OAR Box 1165 

Prepped by Ollie Stewart 

Document Number: 

252) F. R. February 24, 1994 

p.i 

Docket Number: 

A-90-07 

Printed 4/28/2008 11:52:23 AM Sheet 252 of 257 
P.3 

888 6 Federa l Register / Vol. 59, No. 37 / Thursday, February 24. 1994 / Proposed Rules 

Wm93m9mmjm1mmgmmmmmmmmmmammmnmmmganmammnmmmmmlmmmmmmmBmnammmmam^ 

(i) On all interest rate reduction 

refinancing loans guaranteed under 

Sections 3710(a)(8) and 3710(b)(7) the 

fee shall be 0.50 percent of the total loan 

amount. 

(ii) On all refinancing loans other than 

those described in paragraph (e)(l)(i) of 

this section, the funding fee shall be 

2.75 percent of the loan amount for 

loans to veterans whose entitlement is 

based on service in the Selected Reserve 

under the provisions of section 

3701(b)(5) of title 38, U.S.C, and 2 

percent of tlie loan amount for loans to 

all other veterans, provided, however, 

that if the veteran is using entitlement 

for a second or subsequent time, the fee 

shall be 3 percent of the loan amount. 

(iii) Except for loans to veterans 

whose entitlement is based on service in 

the Selected Reserve under the 

provisions of section 3701(b)(5) of title 

38, U.S.C, the funding fee shall be 2 

percent of the total loan amount for all 

loans for the purchase or construction of 

a home on which the veteran does not 

make a down payment, unless the 

veteran is using entitlement for a second 

or subsequent time, in which case the 

fee shall be 3 percent. On purchase or 

construction loans on which the veteran 

makes a down payment of 5 percent or 

more, but Jess than 10 percent, the 

amount of the funding fee shall be 1.50 

percent of the total loan amount. On 

purchase or construction loans on 

which the veteran makes a down 

payment of 10 percent or more, the 

amount of the funding fee shall be 1.25 

percent of the total loan amount. 

(iv) On loans to veterans whose 

entitlement is based on service in the 

Selected Reserve under the provisions 

of section 3701(b)(5) of title 38, U.S.C, 

the funding fee shall be 2.75 percent of 

the total loan amount on loans for the 

purchase or construction of a home on 

which the veteran does not make a 

down payment, unless the veteran is 

using entitlement for a second or 

subsequent time, in which case the fee 

shall be 3 percent. On purchase or 

construction loans on which veterans 

whose entitlement is based on service in 

the Selected Reserve make a down 

payment of 5 percent or more, but less 

than 10 percent, the amount of the 

funding fee shall be 2.25 percent of the 

total loan amount. On purchase or 

construction loans on which such, 

veterans make a down payment of 10 

percent or more, the amount of the 

funding fee shall be 2.00 percent of the 

total loan amount. 

(v) All or part of such fee may be paid 

in cash at loan closing or all or part of 

the fee may be included in the loan 

without regard to the reasonable value 

of the property or the computed 

maximum loan amount, as appropriate. 

In computing the fee, the lender will 

disregard any amount included in the 

loan to enable the borrower to pay such 

fee. 

* a a * * 

10. Section 36.4336 is amended by 

revising paragraphs (a)(2)(i); and by 

adding a new paragraph (a)(4) to read as 

follows: 

§ 36.4336 Eligibility ot loans; reasonable 

value requirements. 

(a) * * * 

{1) * * * 

(2)(i) Except as to refinancing loans 

pursuant to 38 U.S.C. 3710 (a)(8) or 

(b)(7) and energy efficient mortgages 

pursuant to 38 U.S.C. 3710(d), the loan 

including any scheduled deferred 

interest added to principal, does not 

exceed the reasonable value of the 

property or projected reasonable value 

of a new home which is security for a 

graduated payment mortgage loan, as 

appropriate, as determined by the 

Secretary, and 

* * * * * 

(4) A loan guaranteed under 38 U.S.C. 

3710(d) which includes the cost of 

Under the proposed regulations, 

manufacturers of F/FAs would be 

required to conduct certain tests and 

submit information regarding the 

composition of emissions produced by 

such F/FAs and the effects of these 

emissions on public health and welfare. 

EPA held a public hearing on the 

NPRM on May 28,1992 and accepted 

written comments until June 30, 1992. 

Subsequent analysis indicated that 

additional public notice to clarify and 

reconsider a few specific compliancerelated and technical issues would be 

helpful in developing the final rule. 

Today's action presents these issues and 

requests comments on EPA's proposals 

for addressing them. The issues 

addressed in this document are the 

following: Timing of requirements for 

new F/FAs, alternative testing 

requirements in lieu of Tier 2, general 

emission generation methodology, 

mileage accumulation for the testing of 

atypical F/FAs, and base fuel 

specifications. 

DATES: Written comments on the 

specific issues discussed in this 

document will be accepted until March 

28,1994. ' 

energy improvements may exceed the V ADDRESSES: Comments on tfris 

reasonable value of the property, 

provided, that the cost of the energy • 

efficiency improvements does not 

exceed (1) $3,000; or (2) $6,000, if the 

increase in the monthly payment for 

principal and interest does not exceed 

the likely reduction in monthly utility 

costs resulting from the energy 

efficiency improvements. 

(FR Doc. 94-4145 Filed 2-23-94; 8:45 am] 

BILLING COOE 8320-01-P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 79 

[FRL-4840-7] 

Fuels and Fuel Additives Registration 

Regulations 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

..Agency (EPA). 

^ACTION: Notice of reopening of comment 

period. 

SUMMARY: On April 15,1992, EPA 

published in the Federal Register a 

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) 

for Fuels and Fuel Additives (F/FAs) 

Registration Regulations (57 FR 13168). 

The purpose of the proposed regulation 

would be to establish requirements for 

the registration of motor vehicle F/FAs 

as authorized by sections 211(b)(2) and 

211(e) of the Clean Air Act (CAA). 

document should be submitted in 

duplicate to: EPA Air Docket (LE-131); 

Attention: Public Docket No. A-90-07; 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

401 M Street SW., Washington. DC 

1-^20460. 

yffill other materials relevant to this 

Vaocument have been placed in Docket 

No. A-90-07, located in the EPA Air 

Docket, room M-1500, 401 M Street 

SW., Washington, DC 20460; phone 

(202) 260-7548. The docket is open for 

= public inspection from 8:30 a.m. until 

noon and from 1:30 p.m. to 3 p.m., 

Monday through Friday. As provided in 

40 CFR part 2; a reasonable fee may be 

charged by EPA for photocopying 

services. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ines 

del C Figueroa, Special Regulatory 

Projects Branch, U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, 2565 Plymouth Rd., 

Ann Arbor, Michigan 48105; phone 

(313) 668-4575. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

The legal authority for the F/FA 

registration program is provided by 

section 211 of the CAA. Section 211(a), 

42 USC section 7545. authorizes EPA to 

designate any fuel or fuel additive for 

registration and prohibits manufacturers 

of designated fuels or additives from 

selling such products unless they have 

been registered by EPA in accordance 

with section 211(b). In 1975, EPA issued 
P.4 

Federal Register / Vol. 59, No. 37 / Thursday, February 24, 1994 / Proposed Rules 8887 

regulations (40 CFR part 79) 

implementing basic registration 

requirements, as stipulated by section 

211(b)(1), that required applicants to 

submit certain information, such as 

commercial identifying information, 

range of concentration, purpose-in-use, 

and chemical composition, in order to 

register a fuel or fuel additive. 

The CAA also, gave EPA discretionary 

authority to establish additional 

registration requirements under section 

211(b)(2). This section authorized EPA 

to require F/FA manufacturers "to 

conduct tests to determine potential 

public health effects of such fuel[s) or 

additive(s) (including but not limited to, 

carcinogenic, teratogenic, or mutagenic 

effects)," and to furnish other 

"reasonable and necessary" information 

to identify F/FA emissions and 

determine their effects on vehicular 

emission control performance arid on 

the public health and welfare. 

