p. 1



# OAR Box 1868 Prepped byOllie Stewart



### Document

Number: 

# 12 ) VII-A- 1 Docket Number: 

# A-90-0 7

Printed 11/26/20088:35:12 AM

Sheet 12 of 258P. 2

U-cif-i ENVIRONMENTA L PROTECTIO N AGENC Y

4 0 CP RPar t 7 9 [FR L - 4^^] Registratio no f Fuel s an d Fue l Additives : Change s i n Requirements , an d Applicabilit yt o Blender s o f Deposi t Contro l Gasolin e Additive s AGENCY : Environmenta l Protectio nAgenc y(EPA) . ACTION : Propose dRule. \

\^\^m*Saa-* . „

. »»_•_•_- ! m__r r-^OUJ-.r^y. li s I notiee ^ SUMMARY : Thi s 1 notic ^ propose s severa l specifi c change s t o regulation s requirin g th e registratio nan d testin g o f designate d moto r vehicl e fuel s an d fue l additive s (F/FAs ) bythei r manufacturers . Th e objective s ar e t o reduc e th e numbe r o f respondents , streamlin e progra m requirements , furthe r eas e smal l busines s burdens , an d clarif ysom e specifi c technica l provision s i n th e existin g registratio nregulations . Include di n th e propose d grou p o f respondent s n o longe r require dt o b e registere da s fue l manufacturer s ar e thos e wh o solel yblen ddeposi t contro l additive s int o gaso 1 ine .

DATES : Writte ncomment s o n th e issue s presente di nthi s notigoO ^ day s afte r publicatio ndate] . v < ^

ADDRESSES : Comment s shoul db e sen t i nduplicat e t o EP AAi r Docke t Sectio n(LE-131) ; Attention : Publi c Docke t No . A-90-07 ;P. 3

RoomM-1500 , 40 1 MStree t S.W. , Washington , D C 20460 ; Phon e 202

- 260-754 8 o r 7549 ; FA X202-260-4000 . Th e docke t i s ope n fo r publi c inspectio n from8:0 0 a.m . unti l 5:3 0 p.m. , MondaythroughFriday , excep t o n governmen t holidays . Previou s rulemaking document s and . othe r material s relate d t o thi s proposa l ar e availabl e i n th e docket . A s provide d i n 4 0 CFRpar t 2 , a reasonabl e fe e mayb e

i charge d b

yEPAfo r photocopying services .

PO RFURTHE

RINFORMATIO

N CONTACT : Ji m

Caldwel l (202-233-9303 ) o r Josep hFernande s (202-233-9016) , U.S . EPA , Offic e o f Mobil e Sources , Fuel s an

d Energ yDivision , Mai l Cod e 6406J , 40 1 MStree t SW , Washington , D C 20460 . Electroni c copie s o f thi s propose d rule , th e regulatorytex t fo r thi s propose d rule , an d earlie r rulemaking document s relate d t o th e F/F ARegistratio n Progra mar e availabl e fre e o f charg e o n EPA' s TechnologyTransfe r Networ k Bulleti nBoard System(TTNBBS) . Fo r specifi c instructions , contac t JosephFernande s a t th e phon e numbe r o r addres s above . Thes e document s ar e als o availabl e i n th e publi c docke t reference d above .

SUPPLEMENTAR

YINFORMATION :

I . RegulatedEntitie s Regulate d categorie s an d entitie s potentiall yaffecte d b ythi s actio n include :P. 4

'Cateaor

y Industry

v

• - • • Example s o f reoulate d entitie s Manufacturer s o f gasolin e an d diese l fuel . Manufacturer s o f additive s fo r gasolin e an

d diese l fuel .

Thi s tabl e i s no t intende d t o b e exhaustive , bu t rathe r provide s a guid e fo r reader s regarding entitie s likel yt o b e regulate d b

ythi s action . Thi s tabl e list s th e type s o f entitie s tha t EPAi s no wawar e coul d b e potentiall yregulate d b ythi s action . Othe r type s o f entitie s no t liste d i n th e tabl e coul d als o b e regulated . T o determin e whethe r you r entit ywoul d b e regulate d b ythi s action , yo u shoul d carefull yexamin e thi s preambl e an d th e propose d change s t o th e regulatorytext . Yo u shoul d als o carefull y examin e th e existing provision s o f th e registratio nprogram a t 4 0 CF Rpar t 79 .

