for Agency Action
The Clean Air Act (CAA) authorizes EPA to establish emissions standards for motor vehicles to address air pollution that may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare.  EPA also has authority to establish fuel controls to address such air pollution.  The authority for the proposed vehicle emission standards comes from CAA section 202(a), Section 202(k) provides EPA with authority to issue and revise regulations applicable to evaporative emissions of hydrocarbons from gasoline-fueled motor vehicles, and section 206(d) authorizes EPA to establish methods and procedures for testing whether a motor vehicle or motor vehicle engine conforms with section 202 requirements.  The authority for the proposed fuel standards comes from section 211(c).
For more detailed information on our legal authority for today's proposal, please see Sections II.A and V.G of this preamble.
Summary of Potentially Affected Small Entities
The table above lists industries/sectors potentially affected by the proposed rule.  For businesses potentially impacted by the Tier 3 vehicle standards, this includes vehicle manufacturers, alternative fuel converters, and independent commercial importers.  For businesses potentially impacted by the Tier 3 fuel standards, this includes gasoline refiners and importers, distributors, fuel additive manufacturers, transmix producers, and ethanol producers.
EPA used a variety of sources to identify which entities are appropriately considered "small."  EPA used the criteria for small entities developed by the Small Business Administration under the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) as a guide.  Information about these entities comes from sources including the Energy Information Administration (EIA) within the U.S. Department of Energy, oil industry literature, EPA's certification data, and previous rulemakings that have affected these industries.  EPA then found employment information for these companies using the business information database Hoover's Online (a subsidiary of Dun and Bradstreet).  These entities fall under the categories listed in the table.
To gauge the impact of the proposed standards on small businesses, EPA employed a cost-to-sales ratio test to estimate the number of small businesses that would be impacted by less than one percent, between one and three percent, and above three percent.  Overall, EPA projects that 13 small businesses will be impacted by less than one percent, 13 small businesses will be impacted by one to three percent, and 5 small businesses will be impacted by more than three percent.  A more detailed description of the inputs used for each affected industry sector and the methodology used to develop the estimated impact on small businesses in each industry sector is included in the IRFA as presented in Chapter 10 of the draft RIA for this rulemaking.
Potential Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Compliance
For any emission control program, EPA must have assurances that the regulated products will meet the standards.  The program that EPA is considering for manufacturers subject to this proposal will include testing, reporting, and record keeping requirements for manufacturers of vehicles covered by the proposed Tier 3 regulations.  Testing requirements for these manufacturers could include certification emission (including deterioration factor) testing, in-use testing, and production line testing.  Reporting requirements would likely include emission test data and technical data on the vehicles.  Manufacturers would have to keep records of this information.
For any fuel control program, EPA must have assurance that fuel produced, distributed, sold and used meets the applicable standard.  EPA expects that the recordkeeping, reporting, and compliance provisions of the proposed rule would be fairly consistent with those in place today for other fuel programs.  Further, we expect to use existing registration and reporting systems that parties in the fuel production and distribution industry are already familiar with.
Related Federal Rules
The primary federal rules that are related to the proposed Tier 3 rule under consideration are: the Tier 2 Vehicle/Gasoline Sulfur rulemaking (65 FR 6698, February 10, 2000), the 2017 Light-duty Greenhouse Gas (GHG) rule (77 FR 62623), and the Petroleum Refinery Sector Risk and Technology Review and New Source Performance Standards rule (RTR/NSPS; 77 FR 41051).
The 2017 LD GHG rule is a coordinated effort by EPA and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) taking steps to enable the production of a new generation of clean vehicles, though reduced GHG emissions and improved fuel efficiency from on-road vehicles and engines.
The rules to address Petroleum Refinery Sector Risk and Technology Review (RTR) and New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) focus on developing updated emissions standards for petroleum refineries for multiple pollutants, including GHGs.  The rules are based on results of the RTR analyses for both Maximum Achievable Control Technology standards (MACT 1 and 2).  The technology review would be conducted to identify any new practices, processes, or control technologies for the industry and cost-effective emission control options.  EPA is developing uniform standards for some emission sources in the petroleum refining sector that may serve as the basis for these technology reviews.  The rules also review the standards and rule provisions to determine whether other changes may be needed during periods of start-up, shutdown, and malfunction to ensure the standards are consistent with recent court opinions and other CAA programs.  With regard to NSPS, the rules address remaining NSPS issues under reconsideration from the promulgation of existing NSPS and other NSPS rules affecting the refining sector, and include the regulation of GHGs and the development of emission guidelines for existing sources.
Summary of SBREFA Panel Process and Panel Outreach
Significant Panel Findings
The Small Business Advocacy Review Panel (SBAR Panel, or the Panel) considered regulatory options and flexibilities to help mitigate potential adverse effects on small businesses as a result of this rule.  During the SBREFA Panel process, the Panel sought out and received comments on the regulatory options and flexibilities that were presented to SERs and Panel members.  The recommendations of the Panel are described below and are also located in Section 9 of the SBREFA Final Panel Report, which is available in the public docket.
Panel Process
As required by section 609(b) of the RFA, as amended by SBREFA, we also conducted outreach to small entities and convened an SBAR Panel to obtain advice and recommendations of representatives of the small entities that potentially would be subject to the rule's requirements.  On August 4, 2011, EPA's Small Business Advocacy Chairperson convened a Panel under Section 609(b) of the RFA.  In addition to the Chair, the Panel consisted of the Division Director of the Assessment and Standards Division of EPA's Office of Transportation and Air Quality, the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration, and the Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs within the Office of Management and Budget. As part of the SBAR Panel process, we conducted outreach with representatives of small businesses that would potentially be affected by the proposed rulemaking.  We met with these Small Entity Representatives (SERs) to discuss the potential rulemaking approaches and potential options to decrease the impact of the rulemaking on their industries.  We distributed outreach materials to the SERs; these materials included background on the rulemaking, possible regulatory approaches, and possible rulemaking alternatives.  The Panel met with SERs from the industries that would be directly affected by the Tier 3 rule on August 18, 2011 to discuss the outreach materials and receive feedback on the approaches and alternatives detailed in the outreach packet (the Panel also met with SERs on June 28, 2011 for an initial outreach meeting).  The Panel received written comments from the SERs following the meeting in response to discussions had at the meeting and the questions posed to the SERs by the Agency.  The SERs were specifically asked to provide comment on regulatory alternatives that could help to minimize the rule's impact on small businesses.
The Panel's findings and discussions were based on the information that was available during the term of the Panel and issues that were raised by the SERs during the outreach meetings and in their comments.  It was agreed that EPA should consider the issues raised by the SERs and discussions had by the Panel itself, and that EPA should consider comments on flexibility alternatives that would help to mitigate negative impacts on small businesses to the extent legally allowable by the Clean Air Act.  Alternatives discussed throughout the Panel process included those offered in previous or current EPA rulemakings, as well as alternatives suggested by SERs and Panel members.  A summary of these recommendations is detailed below, and a full discussion of the regulatory alternatives and hardship provisions discussed and recommended by the Panel can be found in the SBREFA Final Panel Report.  A complete discussion of the provisions for which we are requesting comment and/or proposing in this action can be found in Sections IV.E and V.D of this preamble.  Also, the Panel Report includes all comments received from SERs (Appendix B of the Report) and summaries of the two outreach meetings that were held with the SERs.  In accordance with the RFA/ SBREFA requirements, the Panel evaluated the aforementioned materials and SER comments on issues related to the IRFA.  The Panel's recommendations from the Final Panel Report are discussed below.
It should be noted that during the Panel process, two additional issues were discussed with SERs that were under consideration by the Agency for the Tier 3 proposal.  As noted in Section IV.D.5, EPA was considering extending the new certification fuel specifications to all regulatory categories of engines, vehicles, equipment, and fuel system components that use gasoline.  This would have included a wide range of additional applications, including small nonroad engines used in lawn and garden applications, recreational vehicles such as ATVs and snowmobiles, recreational marine applications, on-highway motorcycles, and heavy-duty gasoline engines.  In addition, EPA considered new volatility (Reid Vapor Pressure, or RVP) standards for in-use gasoline.  Neither of these issues is being proposed in today's notice.  Therefore, the following discussion of the Panel recommendations does not address these issues.  The reader is directed to the Panel Report, located in the rulemaking docket, for more information on both of these issues.
Panel Recommendations
Tier 3 Fuels
The Panel discussed several regulatory flexibility alternatives with SERs for small businesses in the gasoline production and distribution, fuel additive manufacturing, and ethanol production industries subject to the proposed fuel requirements.  Panel recommendations on these approaches are discussed below.
Lead Time -- Sulfur
The Panel recommended that EPA propose a delay option, similar to previous fuels rulemakings, in the Tier 3 proposed rule.  The Panel recommended that EPA allow small refiners to postpone their compliance with the Tier 3 program for up to three years.  Small refiners choosing this flexibility option would have from January 1, 2017 through December 31, 2019 to continue production of gasoline with an average sulfur level of 30 ppm (per the Tier 2 gasoline sulfur program).  Compliance with the 10-ppm sulfur standard would begin on January 1, 2020.  Any small refiner choosing this proposed option would be allowed to continue use of their Tier 2 gasoline sulfur credits through December 31, 2019 to meet the refiner average 30-ppm sulfur standard.
The Panel also recommended that EPA request comment on case-by-case hardship provisions that would provide additional relief for any refiner experiencing extreme difficulty in compliance with the Tier 3 requirements, as discussed below in Section XII.C.6.c.i.(6).
Provisions for Additive Manufacturers
The Panel recommended that EPA provide flexibilities for gasoline additive manufacturers.  Following discussion with EPA, the Panel suggested that EPA propose the following flexibilities:
For additives used downstream of the refiner: Differentiating bulk additives based on whether they meet a 20- or 25-ppm sulfur standard.
For aftermarket consumer additives: Allow for aftermarket additives to meet either a 20-ppm or 25-ppm sulfur cap.
For additives not meeting a 10-, 20-, or 25-ppm sulfur limit: Allow for the use of volume accounting reconciliation (VAR) records for additives that would not be able to meet a 25-ppm sulfur cap to show that use of the additive would not cause the sulfur level of the finished fuel to exceed 10 ppm (similar to the Nonroad Diesel Rulemaking, 69 FR 39088, June 29, 2004), and require product labeling for aftermarket additives.
Refinery Gate and Downstream Caps
With regard to the 20-ppm refinery gate cap discussed in Section 3 of the Panel Report, the Panel had concerns that such a standard could cause operational problems for small refiners during a refinery turnaround or an upset, because a cap of this level could result in a refiner not being able to produce gasoline (as noted in their comments in Section 8 of the Panel Report).  The Panel likewise had concerns that a downstream cap of 25 ppm could cause problems for small downstream entities, such as transmix processors, because they may not be able to reprocess finished gasoline down to this level (also noted in their comments in Section 8 of the Panel Report).
Thus, the Panel recommended that EPA assess and request comment on retaining the current Tier 2 refinery gate and downstream caps of 80 and 95 ppm, respectively, to help provide maximum flexibility and avoid system upsets for the entire refining and distribution system.  Thus, the SBA and OMB Panel members recommend that EPA propose retaining the 80-ppm and 95-ppm caps.
The Panel also recommended that EPA request comment on additional refinery gate and downstream caps above 20/25 ppm but below 80/95 ppm.  Additionally, the Panel recommended that EPA allow the current Tier 2 80-ppm sulfur refinery gate cap and 95-ppm sulfur downstream cap in Alaska to remain at these levels indefinitely.
Hardship Provisions
During the Panel process, EPA stated its intent to propose hardship provisions (for all gasoline refiners and importers) similar to those in prior EPA fuels programs: (a) the extreme unforeseen circumstances hardship provision, and (b) the extreme hardship provision.  A hardship based on extreme unforeseen circumstances is intended to provide short term relief due to unanticipated circumstances beyond the control of the refiner, such as a natural disaster or a refinery fire.  An extreme hardship is intended to provide short-term relief based on extreme circumstances (e.g., extreme financial problems, extreme operational or technical problems, etc.) that impose extreme hardship and thus significantly affect a refiner's ability to comply with the program requirements by the applicable dates.  In the context of the proposal, the Panel agrees that such relief could consider long-term relief on the sulfur cap (similar to that for Alaska) if the circumstances both warrant it and can be structured in a way to allow for it. The Panel agrees with the proposal of such provisions and recommended that EPA include them in the Tier 3 proposed rulemaking.