EPA did not exercise its discretionary 

authority to require testing of F/FAs 

under section 211(b)(2) when the 

general registration regulations were 

issued in 1975, However, in the CAA 

Amendments of 1977 (Public Law 95 -

95, August 7,1977), Congress added 

section 211(e), which made 

implementation of section 211(b)(2) 

mandatory. On August 7,1990, EPA 

published an Advanced Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) (55 FR 

32218) and, on April 15,1992, 

published an NPRM (57 FR 13168) 

proposing additional registration 

requirements under sections 211(b)(2) 

and 211(e) of the CAA. The purpose of 

the rule would be to provide EPA with -

information for identifying and 

evaluating the potential adverse health 

effects of motor vehicle F/FA emissions 

and for guiding the direction of related 

regulatory actions in the future as 

specified in section 211(c). The reader is 

referred to the NPRM and Public Docket 

A-90-07 for detailed information on the 

proposed registration reouirements. 

Subsequent to the publication of the 

proposal, a public hearing was held on 

May 28,1992, followed by a written 

comment period which closed on June 

30,1992. A transcript of the public 

hearing and the written comments are 

contained in the docket. 

After careful evaluation of the 

comments and additional technical 

analysis. EPA determined that 

additional public notice to clarify 

certain key compliance issues and to 

modify certain proposed technical 

approaches would be beneficial. The 

next, sections of this notice discuss the 

issues in question and request relevant 

comments from the public. EPA asks the 

: public to focus their comments on the 

key areas discussed below. Comments 

on topics addressed in previous notices 

and comment periods will be treated as 

late communication to which EPA is not 

required to respond. The issues to be 

addressed are the following: (1) Timing 

of requirements for new F/FAs, (2) 

alternative testing requirements in lieu 

of Tier 2, (3) general emission 

generation methodology, (4) mileage 

accumulation for the testing of atypical 

F/FAs, and (5) base fuel specifications. 

17. Compliance-Related Issues 

A. Timing of Requirements for New F/ 

FAs 

The registration requirements -

proposed in the April 1992 NPRM were 

organized within a three-tiered health 

effects evaluation structure. Under Tier 

1, F/FA manufacturers would be 

required to perform a literature search 

on the health arid welfare effects of F/ 

FA emissions, characterize the 

emissions, and provide exposure 

information. Tier 2 would include shortterm biological testing to screen for 

specific health effects endpoints, 

involving the exposure of laboratory 

animals to the whole emissions of fuels 

or fuel/additive mixtures. After receipt 

and review of manufacturers' Tier 1 and 

Tier 2 submittals, EPA would 

determine, on a case-by-case basis, if 

additional testing were needed under 

Tier 3 to evaluate the risk of a particular 

F/FA (or group of F/FAs) on human 

health or welfare. Tier 3 testing could 

include any emissions analysis, health 

effects, welfare effects, and/or exposure 

testing or analysis deemed necessary by 

EPA for this purpose. 

The organization of the F/FA 

program's requirements into 

hierarchical tiers was proposed, in part, 

to ensure that the rule would 

accommodate the goals of section 211(b) 

within the time restrictions of section 

211(e)! Section 211(e) requires that, for 

F/FAs registered as of the date of 

promulgation of the final rule, the 

"requisite information" be submitted to 

EPA within three years of that date. On 

the other hand, manufacturers seeking 

to register F/FA products after the date 

of promulgation would have to satisfy 

the testing requirements before : 

registration would be granted. 

EPA judged that compliance with the 

Tier 1 and Tier 2 requirements should 

be achievable within, the three-year time 

limit for registered F/FAs; thus, these 

two tiers were proposed to be defined as 

the "requisite information" for 

registration pursuant to its authority 

under CAA section 211(e). However, 

maintenance of such registration would 

be conditional on subsequent 

satisfaction of any Tier 3 requirements 

which EPA might impose pursuant to its 

authority under CAA section 211(b). For 

consistency, the same definition of 

"requisite information" and the same 

Tier 3 arrangements were proposed to 

apply to both currently registered and 

new F/FAs. 

EPA intends to maintain these 

originally proposed provisions in the 

case of currently registered F/FA 

products. Thus, for continued 

registration of such F/FAs, compliance 

with Tier 1 and Tier 2 must occur 

within three years of promulgation of 

the final rule. As proposed in the 

NPRM, this registration would be 

conditional on subsequent satisfaction 

of any Tier 3 requirements which might 

be prescribed by the Agency. This 

means that if Tier 3 testing were 

prescribed for a fuel of fuel additive 

product registered as of the time of 

promulgation, the registration would be 

extended for that time which EPA 

specifies as necessary for completion of 

the prescribed Tier 3 requirements. 

Only upon satisfactory completion of 

these requirements would re-registration 

occur. 

In the case of products for which 

manufacturers seek registration after 

promulgation of this rule, EPA Js reexamining the appropriateness of the 

timing of these Tier 3 provisions. As 

discussed in the NPRM, EPA interprets 

section 211(b) in'cqnjunction with 

section 211(c), which gives EPA • 

authority to control or prohibit the 

manufacture, introduction into 

confmerce, offering for sale, or sale of 

any fuel or fuel additive if the 

Administrator finds that the-emission 

products of such fuel or fuel additive 

"causes, or contributes, to air pollution 

which may'reasonably be anticipated to 

endanger the public health or welfare." 

In light of this responsibility, EPA 

believes that it should exercise 

particular caution in registering new F/ 

FA products that are significantly 

different from of have a usage pattern 

which is significantly different in scope 

or character from currently registered F/ 

FA products. The potential health risks 

associated with the use of new F/FAs. 

could be higher, lower, or the same as 

those of current F/FAs. Thus, before 

permitting the introduction of these 

' products into the market, the Agency 

must have reasonable certainty that the 

public health consequences will not be 

made worse. 

Clarification is therefore needed 

concerning what constitutes a "new" F/ 

FA. EPA believes it is appropriate to 

distinguish between two-types of' 

- unregistered products which a • 

manufacturer might seek to register, after 
" .H* 

P.5 

8888 Federal Register /Vol. m, No. 37 / Thursday, February 24, 1994 / Proposed Rules 

- ~" n • , —r. 

the promulgation of the final rule: (l) F/ 

FA products similar in composition-and 

usage to those already allowed wide 

commercial distribution (e.g., registered 

for general use by other manufacturers), 

and (2) F/FA products which differ 

significantly in composition and/or 

usage from such current products. 

To formalize this distinction, EPA Is 

proposing to make use of grouping 

system concepts and definitions 

previously discussed in the April 1992 

NPRM. Specifically, EPA proposes that 

a F/FA product not registered by its 

manufacturer' as of the date of 

promulgation of this rule be designated 

as "registrable" if it meets the program's 

criteria for grouping with a currently 

registered fuel or bulk additive2 in the 

same fuel family'. Conversely, a F/FA 

product not registered by its 

manufacturer as of the date of 

promulgation would be designated as 

"new" if it does not meet the program's 

criteria for grouping with a currently 

registered fuel or bulk additive in the 

same fuel family. In these definitions, 

the term "currently" refers to the date 

on which EPA receives the registration 

application for the F/FA in question. 

According to these definitions, an 

unregistered F/FA which meets the 

criteria for grouping only with a 

currently registered aftermarket additive 

(and not also with a currently registered 

fuel and/or bulk additive) would not fee 

registrable. This does not preclude an 

' For purposes of these definitions, registration is 

product-specific Thus, if a particular fuel or 

additive product has not been registered by its * 

manufacturer, then that"manufacturer does not have 

the right to introduce, market, and/or sell this 

product, even if a composltionally similar or 

identical product has been registered by another 

manufacturer. 