II . Introductio

n A . Backgroun

d Th e F/F Aregistratio n programi s authorize d b ysectio n 21 1 o f th e Clea n Ai r Ac t (CAA ) an d codifie d i n 4 0 CF Rpar t 79 . I n accordanc e wit hCA

Asection s 211(a ) an d (b)(1) , basi c registratio n requirement s applicabl e t o gasolin e an d diese l fuel s an d thei r additive s wer e issue d i n1975 . Thes e regulation s requir e 

### 3P. 5

manufacturer s t o submi t informatio n o nthei r F/F Aproducts , suc ha s a th e commercia l identity , chemica l composition , purpose-in-use , an d rang e o f concentration , i norde r t o hav e suc hproduct s registere d b yth e EPA . Additiona l registratio n requirements , implementing section s 211(b)(2 ) an

d (e ) , wer e propose d i n Apri l 199 2 an d February199 4 (5 7 FR1316 8 an

d 5 9 FR8886 , respectively ) an d wer e finalize d o n May27 , 199 4 (5 9 FR33042 , Jun e 27 , 1994) . Th e additiona l regulation s requir e manufacturers , a s par t o f thei r F/F A registratio n responsibilities , t o conduc t test s an d submi t informatio n o n th e healt heffect s o f thei r F/F Aproducts . Thes e requirement s ar e organize d withi nthre e tiers . Tie r 1 require s analysi s o f th e combustio n an d evaporativ e emission s o f F/FA s an d a surveyo f existing scientifi c informatio no n th e publi c healt h an d welfar e effect s o f thes e emissions . T o th e exten t tha t adequat e tes t dat a ar e no t alread yavailabl e (a s define d i nth e regulations) , Tie r 2 require s manufacturer s t o conduc t specifie d toxicologytest s t o scree n fo r potentia l advers e healt heffect s o f th e F/F

Aemissions . Unde r Tie r 3 , follow-u p testing mayb e require d a t EPA' s discretion , t o furthe r evaluat e concern s identifie d i n th e earlie r tiers . Th e rul s als o .'rclude s severa l provision s t o reduc e th e ,informatio n collectio n an d testing burdens . Amon g thes e provision s i s a voluntarygrouping an d cos t sharing programwhic hallow s manufacturer s o f simila r F/FAs t o poo l thei r resource s an d effort s i n complying wit hth e requirements . Specia l provision s fo r smal lP. 6

manufacturer s ar e als o included .

I n subsequen t section s o f thi s notice , EPApropose s severa l specifi c change s t o th e F/F Aregistratio n regulations . Thes e proposal s woul d no t impac t th e overal l structur e no r (withmino r exceptions ) th e scientifi c requirement s o f th e curren t program . Rather , EPAi s proposing t brevis e and/o r ad d certai ndefinitions " an d provisions , wit hth e intende d resul t o f decreasing or , i nsome cases, , removing th e requirement s altogethe r fo r man yF/F A registratio n respondents . EP Abelieve s tha t th e propose d change s woul d significantl yreduc e th e overal l burden s o f th e F/F A registratio n program withou t having an appreciabl e impac t o n it s monitoring , control , an d informatio ncollectio nobjectives .