Tier 3 Vehicles
As discussed in Section 5 of the Panel Report, in addition to vehicle manufacturers, two distinct categories of businesses relating to highway light-duty vehicles and heavy-duty trucks would be covered by the new vehicle standards: independent commercial importers (ICIs), and alternative fuel vehicle converters.  As discussed below, EPA's expectation at the time of the Panel process was to propose a set of flexibilities that would be available to all small entities in these three business categories as well as any businesses in these categories that sell less than 5,000 vehicles per year.  The Panel identified a number of entities covered by the vehicle standards that qualify as small businesses under the SBA definition.  Six of these companies participated as SERs.
The Panel discussed several regulatory flexibility alternatives with SERs for small businesses that certify vehicles subject to the proposed Tier 3 emission standards.  As described in Appendix A (and similar to provisions in the Tier 2 rule), EPA sought comment from the SERs on allowing small entities to simply comply with the proposed emission standards with 100 percent of their vehicles during the last year of the phase-in period.  In addition, EPA sought comment on the following flexibilities:  (1) a hardship provision that would allow these businesses to apply for additional time to meet any of the 100 percent phase-in requirements, (2) use of assigned deterioration factors for certification purposes, and (3) reduction in the number of tests required in the manufacturer in-use verification testing program (see 40 CFR 86.1845-04).  SERs were generally supportive of these flexibility provisions. However, one SER requested that EPA consider providing relaxed standards for exhaust emissions in addition to the delay and another SER requested that we consider eliminating some of the evaporative emission testing requirements.
Panel recommendations on these approaches are discussed below.
Exhaust Emission Standards and Lead time
In the types of businesses subject to the potential Tier 3 standards, small businesses have limited resources available for developing new designs to comply with new emission standards.  In addition, it is often necessary for these businesses to rely on vendor companies for technology.  Moreover, percentage phase-in requirements pose a dilemma for a small manufacturer that has a limited product line (e.g., the manufacturer certifies vehicles in only one or two test groups).  Thus, similar to the flexibility provisions implemented in previous vehicle rules, the Panel recommended that EPA allow small businesses the following flexibility options for meeting the potential Tier 3 exhaust emissions standards.
The Panel recommended that small businesses be given additional lead time to comply with the potential Tier 3 exhaust standards and allow small businesses to comply with the standards with 100 percent of their vehicles starting in model year 2022.  (This is similar to the Tier 2 rule where EPA allowed small manufacturers to wait until the end of the phase-in to comply with the Tier 2 standards.)  During the Panel process, the proposed Tier 3 rule was expected to have several different phase-in schedules; with the final dates varying from model year 2021 for the new exhaust PM standards and use of the new E15 certification fuel, to model year 2022 for the new evaporative emission standards, to model year 2025 for the new exhaust gaseous pollutant standards.  The Panel noted that requiring all small businesses to comply with the full slate of Tier 3 requirements in model year 2022 should provide sufficient lead time for manufacturers to plan for and implement the technology changes needed to comply with the Tier 3 standards.
One of the SERs recommended that EPA adopt relaxed exhaust standards for small manufacturers.  The SER noted that the exhaust emission averaging program being proposed by EPA would allow large manufacturers that have many engine families to certify their small, niche products at levels numerically higher than the standards.  Small manufacturers that typically do not have more than one or two emission families generally cannot use averaging to the same extent because of their limited product offerings.  The SER's concern was that the high-performance vehicles produced by large manufacturers which they compete against would be able to certify at numerically higher levels at less cost than the SER would incur.  While EPA was planning to propose the same standards for all manufacturers, the Panel recommended that EPA request comment on allowing small manufacturers to meet relaxed exhaust emission standards.  This could also be included as part of the hardship provision discussed below.  The Panel recommended that EPA request comment on the relaxed standards recommended by the SER.  The SER-recommended relaxed NMOG+NOX standards over the Federal Test Procedure (FTP) are 0.125 grams/mile in model year 2020 and 0.070 grams/mile in model year 2025.  In addition, the Supplemental FTP standards would be the standards for the corresponding bins which the manufacturer selected for complying with the FTP standards.  For example, if the manufacturer certified to the proposed Tier 3 Bin 125 standards over the FTP, the manufacturer would have to comply with the corresponding Tier 3 Bin 125 standards for the Supplemental FTP.
Evaporative Emission Standards and Lead time
The Panel recommended that small businesses comply with the Tier 3 evaporative emission standards, including the leak standard, with 100 percent of their vehicles starting in model year 2022.  For evaporative emissions, where the Tier 3 standards could begin as early as 2017 and phase-in through 2022, this provision would allow small businesses and SVMs to wait until the last year of the Tier 3 phase-in period for evaporative emission standards for all of their vehicles.  This start date is consistent with the start date described above for the Tier 3 exhaust emission requirements being recommended by the Panel for small businesses.
Assigned Deterioration Factors
Under EPA's regulations, manufacturers must demonstrate that their vehicles comply with the emission standards throughout the "useful life" period.  This is generally done by testing vehicles at low-mileage and then applying a deterioration factor to these emission levels.  The deterioration factors are determined by aging new emission control systems and then testing the aged systems again to determine how much deterioration in emissions has occurred.  In order to reduce the testing burden on small manufacturers, EPA suggested that small manufacturers could use deterioration factor values assigned by EPA instead of performing the extended testing.  A manufacturer would apply the assigned deterioration factors to its low-mileage emission level to demonstrate whether it complied with the Tier 3 emission standards.  EPA currently allows this flexibility for small manufacturers.  The Panel recommended that EPA propose that small businesses be allowed the option to use EPA-developed assigned deterioration factors in demonstrating compliance with the Tier 3 exhaust and evaporative emission standards.  In the past, EPA has relied on deterioration factor data from large manufacturers to develop the assigned DFs for small manufacturers.  EPA would expect to follow a similar procedure to determine the assigned DFs for the Tier 3 standards once large manufacturers start certifying their Tier 3 designs.  Given that larger manufacturers would begin phasing in to the Tier 3 standards in model year 2017, EPA should have a significant set of emissions deterioration data upon which to base the assigned DFs for small businesses within the first few years of the Tier 3 program.  EPA recognizes that assigned DFs need to be determined well in advance of model year 2022 in order to provide sufficient time for small businesses to decide whether or not to use the assigned DFs for certification purposes.
Reduced Testing Burden
Under EPA's regulations, manufacturers must perform in-use testing on their vehicles and demonstrate their in-use vehicles comply with the emission standards.  The current in-use testing regulations provide for reduced levels of testing for small manufacturers, including no testing in some cases.  EPA suggested that these provisions should continue for small manufacturers with the Tier 3 program.  The Panel recommended that EPA propose that small businesses be allowed to have reduced burden under the in-use testing program for Tier 3 vehicles.
One SER requested that EPA eliminate some of the evaporative emission testing requirements for small businesses based on its belief that some of the tests may be duplicative.  While EPA noted (during the Panel process) that it understood the reasons behind the manufacturer's suggestion, EPA believed it may be premature to consider such an option in the Tier 3 rule given the impact of the CO2 emission standards on engine and fuel system development.  Currently, it is generally understood that the 2-day diurnal test drives the purge characteristics of evaporative control systems, while the refueling test, and to a lesser degree the 3-day test, drive the capacity requirement of evaporative canisters.   Prospectively, due to expected changes in engine and fuel system designs in response to upcoming CO2 emission standard requirements, this may not be the case.  Therefore, at the time of the Panel process, EPA noted its belief that it is appropriate to retain all of the evaporative test procedures.  It can be noted that under current regulations, EPA does allow manufacturers to waive 2-day diurnal testing for certification purposes (see 40 CFR 86.1829-01(b)(2)(iii)) and perform only the 2-day diurnal test as part of the in-use testing program (see 40 CFR 86.1845-04(c)(5)(ii)).  These provisions would continue in the Tier 3 program.  In general, EPA noted that it is open to changes that reduce test burden while maintaining the environmental effectiveness of its programs and could consider changes like those suggested by the SER in the future as the impacts of the future regulations on engine and vehicle design become clearer.  EPA also stated that it intends to request comment in the Tier 3 proposal on streamlining the current test procedures for small businesses in ways that would still maintain the overall stringency of the tests.
Hardship Provisions
The Panel recommended that hardship provisions be provided to small businesses for the Tier 3 exhaust and evaporative emission standards.  Under the hardship provisions, small businesses would be allowed to apply for additional time to meet the 100 percent phase-in requirements for exhaust and evaporative emissions.  All hardship requests would be subject to EPA review and approval.  Appeals for such hardship relief would be required to be made in writing and submitted well before the earliest date of noncompliance.  The request should identify how much time is being requested.  It must also include evidence that the noncompliance would occur despite the manufacturer's best efforts to comply, and must contain evidence that severe economic hardship would be faced by the company if the relief is not granted.  The above provision should effectively provide the opportunity for small businesses to obtain more time to comply with the new Tier 3 standards.  (The existing hardship provisions limit the extra time that can be requested to 1 year, but such a limit may or may not be included in the proposed Tier 3 hardship provisions.)
Applicability
Under EPA's current Tier 2 regulations, EPA provides a number of flexibilities for small volume manufacturers.  The criteria for determining if a company is a small volume manufacturer is based on the annual production level of vehicles and is based on whether the company produces less than 15,000 vehicles per year.  Unlike EPA's small volume manufacturer criteria noted above, SBA defines which manufacturers are small businesses (and therefore should be considered under the SBAR Panel process) based on the number of employees for vehicle manufacturers and annual revenues for ICIs and alternative fuel converters.  For example, SBA defines small business vehicle manufacturers as those who have less than 1,000 employees.  Similarly, SBA defines small business ICIs as those who have annual revenues of less than $8 million per year.
The Panel recommended that EPA propose to allow all small businesses that meet the SBA criteria be eligible for the flexibilities described above.  In addition, in the Panel Report, EPA stated that it is expecting to propose that manufacturers that meet a specified sales-based criterion to be eligible for the flexibilities described above.  It is relatively easy for a manufacturer to project and ultimately determine sales.  Determining the annual revenues or number of employees is less straightforward.  In the recent rule setting the first light-duty vehicle and truck CO2 emission standards, EPA adopted provisions for small manufacturers based on a sales cutoff of 5,000 vehicles per year as opposed to the 15,000 level noted earlier that is used in the Tier 2 program.  In the Panel Report, EPA noted that it expects to propose a small volume manufacturer definition based on the 5,000 vehicle per year level for the Tier 3 program.  EPA believes the 5,000 unit cut-off for small volume manufacturers would include all of the small business vehicle manufacturers, ICIs, and alternative fuel converters that meet the applicable SBA definition as well as some additional companies that have similar concerns to small businesses.  Lastly, EPA noted in the Panel Report that it expects to propose the flexibilities described above to be available to any manufacturer that meets either the SBA small business criteria or the sales-based criteria.
EPA invites comment on all aspects of the proposal and its impacts on small entities.
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, requires Federal agencies, unless otherwise prohibited by law, to assess the effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal governments and the private sector.  This rule contains 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.  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.  Accordingly, EPA has prepared a statement of the cost-benefit analysis as required by section 202 of the UMRA; this statement can be found in Sections VII and VIII of this preamble, and in Chapter 8 of the draft RIA.  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 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.