» A "bulk additive." sometimes called a "general 

use" additive, was defined in the NPRM as a 

product added to fuel at the refinery as part of th* 

original blending stream or after the fuel is 

transported from the refinery, but before the fuel is 

purchased for introduction into the' fuel tank of a 

. motor vehicle. In contrast, an "aftermarket 

additive," sometimes called a consumer additive, is 

an additive product marketed for introduction 

directly into the fuel system of a motor vehicle, 

» "Fuel family" refers to the primary 

categorization of F/FAs within the proposed 

grouping system. A fuel family was defined in the 

NPRM as a set of F/FAs which share-basic chemical 

and physical formulation characteristics and can be 

used in the same engine or vehicle. Seven such fuel 

families were originally defined (unleaded gasoline, 

leaded gasoline, diesel. methanol, ethanol. 

methane, and propane), although EPA now intends 

to delete the leaded gasoline family in view of the 

prohibition under CAA section 2tl(n) of on-road 

use of leaded fuel after December 31.1995. In the 

proposed definition of "registrable." the restriction 

"in the same fuel family" means that the similarity 

of an applicant F/FA to a bulk additive currently 

registered for use in another fuel family would not 

suffice to make the applicant F/FA registrable. This 

restriction is consistent with the general principles 

of the grouping system, which permits grouping of 

F/FAs only within defined fuel families. 

waegistered aftermarket additive from 

fceteg registrable (since aftermarket 

additives can group with fuels and bulk 

gddkives), aor does it affect the 

Registration status of currently registered 

afteraaarket additives. 

For example,' an unregistered 

deteigent additive (either bulk or 

aftermarket) intended for use in 

unleaded gasoline and conforming to 

the "substantially similar" criteria for 

ftrdeaded gasoline (56 FR 5352) would 

l e regisfrahte, since it would be able to 

group with currently registered baseline 

unleaded gasoline fuels and bulk 

additives «. On the other hand, an 

unregistered chromium-containing 

additive intended for use in unleaded 

gasoline would be considered "new" 

tether thaa "registrable," because there 

tap© no currently registered chromiumcoRtaining fuels or bulk additives in the 

Unleaded gasoline family with which 

the applicant additive could be grouped. 

Uvea if a chromium-containing product 

had previously been registered as an 

aftermarket additive for unleaded 

gasoline (prior to the ban on such 

aftermarket additives under CAA 

seatien 211$)(U(B)5 or as a bulk 

additive for use in another fuel family 

(e.g., leaded gasoline or diesel fuel), the 

applicant additive would still be 

considered "sew". 

Under the original proposal, new F/ 

BA products would automatically be 

ailewed on the market after submission 

cf Tier 1 and Tier 2 data, whether or not 

significant heal|h effects concerns had 

arisen and whether or not EPA had 

sufficient information to determine if 

action under section 211(c) were 

appropriate. However, to address the 

concerns described above in relation to 

sectien 211(c). EPA is now proposing to 

require that manufacturers of new F/FA 

products (i.e., F/FA products not 

••The ability to join the unleaded gasoline 

baseline group assumes that the detergent additive 

dees net exceed oxygen and sulfur limits applicable 

tO the baseline unleaded gasoline category. 

' Until the *998 CAA Amendments went into 

effeet. the statutory language of section 211(f) was 

interpreted us applying only to unleaded gasoline 

fuels and related buHc additives. Thus, prior to 

November 15, 1990 £be effective date of the CAA 

Amendments), aftermarket additives intended for 

use in unleadedgasoline and containing elements 

ottiet than earlier), hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen, and 

sulfa? were allowed to be registered. Under the 

lfiQ^CAA amendments, all types of motor vehicle 

F/SFAs were placed under section 211(f) 

jurisdiction. All aftermarket additives that were not 

"substantially similar" and were introduced on or 

a£ter.Nevember 15, 1990 were banned. However. 

trJSs t>a,'n does not apply to products first introduced 

irtto Commerce prior to November 15.1990 (CAA 

scmito'ilKfJtlHB),. Thus, "non-sub-sim" gasoline 

afiiewnarket additives which had been registered 

p$ot to that date weje allowed to retain their 

registrations. These are so-called "grandfathered" 

aftermarket additives. 

registered by their specific 

manufacturers as of the date of 

promulgation and not fitting the 

registrable criteria) submit all testing 

requirements prior to registration, 

including Tier 3 when prescribed by the 

Agency. This means that if EPA were to 

identify a need for additional testing at 

the Tier 3 level for a new F/FA, 

registration would not be granted until 

satisfactory completion of all such 

requirements. 

On the other hand, EPA is proposing 

to grant registration to "registrable" F/ 

FAs upon the manufacturer's submittal 

of the basic registration application and 

other pro-Tier 1 notification . 

requirements (see NPRM)*. Once 

registered, these products would be 

legally able to enter the market. 

Furthermore, these products would 

have the same testing and compliance 

requirements as those specified for 

currently registered products, i.e., three 

years from the date of promulgation for 

the completion of the Tier 1 and Tier 2 

requirements and, if Tier 3 testing were 

prescribed, additional time consistent 

with the incremental testing 

requirements. Manufacturers' 

compliance with these requirements 

could be accomplished independently 

or as a member of an existing group. 

EPA believes that the proposed 

distinctions between registrable and 

new F/FAs, both in terms of their 

definitions and their respective 

compliance requirements, reflect 

reasonable regard for the public health 

and welfare without undue interference 

in the F/FA marketplace. Because 

registrable F/FAs are defined such that 

they must be reasonably similar in 

composition and usage to current F/ 

FAs, their entry onto the market would 

generally not be expected to increase the 

health or welfare risks potentially 

related to current F/FA emission 

exposures. In determining whether a 

manufacturer's product is registrable, 

the omission of aftermarket additives 

from the relevant population of 

currently registered F/FAs is intended 

to prevent a potentially large increase in 

«Even if an unregistered F/FA were "registrable", 

however. EPA could invoke other available 

regulatory authority under Federal law to provent 

its commerical distribution if EPA were to 

determine that such action was necessary to protoct 

the public health or welfare. For example, 

applicable sections of the Toxic Substances Control 

Act (TSCA)(15 U.S.C section 2601 et seq.), such as 

the Significant New Use rule or the 

Premanufacturing Notification process, could be 

invoked to require health effects testing prior to 

commerical distribution of an F/FA product il, 

among other factors specified in TSCA. there is a 

change in the use of the product or an increase in 

the magnitude and/or duration of exposure to the 

product by human beings or the environment (15 

U.S.C. section 2001 (a)(2)). 
" T. f aara^rTra^* -

P.6 

Federal Register / Vol. 59, No. 37 / Thursday, February 24, 1994 / Proposed Rules 8889 

public exposure to generally untested 

products which had previously been 

relatively limited in distribution and 

usage; It also ensures that the ability to 

group with a "grandfathered" 

aftermarket additive would not confer 

"registrability" on an unregistered F/ 

FA. This is consistent with the 

congressional intent in CAA section 

211(f)(1)(B) to preclude introduction 

into commerce of new aftermarket 

additives which do not fit the 

"substantially similar" criteria. The 

omission of F/FAs in different fuel 

families from the relevant population of 

current F/FAs is also intended to 

prevent potential increases in exposure 

to untested products. Expanding the use 

of an additive from one fuel family to 

another (e.g., from diesel fuel to 

gasoline) would significantly increase 

the overall size of the potential market 

for the product and thus the potential 

exposure to its emissions. 

Because of these safeguards, EPA 

believes that additional protection to the 

public health would generally not be 

achieved by prohibiting registrable F/ 

FAs from entering the market while 

testing of these products (or groups of 

similar products) proceeds. In the case 

o f 'new" F/FAs, however, EPA has no 

such assurances. By definition, these F/ 

FAs would be dissimilar in composition 

and/or usage to currently registered 

products, and allowing their 

introduction could not reasonably be 

assumed to have no adverse effects on 

the health or welfare of the general 

population. For these F/FAs, therefore, 

EPA believes that it must protect the 

public health and welfare by requiring 

compliance with all data requests it 

deems necessary before exposing the 

public to potentially increased risk. 

Figure 1 summarizes the decision 

process for determining whether an 

unregistered F/FA product would be 

"registrable" (and thus handled much 

like a currently registered product), or 

whether an unregistered F/FA product 

would not be "registrable" and must 

complete all testing requirements before 

registration is granted. 
P.7 

8890 Federal Register / Vol. 59, No. 37 / Thursday, February 24, 1994 7 Proposed Rules 

Figure 1 

Determination of F/FA Rsgtstrablrty and Compliance Tim* Requirement* 

YES Registorad as of date 

tf promulgation of 

final rule 

YES 

I NO 

Fits criteria for grouping 

with a currently registered 

fuel or bulk additive in 

the same fuel family 

NO 

I 

Registered and 

'Registrable* F/FAs: 

Tiers 1 & 2 compliance 

wfthin3yearsof 

promulgation 

* Additional time provided 

for Tier 3, 1 prescribed 

• Conditional registration 

continues during these 

oompKance periods 

New f Not Registrable') 

F/FAs. 

'Compliance with all 

testing requirements 

(including Tier 3,9 

prescribed) prior to 

registration 

' Any fuel or additive (bulk or aftermarket) 

15 

BILLING CODE S560-60-P 
P.8 

Federal Register / Vol. 59, No. 37 / Thursday, February 24, 1994 / Proposed Rules 889 1 

As a result of these modifications to 

the original proposal, EPA would have 

an opportunity to evaluate fully the 

potential health effects of truly new 

products before they enter the 

marketplace. On the other hand, F/FAs 

similar to those already registered 

would not be arbitrarily kept from the 

market during the compliance period 

simply because of the relationship 

between their date of introduction and 

the effective date of this rule. 

EPA interprets section 211(e) to 

support the approach contained in this 

notice. EPA believes that the reference 

in CAA section 211(e)(2)(A) and (B) to 

a "fuel or fuel additive which is 

registered" or "which is not registered" 

is ambiguous as to whether it refers fo 

the F/FA generally or to a particular 

product-specific registration. Given this 

ambiguity, EPA believes that it is 

reasonable to interpret the phrase "fuel 

or fuel additive which is registered" to 

refer to the F/FAs generally. Further, 

EPA believes it is reasonable to interpret 

the phrase "registered" to include both 

F/FAs that are either "registered" or 

"registrable." "Registrable" F/FAs are 

sufficiently similar in composition and 

use to existing F/FAs that one would 

not expect them to have dissimilar 

health effects; and therefore, it is 

reasonable to interpret the phrase 

"registered fuel or fuel additive" to 

include not only those F/FAs that are 

identical, but also those that can group 

with existing F/FAs. 

Alternatively, EPA believes that the 

approach in this notice is consistent 

with section 211 because EPA interprets 

section 211(e)(3) (A) and (B) in 

conjunction with section 211(e)(3)(C), 

which gives EPA authority to exempt 

any F/FA from duplicative testing. 

Thus, even if one interprets the phrase 

"fuel or fuel additive which [is/is not] 

registered" to mean either that an 

identical F/FA must already have a 

registration, or to refer to a productspecific registration, EPA believes it is 

reasonable to interpret section 

211(e)(3)(C) to allow F/FAs that are 

similar in composition and usage to 

those already on the market to group 

with those similar F/FAs and complete 

tlie testing with the other F/FAs in their 

group. At the same time, EPA believes 

that for F/FAs that differ significantly in 

composition or usage from currently 

registered F/FAs, such testing would not 

be duplicative of testing of groups of 

registered F/FAs; and therefore, EPA is 

authorized under section 211(e) to 

require this information prior to 

registration. 

Under either theory, EPA's authority 

to obtain information is not limited to 

Tier 1 and Tier 2 data, because section 

211(b)(2)(B) gives EPA authority to 

require any information necessary to 

assess the effects of emissions on public 

health or welfare. Therefore, EPA 

interprets section 211 (e) and (b) to give 

it the authority to require any necessary 

health or welfare effects information for 

F/FAs that are significantly different in 

composition or usage from currently 

registered products. 

EPA solicits comments on its 

interpretation of CAA section 211 as it 

applies to the approach outlined in this 

notice and on the proposed compliance 

requirements for F/FA products which 

manufacturers may seek to register after 

promulgation of this rule. EPA is". 

proposing: (1) To allow those products 

fitting the definition of "registrable" to 

become registered and thus subject to 

the same compliance and timing 

requirements as currently registered 

products, and (2) to require 

manufacturers of "new" F/FAs (i.e., 

those not in conformance with the 

definition of "registrable") to submit 

any information EPA requires, 

potentially including Tier 3, prior to 

registration. Based on its analysis of the 

public comments on these proposed 

provisions, EPA may adopt both 

proposals, adopt one proposal, or reject 

both proposals. 

B. Alternative Testing Requirements in 

Lieu of Tier 2 

As explained in the NPRM, the main 

purpose of the proposed rule is to obtain 

information for the identification and . 

evaluation of potential health effects of 

F/FA emissions in order to guide EPA 

in future regulatory actions. CAA 

section 211(b)(2)(A) gives EPA the 

authority to require the manufacturer of 

any fuel or fuel additive "to conducttests to determine potential public 

health effects of such fuel or additive 

(including, but not limited to, 

carcinogenic, teratogenic, or mutagenic 

effects)." Thus, the statute gives EPA 

discretion to require the examination of 

other endpbints of concern in addition 

to the mandatory areas of testing 

described above. 

The Tier 2 program in the NPRM 

proposed tp establish a testing 

framework that incorporated the 

screening of several health effects 

endpoints relevant to the assessment of 

the public health impacts of F/FA 

emissions, including those endpoints 

mandated by the statute. In general, EPA 

still intends to maintain a standard Tier 

2 biological testing program as a 

requirement for registration. Thus, the 

prescribed Tier 2 tests to bcincluded iii 

the final rule would apply to nearly all 

F/FAs seeking compliance with 

registration requirements, to the extent 

that the results of the data search 

activities in Tier 1 do not include 

comparable existing information from 

adequately performed and properly 

documented previous studies. 

However, EPA is now proposing a 

special provision which would give 

EPA discretion to require different 

testing requirements in lieu of the 

standard Tier 2 program, in order to 

address specific health concerns for a 

particular fuel or fuel additive product. 

EPA recognizes that, in some special 

cases, more exhaustive or specifically 

focused tests might be warranted in lieu 

of the screening Tier 2 tests, based on 

already available health effects 

information. For example, for a .. 

particular fuel or fuel additive product, 

information could already be available 

to EPA (independent of this proposed 

program) which indicates that testing 

should be targeted to an identified 

health concern that is not specifically 

addressed in Tier 2 or that calls for more 

definitive testing than would ordinarily 

occur under Tier 2. The currently 

proposed testing program structure 

certainly allows EPA to require such 

tests under Tier 3 after the evaluation of 

the previous tiers. However, in this 

special case, requiring more definitive 

tests or other appropriate endpoint tests 

earlier in the. testing program would 

result in overall savings to the 

manufacturer while providing EPA with 

the needed data earlier to assess, the 

potential health risks for the particular 

fuel or fuel additive in question. Under 

this special provision EPA would also 

be able to prescribe additional tests to 

be performed along with the standard 

Tier 2 program as well as substituting 

different tests. EPA asks for comments 

on this proposed provision that would 

allow EPA to prescribe alternative tests 

in lieu of (or in addition to) the standard 

Tier 2 tests in special cases. 

If EPA decided to exercise its 

authority under this special provision, 

EPA would allow an appropriate time 

for completion of the prescribed tests. 

For instance, if ancillary tests to Tier 2 

were prescribed for a registered F/FA, 

the usual three-year timeframe for 

completing Tier 1 and Tier 2 

requirements would no longer apply. 

Instead, EPA would allow additional 

time for completion of the alternative 

testing program (i.e.. Tier 2 as well as 

the ancillary tests prescribed under this 

provision) in this special case. Similar 

compliance allowances would be made 

if different tests (e.g., chronic tests) were 

prescribed in lieu of the standard Tier 

2 screening tests. For registered F/FAs, 

EPA would notify the manufacturer (or 

group) by certified mail letter, within 

eighteen months of promulgationof the 
P.9 

8892 Federal Register / Vol. 59, No. 37 / Thursday, February 24, 1994 /Proposed Rules ^-» 

final rule, of the specific tests to be done 

in lieu of the standard Tier 2 regimen, 

along with a schedule for compliance 

and submittal of test results. A Federal 

Register notice would also be published 

to give the public opportunity to 

comment on the intended testing 

regimen. A public hearing would not be 

held, however. The responsible 

manufacturer (or group of 

manufacturers) would have 60 days to 

comment on the prescribed tests and 

timing requirements. If the responsible 

manufacturer did not provide any 

comments, EPA would assume that the 

manufacturer had consented in full with 

the prescribed testing program. Similar 

notification arrangements would apply 

to manufacturers of currently 

unregistered F/FAs. In this instance, 

EPA would notify the new applicant (by 

certified mail letter) of the nonstandard 

requirements within eighteen months of 

EPA's learning of the manufacturer's 

intent to register a product. EPA 

welcomes comments on the proposed 

notification and comment procedures 

for this special provision. 