Consistent with section 205, EPA has identified and considered a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives.  These alternatives are described above in Sections IV, V, and IX of this preamble.
This rule is not subject to the requirements of section 203 of UMRA because it contains no regulatory requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small governments.  The rule imposes no enforceable duty on any State, local or tribal governments.  EPA has determined that this rule contains no regulatory requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small governments.  EPA has determined that this proposal contains a Federal mandate that may result in expenditures of $100 million or more for the private sector in any one year, however EPA believes that the proposal represents the least costly, and most cost-effective approach to achieve the statutory requirements of the rule.  The costs and benefits associated with the proposal are discussed above in Sections VII and VIII of this preamble, and in Chapter 8 of the draft RIA, as required by section 202 of the UMRA.
Executive Order 13132: Federalism
This proposed action does not have federalism implications.  It would 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.  Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this action.  Although Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this proposed rule, EPA did consult with representatives of various State and local governments in developing this rule.  EPA has also consulted with representatives from the National Association of Clean Air Agencies (NACAA, representing state and local air pollution officials), Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use Management (NESCAUM, the Clean Air Association of the Northeast States), and the Ozone Transport Commission (OTC, a multi-state organization created under the CAA responsible for advising EPA on transport issues and for developing and implementing regional solutions to the ground-level ozone problem in the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic regions).
In the spirit of Executive Order 13132, and consistent with EPA policy to promote communications between EPA and State and local governments, EPA specifically solicits comment on this proposed action from State and local officials.
Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments
This action does not have tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).  This proposed rule would be implemented at the Federal level and would impose compliance costs only on those in the gasoline production, distribution, and additive industry and in the highway and nonroad engine, vehicle, and equipment industries.  Tribal governments would be affected only to the extent they purchase and use regulated fuels, vehicles, and equipment.  Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action.
Although Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action, EPA specifically solicits additional comment on this proposed action from tribal officials.
Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
This action is subject to EO 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) because it is an economically significant regulatory action as defined by EO 12866, and EPA believes that the environmental health or safety risk addressed by this action may have a disproportionate effect on children.  Accordingly, we have evaluated the environmental health or safety effects of air pollutants affected by the proposed standards on children. The results of this evaluation are contained in Section II.B and associated references.
Children are more susceptible than adults to many air pollutants because of differences in physiology, higher per body weight breathing rates and consumption, rapid development of the brain and bodily systems, and behaviors that increase chances for exposure.  Even before birth, the developing fetus may be exposed to air pollutants through the mother that affect development and permanently harm the individual.
Infants and children breathe at much higher rates per body weight than adults, with infants under one year of age having a breathing rate up to five times that of adults.  In addition, children breathe through their mouths more than adults and their nasal passages are less effective at removing pollutants, which leads to a higher deposition fraction in their lungs.
Certain motor vehicle emissions present greater risks to children as well.  For example, mutagenic carcinogens such as benzene and 1,3-butadiene have a larger impact during young life stages, given the rapid development of the corporal systems.  Exposure at a young age to these carcinogens could lead to a higher risk of developing cancer later in life.
The adverse effects of individual air pollutants may be more severe for children, particularly the youngest age groups, than adults. The Integrated Science Assessments and Criteria Documents for a number of pollutants affected by this rule, including those for NO2, PM, ozone and CO, describe children as a group with greater susceptibility. Section II.B.5 discusses a number of childhood health outcomes associated with proximity to roadways, including evidence for exacerbation of asthma symptoms and suggestive evidence for new onset asthma.  In general, these studies do not identify the specific contaminants associated with adverse effects, instead addressing the near-roadway environment as one containing numerous exposures potentially associated with adverse health effects.
In addition to their underlying biological susceptibility, as discussed in Section II.B.1, children may be more vulnerable to the effects of air pollution because of their high levels of outdoor activity.  As discussed in that section, greater impacts of ozone have been reported among children who are more active outdoors.
Section III.C describes the ambient air quality changes resulting from the proposed standards, which represent levels to which the general population is exposed.  Children are not expected to experience greater ambient concentrations of air pollutants than the general population.  However, because of their greater susceptibility to air pollution and their increased time spent outdoors, it is likely that the proposed standards would have particular benefits for children's health.
The public is invited to submit comments or identify peer-reviewed studies and data that assess effects of early life exposure to the air pollutants affected by the proposed standards.
Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
Executive Order 13211, "Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use" (66 FR 28355 (May 22, 2001)), requires EPA to prepare and submit a Statement of Energy Effects to the Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, for certain actions identified as "significant energy actions."  Section 4(b) of Executive Order 13211 defines "significant energy actions" as "any action by an agency (normally published in the Federal Register) that promulgates or is expected to lead to the promulgation of a final rule or regulation, including notices of inquiry, advance notices of proposed rulemaking, and notices of proposed rulemaking: (1)(i) that is a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866 or any successor order, and (ii) is likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy; or (2) that is designated by the Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs as a significant energy action."  Given the flexibilities being proposed for entities in the gasoline production and distribution system, we believe that these mitigate any potential adverse effects on gasoline supply and distribution.  Although EPA does not expect this rule to have significant adverse effects on the supply or distribution of gasoline, we have prepared a Statement of Energy Effects for this action as follows.
This proposal's potential effects on energy supply, distribution, or use have been analyzed and are further discussed above in:
Section V -- fuel provisions of the proposed rule and flexibilities, including hardship provisions.
Section V.2.c -- discussion on proposed refinery lead time.
Section X -- proposed economic impacts (specifically, Section X.C for fuel economic impacts, and Section X.D on employment impacts).
Section VII.B -- estimated costs of the proposed fuel program.
Given the estimated costs and impacts of the proposed rule, as discussed in these areas of this preamble, we do not expect this rule to have any adverse effect on the supply or distribution of gasoline.  Further, we do not believe that there are any reasonable alternatives to the control of sulfur in gasoline which would provide the level of reduction of emissions, considering cost-benefit analyses, given by the reduction in sulfur being proposed in this rule.
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 ("NTTAA"), Public Law No. 104-113 (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.  NTTAA directs EPA to provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides not to use available and applicable voluntary consensus standards.
This proposed rulemaking involves technical standards.  EPA is proposing to update a number of regulations which already contain voluntary consensus standards to more recent versions of these standards.  EPA is proposing to use the ASTM International (ASTM) standards listed in Table XII-1 below.  The standards may be obtained through the ASTM Web site (www.astm.org) or by calling ASTM at (610) 832 - 9585.
This proposed rulemaking also involves environmental monitoring or measurement. Consistent with the Agency's Performance Based Measurement System ("PBMS"), EPA proposes not to require the use of specific, prescribed analytic methods.  Rather, the Agency plans to allow the use of any method that meets the prescribed performance criteria.  The PBMS approach is intended to be more flexible and cost-effective for the regulated community; it is also intended to encourage innovation in analytical technology and improved data quality.  EPA is not precluding the use of any method, whether it constitutes a voluntary consensus standard or not, as long as it meets the performance criteria specified.
Table XII-1 Designated Analytical Test Methods for Gasoline and Diesel Fuel
Fuel Parameter
Designated Analytical Method
Sulfur in gasoline
ASTM D 2622-05
Sulfur in butane
ASTM D 6667-01
500 ppm Sulfur Diesel Fuel
ASTM D 2622-05
Olefins in gasoline
ASTM 1319-03[ε1]
Reid vapor pressure (RVP) in gasoline
ASTM D 5191-07, with the following correlation equation:
RVP psi = (0.956 * X) - 0.347
RVP kPa = (0.956 * X) - 2.39
where:
X = total measured vapor pressure in psi or kPa.
Distillation in gasoline
ASTM D86-07b
Benzene in gasoline
ASTM D 3606-07, except that instrument parameters shall be adjusted to ensure complete resolution of benzene, ethanol, and methanol peaks.
Aromatics in gasoline
ASTM D 5769-04, except that sample chilling requirements in section 8 of this standard are optional.
Oxygen and oxygenate content in gasoline
ASTM D 5599-00(2005)
Aromatics in diesel fuel
ASTM D1319-03 ε1
EPA welcomes comments on this aspect of the proposed rulemaking and, specifically, invites the public to identify potentially-applicable voluntary consensus standards and to explain why such standards should be used in this regulation.
Executive Order 12898:  Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations
Executive Order (EO) 12898 (59 FR 7629 (Feb. 16, 1994)) establishes federal executive policy on environmental justice.  Its main provision directs federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs, policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income populations in the United States.
EPA has determined that this proposed rule would not have disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority or low-income populations because it increases the level of environmental protection for all affected populations without having any disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on any population, including any minority or low-income population.
This proposed rule would reduce emissions from all vehicles across the nation, both new vehicles (beginning in model year 2017, when the vehicle standards start to apply) and existing vehicles (as soon as the lower-sulfur gasoline becomes available in 2017 or earlier).  As such, this proposal would increase the level of environmental protection for all populations.  As discussed in Section III.B.7, there is evidence that minority populations and low-income populations live disproportionately near high-traffic roadways, where concentrations of many air pollutants are elevated.  We expect this proposed rule to increase the level of environmental protection for these populations.
Thus, this proposed rule would not have a disproportionately high adverse human health or environmental effect on minority or low-income populations.
Statutory Provisions and Legal Authority
Statutory authority for this action comes from sections 202, 203-209, 211, 213, 216, and 301 of the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. sections 7414, 7521, 7522-7525, 7541, 7542, 7543, 7545, 7547, 7550, and 7601.  Additional support for the procedural and compliance related aspects of this proposal, including the proposed recordkeeping requirements, comes from sections 114, 208, and 301(a) of the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. sections 7414, 7542, and 7601(a).
List of Subjects
40 CFR Part 79
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Air pollution control, Confidential business information, Diesel fuel, Energy, Fuel additives, Gasoline, Motor vehicle pollution, Penalties, Petroleum, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
40 CFR Part 80
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Air pollution control, Confidential Business Information, Diesel fuel, Fuel additives, Gasoline, Imports, Incorporation by reference, Labeling, Motor vehicle pollution, Penalties, Petroleum, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
40 CFR Part 85
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Air pollution control, Confidential Business Information, Imports, Incorporation by reference, Labeling, Motor vehicle pollution, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Research, Warranties.
40 CFR Part 86
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Air pollution control, Confidential Business Information, Imports, Incorporation by reference, Labeling, Motor vehicle pollution, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Warranties.
40 CFR Part 600
Administrative practice and procedure, Electric power, Fuel economy, Incorporation by reference, Labeling, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
40 CFR Parts 1036 and 1037
Administrative practice and procedure, Air pollution control, Confidential business information, Environmental protection, Incorporation by reference, Labeling, Motor vehicle pollution, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Warranties.
40 CFR Parts 1065 and 1066
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Incorporation by reference, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Research.

For the reasons set forth in the preamble, title 40, chapter 1 of the Code of Federal Regulations is proposed to be amended as follows:

Part 79-REGISTRATION OF FUEL AND FUEL ADDITIVES

1.	The authority citation for part 79 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 USC 7414, 7524, 7545, and 7601

2.	Section 79.5 is amended by:
a. Revising paragraph (a).
b. Revising the paragraph (b) introductory text.

§ 79.5 Periodic reporting requirements.

 (a) Fuel manufacturers. (1) For each calendar quarter (January through March, April through June, July through September, October through December) commencing after the date prescribed for a particular fuel in subpart D, fuel manufacturers shall submit to the Administrator a report for each registered fuel showing the range of concentration of each additive reported under §79.11(a) and the volume of such fuel produced in the quarter. Reports shall be submitted by the required deadline as shown in Table 1 to §79.5 on forms supplied by the Administrator upon request.

               Table 1 to §79.5:  Quarterly Reporting Deadlines
Calendar Quarter
Time Period Covered
Quarterly Report Deadline
Quarter One
January 1  -  March 31
June 1
Quarter Two
April 1  -  June 30
September 1
Quarter Three
July 1  -  September 30
December 1
Quarter Four
October 1  -  December 31
March 31

(2) Fuel manufacturers shall submit to the Administrator a report annually for each registered fuel providing additional data and information as specified in paragraphs (c) and (d) of this section in the designation of the fuel in subpart D.  Reports shall be submitted by March 31 for the preceding year, or part thereof, on forms supplied by the Administrator upon request. If the date prescribed for a particular fuel in 40 CFR part 80 subpart D, or the later registration of a fuel is between October 1 and December 31, no report will be required for the period to the end of that year.

(b) Additive manufacturers. Additive manufacturers shall submit to the Administrator a report annually for each registered additive providing additional data and information as specified in paragraphs (c) and (d) of this section in the designation of the additive in 40 CFR part 80 subpart D.  Additive manufacturers shall also report annually the volume of each additive produced. Reports shall be submitted by March 31 for the preceding year, or part thereof, on forms supplied by the Administrator upon request. If the date prescribed for a particular additive in 40 CFR part 80 subpart D, or the later registration of an additive is between October 1 and December 31, no report will be required for the period to the end of that year. These periodic reports shall not, however, be required for any additive that is:

*	*	*	*	*

Part 80-REGULATION OF FUEL AND FUEL ADDITIVES

3.	The authority citation for part 80 is revised to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C., 7414, 7521(l), 7545, and 7601(a).

4.	Section 80.2 is amended by:
a.	Revising paragraph (d).
b.	Revising paragraph (w).
c.	Revising paragraph (z).
d.	Adding paragraphs (vvv), (www), (xxx), (yyy), (zzz), and (aaaa).

§ 80.2	Definitions.

*	*	*	*	*

(d) Previously certified gasoline, or PCG, means gasoline, RBOB or CBOB that previously has been included in a batch of gasoline for purposes of complying with the standards of 40 CFR part 80 that apply to refiners and importers.

*	*	*	*	*
(w) Cetane index or "Calculated cetane index" is a number representing the ignition properties of diesel fuel oils from API gravity and mid-boiling point, as determined by ASTM International standard method D976-06(2011), entitled, "Standard Test Method for Calculated Cetane Index of Distillate Fuels", approved October 1, 2011.  ASTM International test method D976-06(2011) is incorporated by reference.  This incorporation by reference was approved by the Director of the Federal Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.  Copies may be obtained from ASTM International, 100 Barr Harbor Dr., West Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959.  Copies may be inspected at the Air Docket, EPA/DC, EPA West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW, Washington, D.C., or at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA).  For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER> or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html.

*	*	*	*	*
(z) Aromatic content is the aromatic hydrocarbon content in volume percent as determined by ASTM International standard test method D1319-10, entitled, "Standard Test Method for Hydrocarbon Types in Liquid Petroleum Products by Fluorescent Indicator Adsorption", approved May 1, 2010.  ASTM International test method D1319-10 is incorporated by reference.  This incorporation by reference was approved by the Director of the Federal Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.  Copies may be obtained from ASTM International, 100 Barr Harbor Dr., West Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959.  Copies may be inspected at the Air Docket, EPA/DC, EPA West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW, Washington, D.C., or at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA).  For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER> or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html.