In general, EPA considers the normal 

Tier 2 testing regimen to be applicable, 

appropriate, and valuable for the health 

effects evaluation of F/FA emissions, . 

even if higher-level testing is later 

required under the provisions of Tier 3. 

Thus, EPA would exercise the special 

authority to prescribe other testing 

requirements in addition to or in lieu of 

the standard Tier 2 regimen only in 

exceptional cases. The exercise of this 

authority would be done wholly at 

EPA's discretion. F/FA manufacturers 

would be specifically discouraged from 

submitting applications or requests to 

EPA for Tier 2 substitutions, and EPA 

would be under no obligation to 

consider or respond to any such 

requests. 

III. Technical Issues 

A. General Emission Generation 

Methodology 

The NPRM proposed that F/FA 

manufacturers would be required to 

conduct a detailed characterization of 

the emissions of their products, as well 

as biological tests in which animals are 

exposed to these emissions. The use of 

applicable portions of the standard 

Federal Test Procedure (FTP) was 

proposed for generating exhaust 

emissions for these purposes. For 

biological testing of products 

predominantly used in light-duty 

vehicle applications, EPA proposed the 

use of one light-duty vehicle operating 

over continuous, repeated Urban 

Dynamometer Driving Schedule (UDDS) 

cycles (i.e., a transient speed driving 

sequence used to simulate typical urban 

driving) performed on a chassis 

dynamometer. An engine dynamometer 

operated on the Engine Dynamometer 

Schedule (EDS) was presented as an 

option. The EDS is a transient engine 

6peed versus torque time sequence 

commonly used in heavy-duty engine 

evaluation. It was proposed that the EDS 

would be used to generate emissions in 

heavy-duty applications. EPA also 

proposed that all test vehicles and 

engines should possess all of the 

emission control equipment normally 

recommended by the manufacturer. 

In their comments on the NPRM, the 

regulated industry questioned the 

appropriateness of using the FTP to 

generate emissions for biological testing, 

given the inherent variable nature of 

FTP-generated emissions. In response to 

these comments, EPA is considering 

several alternative approaches as 

discussed below. EPA asks for 

comments on the suitability of these 

proposals and on alternative methods 

suitable for the generation of emissions 

to be used in the biological testing of F/ 

FAs. To be most useful, such comments 

should include a detailed discussion on 

the recommended methodology, 

including advantages and 

disadvantages. 

1. Non-Transient Methods 

EPA is considering the use of nontransient methods as an alternative 

approach to FTP or other transient 

cycles to reduce the potential variability 

in the emission stream. The rationale 

behind this approach is discussed 

below. 

The determination of an exposure/ 

health effect relationship requires a 

constant, well-controlled, and 

measurable exposure environment. A 

high degree of variability in emission 

properties such as heat, pressure, water 

vapor, CO, NOx, C02, total 

hydrocarbons, and specific chemical 

composition could complicate the 

measurement and determination of the 

actual exposure levels that occur during 

toxicology testing. During transient 

cycles, physical and chemical properties 

of the exhaust stream can vary 

significantly. In addition, a high 

percentage of emissions are produced in 

concentrated spikes (related to the 

enriched conditions present during 

accelerations) that result in a series of 

alternating high and low level 

exposures. This variability could be 

difficult to accommodate in the context 

of the inhalation toxicology tests 

proposed in this rule. Therefore, EPA is 

considering the use of single-mode 

(steady state) operating conditions for 

generating emissions in the F/FA testing 

program. 

In addition to reducing variability, 

non-transient methods might also 

provide a better simulation of ambient 

conditions. Ambient air contains 

emissions from many thousands of 

vehicles of varying technologies, age, 

and state of maintenance. At any point 

in time, these vehicles are in different 

stages of operation under various engine 

loads. As a collective average of the 

emissions from these sources, the 

ambient air typically varies gradually 

over a period of hours or days. In 

contrast, UDDS emissions vary 

significantly from second to second. For 

these reasons, the ambient air actually 

resembles a steady state condition more 

closely than a transient state. 

Another potential advantage of 

running the test vehicle or engine under 

single-mode conditions is that it would 

permit less sophisticated and less ' 

expensive dynamometer equipment 

(e.g., water-brake dynamometers) to bo 

used, for emission generation. This 

could help to encourage additional 

biological testing laboratories to obtain 

the equipment necessary for conducting 

the test exposures required in thjs 

program, and might also increase the 

•feasibility of using portable 

dynamometers for these purposes. 

On the other hand, the use of a nontransient rather than a transient cycle 

for generating emissions raises 

legitimate concerns that the emission 

stream could be missing certain 

toxicologically active species which 

would ordinarily be generated in 

appreciable amounts only during 

accelerations. However, these concerns 

might be allayed to some extent by two 

other emission generation specifications 

which EPA is considering: the use of 

engine-out (non-catalyzed) rather than 

tailpipe catalyzed emissions (see section 

III.A.2, below) and the use of high-load, 

fuel-enriched operating conditions. 

To maximize the emission species 

occuring in the exhaust stream during 

non-transient operation, EPA is 

considering different vehicle/engine 

operating specifications or emission 

performance requirements. One 

approach under consideration is to 

specify the speed and throttle 

requirements, e.g., 25 percent of full 

throttle at a constant speed of 20 mph 

(the average speed of the FTP). An 

alternative method would be to specify 

a high load requirement directly (e.g., 50 

percent load at 20 mph). One factor to 

consider is that the vehicle/engine 

operating conditions must be achievable 

without exceeding the load which a 

typical well-maintained, modern engine 

can handle for prolonged periods of 
P.10 

time without breaking down. EPA 

requests comments and advice on this 

practical constraint. A different 

approach would be to require the 

modification of electronic computer 

controls to manage fuel injection so as 

to achieve a suitably enriched air/fuel 

ratio under steady-state operation. 

Programming a vehicle to operate in 

open-loop mode is one example of this 

approach. 

Rather than specifying the operating 

conditions to be used during nontransient vehicle/engine operation, EPA 

could choose to specify performance 

criteria which would achieve suitable 

emission levels. These criteria would be 

based on selected exhaust or exposure 

concentrations of key emissions for 

biological testing (e.g., CO, total HC). 

This approach would allow operators 

the flexibility to determine ths most 

appropriate vehicle/engine conditions 

and/or computer controls needed to 

obtain an exhaust stream containing the 

required concentration ranges of 

specific emissions. For example, EPA 

could require that the concentration of 

total hydrocarbons in the exhaust must 

exceed a specified amount and/or that 

the CO concentration be less than a 

specified maximum. Because different 

test vehicles/engines would be required 

to meet the same criteria, this approach 

might reduce the potential test-to-test 

variability which might result if EPA 

were to specify a particular set of 

operating conditions and require that set 

to be applied across all vehicle/engine 

technologies. 

EPA invites comments on the 

possibility of using a non-transient cycle 

rather than the FTP for generating 

emissions for biological testing. Specific 

comments are requested on the 

effectiveness of the various approaches 

discussed above for achieving the 

desired emission enrichment during 

steady-state operation. Comments on the 

specific speed, throttle, load 

specifications, computer controls, and/ 

or performance criteria mentioned 

above are also requested, and 

suggestions as to suitable alternative 

methods or specifications are welcome. 

Such suggestions will be particularly 

helpful if supporting data and rationale 

are provided. Detailed emission 

speciatibn data/profiles contrasting 

engine/vehicle operating conditions 

(e.g., transient versus non-transient, 

especially under engine-out conditions) 

are also solicited. 

2. Alternative Approaches 

Although EPA. is considering steady 

state conditions for the generation of 

emissions in the final rule, it has not 

excluded the possibility of using the 

previously proposed FTP method or 

other transient or semi-transient (e.g., 

multi-modal) methods. EPA solicits 

detailed comments on whether transient 

methods are necessary to ensure that 

toxicologically significant species will 

not be unintentionally omitted from the 

emission stream. 

EPA is considering the use of 

emission conditioning techniques that 

could potentially accommodate 

transient cycle emission generation 

within the context of the F/FA 

inhalation toxicity testing program. One 

option being considered would use 

constant dilution ratio equipment (e.g., 

the mini-diluter or variable flow rate 

"constant volume sampling" (VFRCVS) systems) being developed and 

evaluated in the American Industry/ 

Government Emissions Research, 

Cooperative Research and Development 

Agreement (AIGER CRADA) to limit the 

transient variability characteristics of 

classical CVS (variable dilution ratio) 

^exhaust. With this equipment, the 

diluent can be managed to achieve 

desired CO, CO2 and water vapor 

concentrations (e.g., to avoid animal 

asphyxiation or water condensation) 

and sample temperatures prior to being 

directed to the biological exposure 

chambers. Concentration swings will 

occur when the engine air/fuel ratio 

diverges from stoichiometric 

combustion, but for only short durations 

of time. EPA recognizes that this is a 

developing technology and invites 

comments, suggestions, and supporting 

data on its possible application in the F/ 

FA biological testing program. 

Another alternative that would allow 

. management of the variability of 

transient vehicle exhaust is use of a 

mixing chamber between the classical 

CVS source and the exposure chamber. 

The transient exhaust would be injected 

into a large dilution/mixing/integration 

chamber prior to its delivery to the 

animal exposure chamber. This would 

allow necessary adjustment of the 

exhaust concentrations and integration 

of the large concentration swings typical 

of CVS exhaust, prior to exposing the 

animals. The mixing chamber would be 

charged from the CVS at a constant rate 

determined by the exposure chamber 

purge rate. The exposure chamber flow 

could begin at the conclusion of the 

initial transient cycle with the 

associated mixing chamber charge. EPA 

requests comments on the feasibility of 

using mixing chambers to condition 

diluted transient exhaust for animal 

exposure in the context of the F/FA 

testing program. 

3. Engine-Out Emissions 

EPA is also considering the use of 

engine-out (i.e., non-catalyzed) rather 

than catalyzed tailpipe emissions for 

biological testing, to assure that the test 

animals will be exposed to the full range 

of emission species potentially resulting 

from the combustion of F/FAs. With 

•modern emission control technology in 

place, most of the ambient air pollutant 

species attributable to automobile 

exhaust come from two sources: 

malfunctioning vehicles ("high 

emitters") and normal vehicles during 

their cold start period, when their 

engines run rich and their catalytic 

converters have not yet reached 

effective operating temperatures. The 

variety of emissions from these two 

important sources are not well 

represented by hot, catalyzed exhaust 

generated from well-maintained, 

modern vehicles. Emissions during the 

cold-start include hundreds of organic 

chemical species which are generated 

before the catalytic converter reaches its 

effective temperature. Once the catalytic 

converter is warmed-up, its efficiency 

increases to the point where only a 

dozen or so simple compounds remain 

in readily measurable amounts in the 

catalyzed exhaust.-Thus, the use of 

treated exhaust in the biological testing 

program would expose the laboratory 

animals to only a very few of the organic 

emission species associated with the 

combustion of the fuel or additive of 

interest. 

In vivo testing requires continuous air 

changes in the animal chambers to 

avoid confounding health effects (e.g., 

lung and skin irritations, hypoxia, 

bacterial infections, heat exhaustion, . 

etc.) caused by a build-up of metabolic 

by-products (e.g., CO2; ammonia, 

humidity and body heat) of the animal 

test population. Because of the need for 

frequent air changes, the initial coldstart emissions would remain in the 

exposure chamber for only a few 

minutes before being flushed out. 

Assuming catalyzed emissions were 

used, the remaining hours of each day's 

test period would expose the animals 

only to the relatively few species that 

remain in hot, treated exhaust. Thus, the 

use of catalyzed exhaust for biological 

exposures could exclude from the tests 

relevant emission species that could 

potentially be harmful to human health 

or the environment. In contrast, the 

ambient air normally contains the full 

range of combustion emissions, since 

cold-start emissions are continuously reintroduced and some "high emitters" 

are always in operation. Since humans 

experience continuous exposure to 

these emissions, EPA believes it is 

...JUtl*M..*^iiMI 
P.11 

8894 Federal Register / Vol. 59. No. 37 / Thursday, February 24, 1994 / Proposed Rules 

important that they be included in the 

test exposure atmosphere. 

Several possible methods have been 

considered for increasing the frequency 

and/or duration of biological exposures 

to actual cold-start emissions. These 

included the use of emission storage 

and retrieval systems, use of an 

enhanced engine and exhaust cooling 

system, and the use of a fleet of 

identical vehicles that could be 

interchanged to provide natural cooling 

periods. However, each of these 

methods could introduce still more 

technical challenges. Thus, EPA 

believes that production of a constant 

supply of genuine cold-start emissions 

could be an impractical requirement for 

the type of toxicology tests required in 

this program. Comments and 

suggestions on these issues are 

welcome.-

Instead of attempting to produce a 

constant supply of cold-start emissions, 

EPA is considering the possibility of 

requiring manufacturers to use engineout emissions as a surrogate for coldstart emissions. Recognizing that an 

ineffective catalytic converter is the 

major (though not only) vehicle-related 

factor which differentiates the cold start, 

EPA has compared cold-start emissions 

and high-emitting vehicle emissions to 

engine-out emissions using available 

emission data. This analysis

 7 showed 

that, in terms of both chemical 

composition and relative 

concentrations, engine-out organic 

emissions closely resemble cold-start 

and high-emitting vehicle emissions. In 

addition, a comparison of FTP 

composite emissions showed that 

engine-out and tailpipe organic 

emission species were nearly the same 

on a qualitative basis, although the 

engine-out emissions appeared at a 

greater overall concentration. Thus, 

bypassing the catalyst produced 

emissions representing a comprehensive 

aggregate of characteristic combustion 

products at enriched concentrations, 

including the species which are 

otherwise emitted only during the cold 

start The enrichment of organic 

emissions is an important side benefit 

for the biological testing program 

because richer hydrocarbon streams will 

be available for toxicology testing for 

any given level of OO? and water vapor. 

(It should be noted, however, that CO 

levels are also raised, and may 

themselves become a limiting factor.) 

EPA requests comments on the use of 

engine-out emissions for the F/FA 

biological testing program and 

' See memorandum to the docket from Stephen 

Mayotte. entitled "Engine-out versus Tailpipe 

Emissions in Light -duty Vehicles". 

welcomes suggestions regarding this 

proposal or other alternative 

approaches. To be most useful, such 

comments should include supporting 

emission data. 

With the exception of exhaust aftertreatment devices, EPA proposes that all 

normally required emission control 

equipment be present and fully 

operational on all test vehicles and 

heavy-duty engines used in the 

generation of engine-out emissions. This 

may require replacing catalytic 

converters and particulate traps with 

other devices capable of simulating the 

back pressure, residence time, and 

mixing characteristics usually provided 

by these devices. Another approach 

could be to install a blank catalyst (no 

catalytic wash coat) in the exhaust 

system where the production catalyst 

would normally be installed. EPA 

requests comments and suggestions on 

this or other suitable alternative 

methods that would ensure the 

appropriate operation of the exhaust 

system. 

B. Mileage Accumulation for the Testing 

of Atypical F/FAs 

In the NPRM, EPA proposed 25,000 

miles as the minimum mileage which 

must be accumulated on the emissiongeneration vehicle before generating 

emissions for characterization and 

animal testing purposes. For fuels and 

fuel additives containing atypical 

elements, mileage accumulation was 

proposed to continue after 25,000 miles, 

if needed, until the emissions of the .. 

atypical element(s) reached steady state 

or until the vehicle or engine has been 

operated for 80 percent of its estimated 

useful life (e.g., 80.000 miles for lightduty vehicles). "Steady state" was 

defined in the proposal as the point at 

which the mass of the atypical elements 

emitted during the performance of one 

or more UDDS or engine dynamometer 

schedules is within 10 percent of the 

mass of the atypical elements that 

entered the combustion chamber during 

the driving cycles. 