*	*	*	*	*
(vvv) Denatured fuel ethanol (DFE) means an alcohol of the chemical formula C2H6O which contains a denaturant to make it unfit for human consumption, that is used as an additive in gasoline, and that meets the requirements of §80.1610.

(www)	Oxygenate manufacturer means any person who owns, leases, operates, controls, or supervises an oxygenate production facility.

      (xxx) Oxygenate production facility means any facility where oxygenate is produced.

(yyy) CBOB means gasoline blendstock that becomes conventional gasoline solely upon the addition of oxygenate.

(zzz) Natural gas liquids (NGL) means the components of natural gas (primarily propane, butane, pentane, hexane, and heptane) that are separated from the gas state in the form of liquids in a natural gas production facility, in a gas processing plant, or in a natural gas pipeline.  NGL is sometimes also referred to as "natural gasoline".

(aaaa) 	Natural gas means a mixture of hydrocarbon gases that occurs with petroleum deposits, principally methane together with varying quantities of ethane, propane, butane, and other gases.

5.	Section 80.8 is revised to read as follows:

§80.8	Sampling methods for gasoline, diesel fuel, fuel additives, and renewable fuels.

The sampling methods specified in this section shall be used to collect samples of gasoline, diesel, fuel additives and renewable fuels for purposes of determining compliance with the requirements of this part.

(a) Manual sampling.  Manual sampling of tanks and pipelines shall be performed according to the applicable procedures specified in ASTM International (ASTM) standard practice D4057 (incorporated by reference, see paragraph (e) of this section).

(b) Automatic sampling.  Automatic sampling of petroleum products in pipelines shall be performed according to the applicable procedures specified in ASTM International (ASTM) standard practice D4177 (incorporated by reference, see paragraph (e) of this section).

(c) Sampling and sample handling for volatility measurement.  Samples to be analyzed for Reid Vapor Pressure (RVP) shall be collected and handled according to the applicable procedures in ASTM standard practice D5842 (incorporated by reference, see paragraph (e) of this section).

(d)  Sample compositing.  Composite samples shall be prepared using the applicable procedures in ASTM standard practice D5854 (incorporated by reference, see paragraph (e) of this section).

(e) Materials incorporated by reference.  The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of the documents listed in this section as prescribed in 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.  Anyone may inspect copies at the U.S. EPA, Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center, 1301 Constitution Ave., N.W., Room B102, EPA West Building, Washington, DC, 20460, under EPA docket ID Number EPA - HQ - OAR - 2011 - 0135, or at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA).  The telephone number for the Air Docket Public Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>.  For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER> or go to: http://www.archives.gov//federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html.  For further information on these test methods, please contact the Environmental Protection Agency at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

(1) ASTM International material.  Anyone may purchase copies of these materials from the ASTM International, 100 Barr Harbor Dr., West Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959, or by contacting ASTM International customer service at 10-832-9585, or by contacting the email address of<EMAIL_ADDRESS>from the ASTM International Web site of http://www.astm.org.

(i) ASTM International standard practice D4057-06 (Reapproved 2011) ("ASTM International D4057"), Standard practice for Manual Sampling of Petroleum and Petroleum Products, approved June 1, 2011.

(ii) ASTM International standard practice D4177-95 (Reapproved 2010) ("ASTM International D4177"), Standard Practice for Automatic Sampling of Petroleum and Petroleum Products, approved May 1, 2010.

(iii) ASTM International standard practice D5842-04 (Reapproved 2009) ("ASTM International D5842"), Standard Practice for Sampling and Handling of Fuels for Volatility Measurement, approved June 1, 2009.

(iv) ASTM International standard practice D5854-96 (Reapproved 2010) ("ASTM International D5854"), Standard Practice for Mixing and Handling of Liquid Samples of Petroleum and Petroleum Products, approved May 1, 2010.
(2)	[Reserved]

6.	A new section 80.10 is added to subpart A to read as follows:

§ 80.10	Correction of batch volume reports.

For purposes of compliance with the reporting requirements of this part, parties required to submit batch reports are not required to correct unintentional errors in reporting batch volume on previously submitted batch reports where all of the following circumstances apply:

(a) The reporting violation pertains solely to the volume of the batch.

(b) The volume of the batch is incorrect by no more than 500 gallons or by no more than 1 percent of the true batch volume, in gallons, whichever value (in gallons) is less.

(c) Reporting the true volumes of all the batches for the reporting period would not result in a higher annual average sulfur or benzene value than reported using the incorrect values after rounding to the applicable digit for reporting.

(d) Reporting the true value for any batch would not result in a reduced number of gallons for a violation of any per-gallon standard or a violation of any other requirement of the Clean Air Act.

(e) The reporting party certifies that the conditions in paragraphs (a) through (d) of this section have been met.

(f) For subpart M of this part, this section applies only to the volume of fuels produced or exported that result in a renewable volume obligation under subpart M of this part for obligated parties.

7.	Section 80.46 is amended by:
      a.	Revising paragraphs (a)(1), (a)(2), (a)(3), and (a)(4).
      b.	Revising paragraphs (b)(1) and (b)(2)(i) introductory text.
      c.	Revising paragraph (c).
      d.	Revising paragraph (d).
      e.	Revising paragraphs (e)(1) and (e)(2), and adding a new paragraph (e)(3).
      f.	Revising paragraphs (f)(1) and (f)(3)(i).
      g.	Revising paragraphs (g)(1) and (g)(2)(i).
      h.	Revising paragraph (h) introductory text and paragraph (h)(1).

§80.46	Measurement of reformulated gasoline and conventional gasoline fuel parameters.

(a)	*	*	*

(1) Through November 29, 2014, the sulfur content of gasoline must be determined by ASTM International standard method D2622 (incorporated by reference, see paragraph (h) of this section) or by one of the alternative test methods specified in paragraph (a)(3) of this section.  Beginning November 30, 2014, the sulfur content of gasoline must be determined by a test method approved under §80.47.

(2) Through November 29, 2014, the sulfur content of butane must be determined by ASTM International standard method D6667 (incorporated by reference, see paragraph (h) of this section) or by one of the alternative test methods specified in paragraph (a)(4) of this section.

(3) Through November 29, 2014, any refiner or importer may use any of the following methods for determining the sulfur content of gasoline provided the refiner or importer test result is correlated with the method specified in paragraph (a)(1) of this section:

(i) ASTM International standard test method D5453 (incorporated by reference, see paragraph (h) of this section).

(ii) ASTM International standard test method D6920 (incorporated by reference, see paragraph (h) of this section).

(iii)  ASTM International standard test method D3120 (incorporated by reference, see paragraph (h) of this section).

(iv) ASTM International standard test method D7039 (incorporated by reference, see paragraph (h) of this section).

(4) Beginning November 30, 2014, the sulfur content of butane must be determined by a test method approved under §80.47.  Through November 29, 2014, any refiner or importer may determine the sulfur content of butane using any one of the following methods; provided the refiner or importer test result is correlated with the method specified in paragraph (a)(2) of this section:

(i) ASTM International standard method D4468 (incorporated by reference, see paragraph (h) of this section).

(ii) ASTM International standard method D3246 (incorporated by reference, see paragraph (h) of this section).

(b) * * *

(1) Through November 29, 2014, olefin content must be determined using ASTM International standard method D1319 (incorporated by reference, see paragraph (h) of this section).  Beginning November 30, 2014, the olefin content of gasoline may be determined by a test method approved under §80.47.

(2)(i) Through November 29, 2014, any refiner or importer may determine olefin content using ASTM International standard method ASTM D6550 (incorporated by reference, see paragraph (h) of this section) for purposes of meeting any testing requirements involving olefin content, provided that:

*	*	*	*	*

(c) Reid Vapor Pressure (RVP).  Through November 29, 2014, Reid Vapor Pressure must be determined using ASTM International standard method D5191 (incorporated by reference, see paragraph (h) of this section), except the following correction equation must be used:

	RVP psi = (0.956 * X)  -  0.347
	RVP kPa = 0.956 * X)  -  2.39
	Where:
	 X = Total measured vapor pressure, in psi or kPa.

Beginning November 30, 2014, RVP may be determined by a test method approved under §80.47.

(d) Distillation.  Through November 29, 2014, distillation parameters must be determined using ASTM International standard method D86 ((incorporated by reference, see paragraph (h) of this section).  Beginning November 30, 2014, the distillation parameters may be determined by a test method approved under §80.47.

(e)	*	*	*

(1) Through November 29, 2014, benzene content must be determined using ASTM International standard method D3606 (incorporated by reference, see paragraph (h) of this section), except that:

(2) Instrument parameters shall be adjusted to ensure complete resolution of the benzene, ethanol and methanol peaks because ethanol and methanol may cause interference with ASTM International D3606 (incorporated by reference, see paragraph (h) of this section) when present.

(3) Beginning November 30, 2014, the benzene content may be determined by a test method approved under §80.47.

(f)(1) Through November 29, 2014, aromatic content must be determined using ASTM International standard method D5769 (incorporated by reference, see paragraph (h) of this section), except the sample chilling requirements in section 8 of this standard method are optional.  Beginning November 30, 2014, the aromatic content may be determined by a test method approved under §80.47.

(2)	*	*	*

(3) (i) Through November 29, 2014 any refiner or importer may determine aromatics content using ASTM International standard method D1319 (incorporated by reference, see paragraph (h) of this section) for the purposes of meeting any test requirement involving aromatic content; provided that:

*	*	*	*	*

(g)	*	*	*

(1) Through November 29, 2014, oxygen and oxygenate content must be determined using ASTM International standard method D5599 (incorporated by reference, see paragraph (h) of this section).  Beginning November 30, 2014, oxygen and oxygenate content may be determined by a test method approved under §80.47.