Based in part on comments received 

from the regulated industry, EPA is now 

considering different mileage 

accumulation approaches. In the case of 

a fuel or fuel/additive mixture meeting 

baseline or non-baseline criteria, EPA 

believes that an accumulation of 4,000 -

miles on a light-duty vehicle or lightduty truck or 125 hours on a heavy-duty 

vehicle (fueled exclusively with the fuel 

or fuel/additive mixture to be tested), 

should be sufficient to stabilize 

emissions. The 4,000 mile/125 hour 

mileage accumulation requirements are 

consistent with the emission 

stabilization procedures used for 

emission-data vehicles in EPA's new 

vehicle certification program.8 

In the case of F/FAs with atypical 

elements, EPA is concerned that the 

requirement to reach a mass-balance 

steady state-prior to generating 

emissions for testing might be too 

stringent. In fact, in some cases, a 

measured input-output moss balance 

might never be reached. Thus, EPA is 

considering a different approach for 

atypical F/FAs. The minimum mileage 

accumulation that vehicles/engines 

testing atypical F/FAs would be 

required to undergo would be 4,000 

miles, the same mileage accumulation 

now proposed for the testing of baseline 

and non-baseline F/FAs. After 

completion of the 4,000 miles, the F/FA 

manufacturer would be required to 

identify and measure the atypical -

element(s) in the exhaust, if possible. 

Because the presence of the atypical 

species in specific emission fractions 

will be dependent on the nature of the 

particular atypical element, EPA would 

recommend examination of all emission 

fractions (i.e., vapor, semi-volatile, and 

particulate). If the atypical element(s) of 

interest are not detected in at least one 

of the emission fractions after 4,000 

miles, the manufacturer would then 

need to continue mileage accumulation 

until the atypical element(s) are at high 

enough level(s) for accurate 

identification and measurement. The 

intervals at which the emissions should 

be examined for detection of the 

atypical element(s) is proposed to be left 

to the manufacturer's discretion. Once 

the atypical element(s) of interest are 

detected in at least one emission 

fraction, an additional 10,000 miles 

would be required prior to generation of 

emissions for purposes of emission 

characterization and biological testing. 

EPA solicits comments and 

suggestions on the proposed mileage 

accumulation requirements for baseline, 

non-baseline, and atypical F/FAs. If 

alternative approaches are provided, 

EPA requests commenters to include 

supporting data and a detailed 

discussion so as to allow an appropriate 

analysis of the options. 

C.Base Fuel Specifications 

The NPRM proposed the use of base 

fuels to represent theoretical "industry 

average" or normative formulations for 

each defined fuel family. EPA was to 

develop chemical and physical 

• specifications to define a specific base 

fuel (including a minimum required 

additive package) for each fuel family. 

The base fuels were proposed to serve 

• 40 CFR 86.094-26. Mileage and service 

accumulation; emission requirements. 
P.12 

Federal Register / Vol. 59, No. 37 / Thursday, February 24, 1994 / Proposed Rules 889.1 

es the group representatives in 

compliance with testing requirements 

for baseline F/FA groups. The base fuels 

were also proposed to serve as the fuel 

substrates into which additives which 

were undergoing evaluation would be 

mixed prior to emission generation and 

testing. Tests conducted on the 

emissions of the base fuel would then 

serve as controls against which tests on 

the emissions of the additive/base fuel 

mixture would be compared. 

Although base fuel definitions for the 

conventional fuel families (gasoline and 

diesel) were discussed in a 

memorandum to the docket ("Base Fuel 

Determination Procedures for the 

Proposed Fuels and Fuel Additives 

Rulemaking," see Public Docket No. A90-07), EPA did not specify at that time 

the required additive package for 

conventional fuels or the base fuel 

specifications for alternative fuels. The 

proposed specifications for the 

unleaded gasoline and diesel base fuels 

are shown in Table 1 and Table 2, 

respectively. Comments are requested 

on these specifications, with particular 

emphasis on the additive functions 

proposed to be included in each base 

fuel. The base additive packages are 

intended to include only those additive 

functions that are essential for fuel 

production or engine operation and/or 

those required by law. Selection of the 

specific product within each specified 

additive functional category would be 

up to the formulator of the base fuel 

and/or the test operator. However, 

additive products which include 

elements other than carbon, hydrogen, 

oxygen, and nitrogen would not be 

allowed as part of the base fuel/additive 

formulation. The base additives would 

be required to be used at their minimum 

effective concentrations in the base fuel. 

TABLE 1.—Unleaded Gasoline Base 

Fuel Properties 

API Gravity 

Sulfur, ppim 

Benzene, vol% ... 

RVP. psi 

Octane, (R+M)/2 . 

57.4+0.3 

33 ±25 

1.53+0.3 

8.7+0.3 

87.3+0.5 

Distillation parameters 

IBP,-?F 

10%, °F 

50%, °F .„ 

90%, °F '.. 

End Point, °F .... 

Aromatics, vol% „.. 

Olefins, vol% 

Saturates, wol% .... 

Additive1 

Deposit Control 

Corrosion Inhibitor 

Demuteifier „ 

91±5 

128±5 

218±5 

330+.5 

415±5 

32.0+0.5 

9.210.3 

58.811.0 

Allowable 

range 

12-200 ppm 

4-40 ppm 

0.4-10.0 ppm 

Additive < 

Anti-oxidarri 

Metal deactivator 

Allowable 

range 

12-20 ppm 

4-12 ppm 

'Additives used in the base fuel may contain no elements other than CHON. 

TABLE 2.—DIESEL BASE FUEL 

PROPERTIES 

Specific Gravity 

Sulfur, wt% 

Cetane Number 

Cetane Index .... 

0.86±0.01 

0.05±0.0025 

45.212 

45.712 

Distillation parameters 

IBP. "F 

10%, °F .'. 

50%. °F 

90%, °F 

End Point. "F . 

Aromatics, vol% . 

Olefins, vol% 

Saturates, vol% . 

Additive' 

Deposit Control 

Corrosion Inhibitor .. 

Demulsifier 

Biocide 

Antt-oxtdant 

Metal deactivator 

351+5 

43315 

516+5 

60615 

65115 

38.410.5 

1.510.3 

60.111.0 

Allowable 

range 

33-84 ppm 

3-33 ppm 

0.3-0.8 ppm 

135-1000 

ppm 

17-26 ppm 

4-16 ppm 

• Additives used in the base fuel may contain no elements other than CHON. 

EPA has also developed proposed 

base fuel specifications for alternative 

fuels, based on California Air Resources 

Board (CARB) definitions and other 

available information. EPA requests 

comments on the proposed base fuel 

specifications, discussed below for each 

alternative fuel family. At this time, 

much less in-use data is availablefor 

alternative fuels than for conventional 

fuels, and some of these fuels and their 

associated vehicle/engine technologies 

are still under development. EPA thus 

proposes to allow some flexibility (with 

specific EPA approval) in the base fuel 

formulations specified for the 

alternative fuel families, if necessitated 

by technological changes occurring after 

final promulgation of the specifications. 

Such changes might be particularly 

necessary in regard to the additives 

specified to be used as part of the base 

fuels. For example, the proposed M100 

base fuel (see below) is specified to 

contain no additives. This proposed 

specification reflects EPA's 

understanding that M100 fuel is 

currently used without additives in 

heavy-duty buses in California. 

However, as experience accumulates • 

and/or if other M100 vehicle 

technologies become predominant, the 

need for a minimum complement of 

additives (such as agents to increase the 

lubricity or auto-ignition characteristics 

of M100) may become evident. In such 

cases, EPA would review and (if 

justified) approve requests from 

alternative fuel manufacturers to modify 

the base fuel (and/or additive) 

specifications. Such requests would 

generally be deemed to be justified if 

consistent with the associated vehicle 

manufacturer's recommendations for 

operation of the vehicle. Public notice of 

any approved changes to the base fuels 

(and/or, their additive components) 

would be published in the Federal 

Register. 