(2)(i) Through November 29, 2014, when oxygenates present are limited to MTBE, ETBE, TAME, DIPE, tertiary-amyl alcohol and C1 to C4 alcohols, any refiner, importer, or oxygenate blender may determine oxygen and oxygen content using ASTM International standard method D4815 (incorporated by reference, see paragraph (h) of this section) for purposes of meeting any testing requirement; provided that:

*	*	*	*	*

(h) Materials incorporated by reference.  The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of the documents listed in this section as prescribed in 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR 51.  Anyone may inspect copies at the U.S. EPA, Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center, 1301 Constitution Ave., N.W., Room B102, EPA West Building, Washington, DC, 20460, under EPA docket ID Number EPA - HQ - OAR - 2011 - 0135, or at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA).  The telephone number for the Air Docket Public Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>.  For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER> or go to: http://www.archives.gov//federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html.  For further information on these test methods, please contact the Environmental Protection Agency at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

(1) ASTM International material.  Anyone may purchase copies of these materials from the ASTM International, 100 Barr Harbor Dr., West Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959, or by contacting ASTM International customer service at 10-832-9585, or by contacting the email address of<EMAIL_ADDRESS>from the ASTM International Web site of http://www.astm.org.

(i) ASTM International standard method D3606-10 ("ASTM International D3606"), "Standard Test Method for Determination of Benzene and Toluene in Finished Motor and Aviation Gasoline by Gas Chromatography, approved October 1, 2010.

(ii) ASTM International standard method D1319-10 ("ASTM International D1319"), "Standard Test Method for Hydrocarbon Types in Liquid Petroleum Products by Fluorescent Indicator Absorption", approved May 1, 2010.

(iii) ASTM International standard method D6550-10 ("ASTM International D6550"), "Standard Test Method for the Determination of Olefin Content of Gasolines by Supercritical-Fluid Chromatography", approved October 1, 2010.

(iv) ASTM International standard method D4815-09 ("ASTM International D4815"), "Standard Test Method for Determination of MTBE, ETBE, TAME, DIPE, tertiary-Amyl Alcohol and C1 to C4 Alcohols in Gasoline by Gas Chromatography", approved October 1, 2009.

(v) ASTM International standard method D2622-10 ("ASTM International D2622"), "Standard Test Method for Sulfur in Petroleum Products by Wavelength Dispersive X-Ray Fluorescence Spectrometry", approved February 15, 2010.

(vi) ASTM International standard method D2622-10 ("ASTM International D2622"), "Standard Test Method for Sulfur in Petroleum Products by Wavelength Dispersive X-Ray Fluorescence Spectrometry", approved February 15, 2010.

(vii) ASTM International standard method D3246-11 ("ASTM International D3246"), "Standard Test Method for Sulfur in Petroleum Gas by Oxidative Microcoulometry", approved June 1, 2011.

(viii) ASTM International standard method D5599-00(2010) ("ASTM International D5599"), "Standard Test Method for Determination of Oxygenates in Gasoline by Gas Chromatography and Oxygen Selective Flame Ionization Detection", approved October 1, 2010.

(ix) ASTM International standard method D5769-10 ("ASTM International D5769"), "Standard Test Method for Determination of Oxygenates in Gasoline by Gas Chromatography and Oxygen Selective Flame Ionization Detection", approved October 1, 2010.

(x) ASTM International standard method D86-11a ("ASTM International D86"), "Standard Test Method for Determination of Petroleum Products at Atmospheric Pressure", approved July 1, 2011.

(xi) ASTM International standard method D5453-09 ("ASTM International D5453"), "Standard Test Method for Determination of Total Sulfur in Light Hydrocarbons, Spark Ignition Engine Fuel, Diesel Engine Fuel, and Engine Oil by Ultraviolet Fluorescence", approved June 15, 2009.

(xii) ASTM International standard method D6920 - 07 ("ASTM D6920"), Standard Test Method for Total Sulfur in Naphthas, Distillates, Reformulated Gasolines, Diesels, Biodiesels, and Motor Fuels by Oxidative Combustion and Electrochemical Detection, approved December 1, 2007.

(xiii) ASTM International standard method D3120-08 ("ASTM International D3120"), "Standard Test Method for Trace Quantities of Sulfur in Light Petroleum Hydrocarbons by Oxidative Microcoulometry", approved December 15, 2008.

(xiv) ASTM International standard method D7039 - 07 ("ASTM D7039"), Standard Test Method for Sulfur in Gasoline and Diesel Fuel by Monochromatic Wavelength Dispersive X-ray Fluorescence Spectrometry, approved May 1, 2007.

(xv) ASTM International standard method D6667-10 ("ASTM International D6667"), "Standard Test Method for Determination of Total Volatile Sulfur in Gaseous Hydrocarbons and Liquefied Petroleum Gases by Ultraviolet Fluorescence", approved October 1, 2010.

(xvi) ASTM International standard method D4468-85(2006) ("ASTM International D4468"), "Standard Test Method for Total Sulfur in Gaseous Fuels by Hydrogenolysis and Rateometric Colorimetry", approved June 1, 2006.

*	*	*	*	*

8.	Section 80.47 is revised to read as follows:

§80.47	Performance-Based Analytical Test Method Approach.

All sample handling, testing procedures and tests must be conducted using good laboratory practices.

(a) Definitions.  As used in this subpart:

(1) Performance-based Analytical Test Method Approach means a measurement system based upon established performance criteria for accuracy and precision with use of analytical test methods.  As used in this subpart, a measurement system used by laboratories to demonstrate that a particular analytical test method is acceptable for demonstrating compliance.

(2) Accuracy means the closeness of agreement between an observed value from a single test measurement and an accepted reference value.

(3) Precision means the degree of agreement in a set of measurements performed on the same property of identical test material.

(4) Absolute fuel parameter means a fuel parameter for which a gravimetric standard is practical to construct and use.   Sulfur content of gasoline, butane, or diesel fuel are examples of an absolute fuel parameter.

(5) Gravimetric standard means a test material made by adding a carefully weighed quantity of the analyte to a measured quantity of another substance known not to contain any of the analyte, resulting in a solution with an accurately known concentrate of the analyte.

(6) Consensus named fuels are homogeneous quantities of fuel that have been analyzed by a number of different laboratories (by sending around small samples).  The average concentration of some parameter of interest across all of the different laboratories is then used as the "consensus name" for that material.

(7) Locally-named reference materials are gasoline or diesel fuels that are usually from the regular production of the facility where they are used in laboratory quality control efforts and have been analyzed using the designated method (either by the facility's lab or by a referee lab) to obtain an estimate of their concentration.

(8) Method-defined fuel parameter means a fuel parameter for which an EPA-prescribed primary test method or designated method defines the regulatory standard.  Examples of method-defined fuel parameters include olefin content in gasoline, Reid vapor pressure (RVP) of gasoline, distillation parameters of gasoline, benzene content of gasoline, aromatic content of  gasoline and diesel fuel, and oxygen/oxygenates content of gasoline.

(9) Reference Installations are designated test method installations that are used to qualify the accuracy of other method-defined parameter instruments.  Reference installations of the designated test method will be used to evaluate the accuracy of other method-defined alternative test methods and to establish correlation equations if necessary.

(10) Correlation equation is a correction equation as determined by the use of ASTM International standard practice D6708 (incorporated by reference, see paragraph (r) of this section).  This standard practice determines whether the comparison between the alternative test method and the designated test method is a null result.  If the comparison is not null, then the standard practice provides for a correlation equation that predicts designated test method results from the applicable method-defined alternative test method.

(11) Statistical quality control (SQC) means a planned system of activities whose purpose is to provide a level of quality that meets the needs of compliance with the standards of this part.  This subpart prescribes specific SQC requirements for both absolute and method driven fuel parameters for both VCSB and non-VCSB regulated parties.

(12) Voluntary consensus-based standards body (VCSB) means a domestic or international organization that plans, develops, establishes, or coordinates voluntary consensus standards using agreed-upon procedures and which possesses the attributes of openness, balance of interest, due process, and consensus, as explained in OMB Circular A-119 and the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995, P.L. 104-113, sec. 12(d).

(13) Non-Voluntary consensus-based standards body (non-VCSB) means a domestic or international regulated party who has developed a proprietary analytical test method that has not been adopted by a VCSB organization.

(b) Precision and accuracy criteria for approval for the absolute fuel parameter of gasoline sulfur.

(1) Precision.  Beginning November 30, 2014, for motor vehicle gasoline and gasoline fuel additives subject to the gasoline sulfur standard at §80.195 and §80.1603, the maximum allowable standard deviation computed from the results of a minimum of 20 tests made over 20 days (7 or fewer tests per week and 2 or fewer tests per day) on samples using good laboratory practices taken from a single homogeneous commercially available gasoline must be less than or equal to 1.5 times the repeatability "r" divided by 2.77, where "r" equals the ASTM repeatability of ASTM D7039-07 (Example: A 10ppm sulfur gasoline sample: maximum allowable standard deviation of 20 tests<=1.5*(1.75ppm/2.77)=0.95 ppm).  The 20 results must be a series of tests with a sequential record of analysis and no emissions.  A laboratory facility may exclude a given sample or test result only if the exclusion is for a valid reason under good laboratory practices and it maintains records regarding the sample and test results and the reason for excluding them.
(2) Accuracy.  Beginning November 30, 2014, for motor vehicle gasoline and gasoline fuel additives subject to the gasoline sulfur standard at §§80.195 and 80.1603:

(i) The arithmetic average of a continuous series of at least 10 tests performed using good laboratory practices on a commercially available gravimetric sulfur standard in the range of 1-10 ppm shall not differ from the accepted reference value (ARV) of the standard by more than 0.71 ppm sulfur;

(ii) The arithmetic average of a continuous series of at least 10 tests performed using good laboratory practices on a commercially available gravimetric sulfur standard in the range of 10-20 ppm shall not differ from the ARV of the standard by more than 1.00 ppm sulfur; and

(iii) In applying the tests of paragraphs (b)(2)(i) and (ii) of this section, individual test results shall be compensated for any known chemical interferences using good laboratory practices.