1. Methanol 

As proposed in the NPRM, the 

baseline category within the methanol 

fuel family would contain two F/FA 

groups: the M100 group (to include 

methanol formulations with at least 96 

percent methanol by volume) and the 

M85 group (to include methanol 

formulations with 50-95 percent 

methanol by volume). Each of these 

baseline methanol groups would have 

its own base fuel. These base fuels 

would contain no elements other than 

carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen, 

sulfur, and chlorine. The chlorine (as 

chloride) would be permitted as a 

. contaminant remaining from methanol 

production, and would be limited to no 

more than 0.0001 percent by mass. The 

sulfur content may not exceed 0.002 

percent by mass in the M100 base fuel' 

and may. not exceed 0.004 percent by 

mass in the M85 base fuel. 

The M100 base fuel would be 

required to consist of 100 percent by 

voluine chemical grade methanol. The 

M85 base fuel would contain 85 percent 

by volume chemical grade methanol, 

blended with 15 volume percent 

unleaded gasoline base fuel (as 

described in Table 1). No additives 

other than those contained in the 

gasoline base'fuel component would be 

allowed. Specifications for the methanol 

base fuels are presented in Table 3. 

TABLE 3.—METHANOL BASE FUEL 

PROPERTIES ' 

Chemical grade MeOH, 

vpl% 

Gasoline base Fuel, 

vof% 

Chlorine (as chloride), 

wt%. max 

Water, wt%, max 

Sulfur, wt%, max 

M85 

85.0 

15.0 

0.0001 

0.5 

0.004 

J 
P.13 

889G Federa l Register / Vol. 59, No. 37 / Thursday, February 24, 1994 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE 4.—E85 BASE FUEL 

PROPERTIES 

Chemical grade ethanol, vol% 

Gasoline base fuel, vol% 

Chlorine (as chloride), wt%, max ... 

Copper, mg/L, max 

Sulfur, wt%, max 

Water, wt%, max 

85.0 

15.0 

0.0004 

0.07 

0.004 

0.50 

TABLE 5.—METHANE BASE FUEL 

SPECIFICATIONS 

Methane, mole%, min 

Ethane, mole%, max 

Propane and higher HC, mole%. 

max 

C6 and higher HC, mole%, max . 

Oxygen, mole%, max 

Inert gases: 

Sum of COj and N2, mole%, max .. 

Sulfur (odorant additive), ppmv, max . 

89.0 

4.5 

2.3 

0.2 

0.6 

4.0 

16 

TABLE 6.—PROPANE BASE FUEL 

SPECIFICATIONS 

RVP, psig, max 

Evaporative temperature, 95%, "F, 

max 

Propane, vol%, min 

Propylene, vol%, max 

Butane, vol%, max 

Sulfur (odorant additive), ppmw, max 

-37 

92.5 

5.0 

2.5 

120 

The E85 base fuel would contain no 

elements other than carbon, hydrogen, 

oxygen, nitrogen, sulfur, chlorine, and 

copper. The chlorine (as chloride) 

would be permitted as a contaminant 

remaining from ethanol production, and 

would be limited to no more than 

0.0004 percent by mass. The sulfur 

content in the E85 base fuel may not 

exceed 0.004 percent by mass. Copper, 

also a contaminant from ethanol 

production, would be limited to 0.07 

mg/L. 

The E85 base fuel would contain 85 

percent by volume chemical grade 

ethanol, blended with 15 volume 

percent unleaded gasoline base fuel. No 

additives, beyond those included in the 

gasoline base fuel portion of the ethanol 

blends, would be included in the E85 

base fuel. Additives used in the gasoline 

component of E85 should be ethanolcompatible. A summary of the ethanol . 

base fuel specifications is provided in • 

Table" 4. 

208 3. Methane (CNG, LNG) 

Some gasoline detergents have been 

shown to cause intake system deposits 

when used in M85 applications. 

Likewise, lubricating oils containing 

calcium have been shown to cause 

injector tip deposits in M100 

applications. Therefore, EPA 

recommends that F/FA producers 

determine the methanol compatibility of 

lubricating oils as well as fuel additives 

used in the gasoline portion of the M85 

base fuel. EPA requests comments on 

this issue. 

2. Ethanol 

In the NPRM, EPA proposed two 

baseline groups for the ethanol fuel 

family: E100 group and E85 group. 

However, EPA is now considering 

defining only one group for baseline 

ethanol formulations. This single 

baseline ethanol group would be 

represented by E85 base fuel. The 

rationale behind this proposal is that 

fuel ethanol is required to contain at 

least 5 percent denaturant, which means 

that, in actuality, E100 formulations 

contain only 95 percent ethanol (i.e., 

E95). Furthermore, gasoline is normally 

used as the denaturant for ethanol fuels. 

EPA believes that there would be little 

incremental value in requiring tests of 

E95 in addition to E85, and thus 

proposes to create a-single baseline 

ethanol group represented by an E85 

base fuel. 

The methane fuel family would be 

represented by a natural gas base fuel 

whose elemental composition is limited 

to CHONS, with the sulfur present only 

as an odorant for leak detection 

purposes and limited to 16 parts per 

million (by volume). The added odorant 

should be used at a level such that at. 

ambient conditions the fuel must have 

a distinctive odor potent enough for its 

presence to be detected down to a 

concentration in air of not over 1/5 (onefifth) of the lower limit of flammability. 

No other additives would be included in 

the base fuel. The proposed methane 

base fuel specifications are presented in 

Table 5. 

4. Propane (LPG) 

Special-duty propane, as defined in 

ASTM specification D-1835, is 

proposed to serve as the propane base 

fuel. The propane base fuel may contain 

no elements other than CHONS, with 

the sulfur present as an added odorant 

for leak detection purposes and limited 

to 120 ppm (by weight). The added 

odorant should be used at a level such 

that at ambient conditions the fuel must 

have a distinctive odor potent enough 

for its presence to be detected down to 

a concentration in air of not over Vs 

(one-fifth) of the lower limit of 

flammability. No other additive would 

be allowed included in the base fuel. 

The proposed base fuel specifications 

for propane are presented in Table 6. 

IV. Public Participation 

EPA desires full public participation 

in arriving at its final decisions, and 

therefore solicits comments on all 

aspects of this notice from all interested 

parties. However, EPA does request that 

comments be limited to the specific ' 

issues identified and discussed in this 

notice. EPA does not intend to respond 

to comments submitted at this time 

which concern other aspects of the 

proposed program. Ample opportunity 

for such comments was already 

provided at the public hearings and 

during the comment periods which 

followed publication of the ANPRM and 

NPRM. For those submitting comments, 

whenever applicable, full supporting 

rationale, data, and detailed analysis 

should be submitted to allow EPA to 

make maximum use of the comments. 

All comments should be directed to the 

EPA Air Docket. Docket No. A-90-07 

(see ADDRESSES). Comments will be 

accepted until March 28,1994. 

V. Statutory Authority 

The statutory authority for this 

proposal is provided by sections 205(b) • 

and (c), 211, and 301(a) of the Clean Air 

Act as amended (42 U.S.C 7524(b) and 

(c), 7545. and 7601(a). Public Law 95 -

951. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 79 

' Environmental protection, Fuels, Fuel 

additives, Gasoline, Motor vehicle 

-pollution, Penalties. 

Dated: February 15,1994. 

Mary D. Nichols, 

Assistant Administrator for Air and 

Radiation. 

(FR Doc; 94-4047 Filed 2-23-94; 8:45 ami 

Bit-UNO COOE S36O-60-P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Part 663 

[Docket No. 940255-4054; I.D. 012894A) 

RIN 0648-AF95 

Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Proposed rule; request for 

comments. 

SUMMARY: The Secretary of Commerce 

(Secretary) requests public comments on 

a proposed rule that would annually 

allocate the U.S. Pacific whiting harvest 

guideline or quota, in 1994 through 

1996, between: Fishing vessels that 

either catch and process at sea or catch 

and deliver to at-sea processors; and