(3) The test method specified at §80.46(a)(1) and in use prior to May 30, 2014 is exempt from the requirements of paragraphs (b)(1) and (2) of this section.

(c) Precision and accuracy criteria for approval of the absolute fuel parameter of sulfur in butane.

(1) Precision.  Beginning November 30, 2014, for butane subject to the butane sulfur standard at §§80.82, 80.195, 80.340(b), and 80.1603, the maximum allowable standard deviation computed from the results of a minimum of 20 tests made over 20 days (7 or fewer tests per week and 2 or fewer tests per day) on samples using good laboratory practices taken from a single homogeneous commercially available butane must be less than or equal to 1.5 times the repeatability "r" divided by 2.77, where "r" equals the ASTM repeatability of ASTM D6667-10 (Example: A 10 ppm sulfur butane sample: maximum allowable standard deviation of 20 tests<=1.5*(1.15ppm/2.77)=0.62 ppm).  The 20 results must be a series of tests with a sequential record of analysis and no emissions.  A laboratory facility may exclude a given sample or test result only if the exclusion is for a valid reason under good laboratory practices and it maintains records regarding the sample and test results and the reason for excluding them.

(2) Accuracy.  Beginning November 30, 2014, for butane subject to the butane sulfur standard at §§80.82 and 80.1603:

(i) The arithmetic average of a continuous series of at least 10 tests performed using good laboratory practices on a commercially available gravimetric sulfur standard in the range of 1-10 ppm shall not differ from the ARV of the standard by more than 0.47 ppm sulfur;

(ii) The arithmetic average of a continuous series of at least 10 tests performed using good laboratory practices on a commercially available gravimetric sulfur standard in the range of 10-20 ppm shall not differ from the ARV of the standard by more than 0.94 ppm sulfur; and

(iii) In applying the tests of paragraphs (c)(2)(i) and (ii) of this section, individual test results shall be compensated for any known chemical interferences using good laboratory practices.

(3) The test method specified at §80.46(a)(2) and in use prior to May 30, 2014 is exempt from the requirements of paragraphs (c)(1) and (2) of this section.

(d) Precision criteria for approval of the method defined fuel parameter of olefins in gasoline.

(1) Precision.  Beginning November 30, 2014, for motor vehicle gasoline and gasoline fuel additives subject to the gasoline standards of this part, the maximum allowable standard deviation computed from the results of a minimum of 20 tests made over 20 days (7 or fewer tests per week and 2 or fewer tests per day) on samples using good laboratory practices taken from a single homogeneous commercially available gasoline must be less than or equal to 1.5 times the repeatability "r" divided by 2.77, where "r" equals the ASTM repeatability of ASTM D1319-10 (Example: A gasoline containing 9Vol% olefins: maximum allowable standard deviation of 20 tests<=1.5*(0.972Vol%/2.77)=0.53Vol%).  The 20 results must be a series of tests with a sequential record of analysis and no emissions.  A laboratory facility may exclude a given sample or test result only if the exclusion is for a valid reason under good laboratory practices and it maintains records regarding the sample and test results and the reason for excluding them.

(2) The test method specified at §80.46(b)(1) and in use prior to May 30, 2014 is exempt from the requirements of paragraph (d)(1) of this section.

(e) Precision criteria for approval of the method defined fuel parameter of aromatics in gasoline.

(1) Precision.  Beginning November 30, 2014, for motor vehicle gasoline and gasoline fuel additives subject to the gasoline standards of this part, the maximum allowable standard deviation computed from the results of a minimum of 20 tests made over 20 days (7 or fewer tests per week and 2 or fewer tests per day) on samples using good laboratory practices taken from a single homogeneous commercially available gasoline must be less than or equal to 1.5 times the repeatability "r" divided by 2.77, where "r" equals the ASTM repeatability of ASTM D1319-10 (Example: A gasoline containing 32Vol% aromatics: maximum allowable standard deviation of 20 tests<=1.5*(1.3Vol%/2.77)=0.70Vol%).  The 20 results must be a series of tests with a sequential record of analysis and no emissions.  A laboratory facility may exclude a given sample or test result only if the exclusion is for a valid reason under good laboratory practices and it maintains records regarding the sample and test results and the reason for excluding them.

(2) The test method specified at §80.46(f)(1) and in use prior to May 30, 2014 is exempt from the requirements of paragraph (e)(1) of this section.

(f) Precision criteria for approval of the method defined fuel parameter of oxygen and oxygenate content in gasoline.

(1) Precision.  Beginning November 30, 2014, for motor vehicle gasoline and gasoline fuel additives subject to the gasoline standards of this part, the maximum allowable standard deviation computed from the results of a minimum of 20 tests made over 20 days (7 or fewer tests per week and 2 or fewer tests per day) on samples using good laboratory practices taken from a single homogeneous commercially available gasoline must be less than or equal to 1.5 times the repeatability "r" divided by 2.77, where "r" equals the ASTM repeatability of ASTM 5599-00(2010) (Example: A gasoline containing 3Mass% total oxygen: maximum allowable standard deviation of 20 tests<=1.5*(0.083Mass%/2.77)=0.045Mass%).  The 20 results must be a series of tests with a sequential record of analysis and no emissions.  A laboratory facility may exclude a given sample or test result only if the exclusion is for a valid reason under good laboratory practices and it maintains records regarding the sample and test results and the reason for excluding them.

(2) The test method specified at §80.46(g)(1) and in use prior to May 30, 2014 is exempt from the requirements of paragraph (f)(1) of this section.

(g) Precision criteria for approval of the method defined fuel parameter of Reid Vapor Pressure (RVP) in gasoline.

(1) Precision.  Beginning November 30, 2014, for motor vehicle gasoline and gasoline fuel additives subject to the gasoline standards of this part and the volatility standards at §80.27, the maximum allowable standard deviation computed from the results of a minimum of 20 tests made over 20 days (7 or fewer tests per week and 2 or fewer tests per day) on samples using good laboratory practices taken from a single homogeneous commercially available gasoline must be less than or equal to 1.5 times the repeatability "r" divided by 2.77, where "r" equals the ASTM repeatability of ASTM 5191-10b (Example: A gasoline having a RVP of 6.8psi: maximum allowable standard deviation of 20 tests<=1.5*(0.21psi/2.77)=0.11psi).  The 20 results must be a series of tests with a sequential record of analysis and no emissions.  A laboratory facility may exclude a given sample or test result only if the exclusion is for a valid reason under good laboratory practices and it maintains records regarding the sample and test results and the reason for excluding them.

(2) The test method specified at §80.46(c)(1) and in use prior to May 30, 2014 is exempt from the requirements of paragraph (g)(1) of this section.

(h) Precision criteria for approval of the method defined fuel parameter of gasoline distillation.

(1) Precision.  Beginning November 30, 2014, for motor vehicle gasoline and gasoline fuel additives subject to the gasoline standards of this part, the maximum allowable standard deviation computed from the results of a minimum of 20 tests made over 20 days (7 or fewer tests per week and 2 or fewer tests per day) on samples using good laboratory practices taken from a single homogeneous commercially available gasoline must be less than or equal to 1.5 times the repeatability "r" divided by 2.77, where "r" equals the ASTM repeatability of ASTM D86-11a for the initial boiling point, E10, E50, E90 and final boiling point. (Example: A gasoline having an initial boiling point of 20⁰C and a final boiling point of 110⁰C: maximum allowable standard deviation of 20 tests for initial boiling point<=1.5*(2.84⁰C/2.77)=1.54⁰C, maximum allowable standard deviation of 20 tests for E10<=1.5*(1.33⁰C/2.77)=0.72⁰C, maximum allowable standard deviation of 20 tests for E50<=1.5*(0.74⁰C/2.77)=0.40⁰C, maximum allowable standard deviation of 20 tests for E90t<=1.5*(1.79⁰C/2.77)=0.97⁰C, and maximum allowable standard deviation of 20 tests for final boiling point<=1.5*(3.33⁰C/2.77)=1.80⁰C ).  The 20 results must be a series of tests with a sequential record of analysis and no emissions.  A laboratory facility may exclude a given sample or test result only if the exclusion is for a valid reason under good laboratory practices and it maintains records regarding the sample and test results and the reason for excluding them.

(2) The test method specified at §80.46(d)(1) and in use prior to May 30, 2014 is exempt from the requirements of paragraph (h)(1) of this section.

(i) Precision criteria for approval of the method defined fuel parameter of benzene in gasoline.

(1) Precision.  Beginning November 30, 2014, for motor vehicle gasoline and gasoline fuel additives subject to the gasoline standards of this part and the  MSAT2 standards at §§80.41, 80.101, and 80.1230, the maximum allowable standard deviation computed from the results of a minimum of 20 tests made over 20 days (7 or fewer tests per week and 2 or fewer tests per day) on samples using good laboratory practices taken from a single homogeneous commercially available gasoline must be less than or equal to 1.5 times the repeatability "r" divided by 2.77, where "r" equals the ASTM repeatability of ASTM D3606-10 (Example: A gasoline having a 1Vol% benzene: maximum allowable standard deviation of 20 tests<=1.5*(0.04Vol%/2.77)=0.02Vol%).  The 20 results must be a series of tests with a sequential record of analysis and no emissions.  A laboratory facility may exclude a given sample or test result only if the exclusion is for a valid reason under good laboratory practices and it maintains records regarding the sample and test results and the reason for excluding them.

(2) The test method specified at §80.46(e)(1) and in use prior to May 30, 2014 is exempt from the requirements of paragraph (i)(1) of this section.

(j) Precision criteria for approval of the method defined fuel parameter of aromatics in diesel.

(1) Precision.  Beginning November 30, 2014, for motor vehicle diesel and diesel fuel additives subject to the motor vehicle diesel standards at §80.520, the maximum allowable standard deviation computed from the results of a minimum of 20 tests made over 20 days (7 or fewer tests per week and 2 or fewer tests per day) on samples using good laboratory practices taken from a single homogeneous commercially available gasoline must be less than or equal to 1.5 times the repeatability "r" divided by 2.77, where "r" equals the ASTM repeatability of ASTM D1319-10 (Example: A diesel fuel containing 35Vol% aromatics: maximum allowable standard deviation of 20 tests<=1.5*(1.3Vol%/2.77)=0.70Vol%).  The 20 results must be a series of tests with a sequential record of analysis and no emissions.  A laboratory facility may exclude a given sample or test result only if the exclusion is for a valid reason under good laboratory practices and it maintains records regarding the sample and test results and the reason for excluding them.

(2) The test method specified at §80.46(j)(1) and in use prior to May 30, 2014 is exempt from the requirements of paragraph (j)(1) of this section.

(k) Criteria for designated test method reference installations used to qualify the accuracy of other method-defined parameter instruments.

(1) Beginning November 30, 2014, the reference installation of the method-defined fuel parameter for the applicable designated test method must have precision equal to 1.5 times the repeatability "r" of the method-defined fuel parameter's designated test method, where "r" is the repeatability of the designated test method.

(i) Olefins in gasoline see  paragraph (d)(1) of this section.

(ii) Aromatics in gasoline see paragraph (e)(1) of this section.

(iii) Oxygen and Oxygenate content of gasoline see paragraph (f)(1) of this section.

(iv) Reid Vapor Pressure (RVP) of gasoline see paragraph (g)(1) of this section.

(v) Gasoline Distillation see paragraph (h)(1) of this section.

(vi) Benzene in Gasoline see paragraph (i)(1) of this section.

(vii) Aromatics in Diesel see paragraph (j)(1) of this section.

(2) The reference installation of the method-defined fuel parameter for the applicable designated test method must be shown to be near the middle distribution of an industry monthly inter-laboratory crosscheck program for at least a period of five months using good laboratory practices.  Specifically, compute the difference between the instrument's average measurement of the fuel closest to the applicable fuel standard (or to the average value for the fuel parameter in the complex model) and the robust mean for that fuel obtained by all of the non-outlier labs in the monthly inter-laboratory crosscheck program.  Standardize this difference by expressing it in robust standard deviation units.  These standardized inter-laboratory crosscheck differences should be placed in a moving average with a minimum span of five months.  The instrument's moving average in robust standard deviation units cannot be outside the central 50% of the distribution of all laboratories that participated in the inter-laboratory crosscheck program.

(3) The reference installation of the method-defined fuel parameter for the applicable designated test method must be shown to be in statistical quality control as specified in ASTM International D6299 (incorporated by reference, see paragraph (r) of this section) for a minimum period of five months using good laboratory practices.

(l) Qualification criteria for Voluntary Consensus Standard Based (VCSB) Method-Defined Parameter Test Methods.

(1) Beginning November 30, 2014, include full test method documentation by the Voluntary Consensus Standard Based (VCSB) organization, including a description of the technology and/or instrumentation that makes the method functional.

(2) Include information reported in the test method that demonstrates the test method meets the applicable precision information for the method-defined fuel parameter as described in this section.

(3) Include information reported in the test method that demonstrates the test method has been evaluated using ASTM International D6708 (incorporated by reference, see paragraph (r) of this section) and whether the comparison is a "null" result or whether a correlation equation needs to be applied that predicts designated test method results from the applicable method-defined alternative test method.

(4) The test methods specified at §§80.2(w) and 80.46(a)(1), (a)(2), (b)(1), (c)(1), (d)(1), (e)(1), (f)(1), and (g)(1) and in use prior to May 30, 2013 are exempt from the requirements of paragraphs (l)(1) through (3) of this section.

(m) Qualification criteria for Non-Voluntary Consensus Standard Based (non-VCSB) Method-Defined Parameter Test Methods.  For a non-VCSB method to be approved, the following information must be submitted to the Administrator by each test facility for each method that it wishes to have approved.

(1) Beginning November 30, 2014, full and thorough test method documentation, including a description of the technology and/or instrumentation that makes the method functional so a person lacking experience with the test instrument would be able to replicate its results.

(2) Information reported in the test method that demonstrates the test method meets the applicable precision information using good laboratory practices for the method-defined fuel parameter as described in this section.

(3) Both the candidate method-defined Non-VCSB test method and its respective designated test method must be tested on a range of consensus named fuels or locally-named reference materials that are typical of those analyzed by the facility in practice using good laboratory practices and must meet the data requirements for variability as required in ASTM International D6708 (incorporated by reference, see paragraph (r) of this section).

(4) The facility using the candidate method-defined non-VCSB test method must statistically establish through application of ASTM D6708 (incorporated by reference, see paragraph (r) of this section) that the candidate method measures the same aspect of samples as applicable to its respective designated test method using good laboratory practices.

(5) If the use of ASTM D6708 (incorporated by reference, see paragraph (r) of this section) reveals that the candidate method-defined non-VCSB test method has sample-specific biases due to matrix effects that cannot be determined as random the method is disqualified.  If however, it is determined that the candidate method-defined non-VCSB test method can be qualified on a narrow circumscribed range of fuels while still meeting the data requirements for variability as required in ASTM International D6708 (incorporated by reference, see paragraph (r) of this section) (see paragraph (m)(3) of this section), then the types of fuels on which the qualification was achieved and for which the method is to be approved must be specified in the candidate method-defined non-VCSB test method description.  If there is any restriction on the scope of fuels for which the candidate method-defined non-VCSB test method is to be qualified, the applicant must include a discussion of how the facility plans to screen sample for conformity to the scope.  If the candidate method-defined test method is found to have minimal matrix effects, a statement to this effect must be included by the applicant in its application.

(6) The candidate method-defined non-VCSB test method precision qualification must be conducted in the form of "cross-method reproducibility" (Rcm) of the candidate method and applicable designated test method as required in ASTM International D6708 (incorporated by reference, see paragraph (r) of this section), where the Rcm must be equal to or less than 70 percent of the published reproducibility of the applicable designated test method using good laboratory practices.

(7) The applicant of the candidate method-defined non-VCSB test method must demonstrate through the use of ASTM D6708 (incorporated by reference, see paragraph (r) of this section) whether a correlation to applicable designated test method is necessary.  If it is determined through the use of this practice that the candidate method-defined non-VCSB test method requires a correlation equation in order to predict designated test method results, then this correlation equation must be applied to the candidate instruments output to obtain measurement results for regulatory purposes using good laboratory practices.

(8) Any additional information requested by the Administrator and necessary to render a decision as to approval of the test method.

(9) Samples used for precision and accuracy determination must be retained for 90 days.

(10) EPA approval.  Within 90 days of the receipt of materials required to be submitted under paragraphs (m)(1) through (9) of this section, the Administrator shall determine whether the test method is approved under this section.

(11) If the Administrator denies approval of the test method, within 90 days of receipt of all materials required to be submitted in paragraphs (m)(1) through (9) of this section, the Administrator will notify the applicant of the reasons for not approving the method.  If the Administrator does not notify the applicant within 90 days of receipt of the application, then the test method shall be deemed approved.

(12) The Administrator may revoke approval of a test method under this section for cause, including, but not limited to, a determination by the Administrator that the approved test method has proved to be inadequate in practice.

(13) An independent third-party scientific review and written report and verification of the information provided pursuant to paragraphs (m)(1) through (9) of this section.  The report and verification shall be based upon a site visit and review of relevant documents and shall separately identify each item required by paragraphs (m)(1) through (9) of this section, describe how the independent third-party evaluated the accuracy of the information provided, state whether the independent third-party agrees with the information provided, and identify any exceptions between the independent third-party's findings and the information provided.

	(i) The information required under this section to be provided by an independent third party must be conducted by both a professional chemist and professional statistician as specified in paragraph (m)(13)(i)(A) of this section.  The verifying chemist and statistician must be:

	(A) For a refiner, importer, oxygenate producer, and oxygenate blender, a chemist and statistician who has received at least a bachelor's degree in science from an accredited college in the United States, with professional work experience in the petroleum or oxygenate field.

	(B) [Reserved]

	(ii) To be considered an independent third-party under this paragraph (m)(13):

	(A) The third-party shall not be employed by the refiner, importer, oxygenate producer, or oxygenate blender, or any subsidiary or employee of the refiner, import facility, oxygenate producing facility, or oxygenate blender.

	(B) The third party shall be free from any interest in the refiner's, importer's, oxygenate producer's, or oxygenate blender's business.

	(C) The refiner, importer, oxygenate producer, or oxygenate blender shall be free from any interest in the third-party's business.

	(D) Use of a third-party that is debarred, suspended, or proposed for debarment pursuant to the Government-wide Debarment and Suspension regulations, 40 CFR part 32, or the Debarment, Suspension and Ineligibility provisions of the Federal Acquisition Regulations, 48 CFR part 9 subpart 9.4, shall be deemed in noncompliance with the requirements of this section.

	(iii) The independent third-party shall retain all records pertaining to the verification required under this section for a period of five years from the date of creation and shall deliver such records to the Administrator upon request.

	(iv) The third-party must provide to EPA documentation of his or her qualifications as part of the scientific review, including proof of appropriate college degree.

(14) If the Administrator finds that an individual test facility has provided false or inaccurate information under this section, upon notice from the Administrator the approval shall be void ab initio.