B . Publi c Participatio n EPAdesire s ful l publi c participatio n i narriving a t it s fina l decision s an

d solicit s comment s focuse d specificall yo nth e proposal s i n thi s notice . Whereve r applicable , ful l supporting dat a an d detaile d analysi s shoul d b e submitte d t o allo wmaximu m us e o f th e comments . Writte n material s alread ysubmitte d i n regar d t o th e issue s addresse d b ythes e proposal s wil l b e full yconsidere d b y EPA , an d nee d no t b e resubmitte d i nrespons e t o thi s notice . A t thi s time , EPAi s no t seeking comment s o nissue s othe r tha nthos e specificall yaddresse d i n thi s notice , an d i s unde r n o obligatio n t o respond t o an

ysuc hcomment s i t mayreceive . EPAi s no t planning t o hol d a publi c hearing o nthi s propose d rule . However , a hearing wil l b e hel d i f requeste d withi n1 0 day s afte r publication . Request s fo r a publi c hearing shoul d b e submitte d i nP. 7

writin g t o JosephFernande s a t th e addres s provide d above .

An yproprietaryinformatio nbeing submitte d fo r th e Agency' s consideratio n shoul d b e markedl ydistinguishe d fro mothe r submitta l informatio n an

d clearl ylabele d "Confidentia l Busines s Information. " Proprietaryinformatio n shoul d b e sen t directl yt o th e contac t person s liste d above , an d no t t o th e publi c docket , t o ensur e tha t i t i s no t place d i nth e docket . Informatio nthu s labele d an

d directe d shal l b e covere d b ya clai mo f confidentiall y an d wil l b e disclose d b yEP Aonl yt o th e exten t allowe d an d b yth e procedure s se t fort hi n 4 0 CFI* < Par t 2 .

I f n o clai mo f confidentialit yaccompanie s a submissio nwhe n i t i s receive d b

yEPA , i t mayb e mad e availabl e t o th e publi c withou t furthe r notic e t o th e commenter .

III . Fue l Manufacture r an dAdditiv

e Definition s A . Backgroun

d Sectio n 211(a ) o f th e Clea n Ai r Ac t authorize s EPAt o designat e fuel s an

d fue l additives , an d prohibit s manufacturer s o r processor s o f designate d fuel s an i additive s fro mintroducing them int o commerc e withou t having them registered . Sectio n211(b ) describe s th e registratio n renui'-ement fo r designate d fuel s an d fue l additives . Pursuan t t o § 211(b)(1) , th e manufacture r o f an y designate d fue l o r additiv e mus t provid e EPAwit hcertai n identifying informatio n abou t th e fue l o r additiv e t o obtai n registration . Sectio n 211(b)(2 ) provide s EPAwit hdiscretionary authorit yt o requir e healt heffect s testing informatio nfromP. 8

manufacturer s o f designate d fuel s an d additive s fo r th e purpos e o f registration .

I n th e 197 7 amendment s t o th e Clea n Ai r Act , Congres s include d a provisio n tha t directe d EP At o issu e regulation s t o implemen t S 211(b)(2) . Thes e regulation s wer e issue d i n May1994 , an d include d an amendmen t t o EPA' s previou s definitio no f fue l manufacture r t o includ e importers . 5 9 FR3304 2 (June 27 , 1994) . . - I n today' s notice , EPAi s proposing t o amen d th e definitio n o f fue l manufacture r t o exclud e partie s tha t ad d additive s i n amount s les s tha n 1 % b

yvolume o f th e resulting fuel/additiv e mixture , an d t o exclud e oxygenat e blender s wh o mee t th e regulatorydefinitio n o f a smal l business . I n addition , EP Ai s proposing t o amend th e definitio n o f "additive " t o exclud e substance s compose d solel yo f carbo n and/o r hydrogen . Th e term

"manufacture r o f a fue l o r fue l additive " i s use d i n § 211(a) , 211(b) , an d 211(e) , bu t th e Ac t i s silen t o nth e definitio n o f "manufacturer " an d "additive. " Promulgating regulatorydefinition s o f ''fuel manufacturer " an d "additive " fo r purpose s o f implementing thes e subsection s i s withi n th e Agency' s discretio n t o interpre t th e statut e i t administer s wher e tha t statut e i s silen t wit hrespec t t o a specifi c issue . Se e Chevro n U.S.A. . Inc . v . NRDC . . 46 7 U.S . 83 7 (1984) . Aclea r definitio n o f "fue l manufacturer " i s necessaryfo r EPAt o implemen t it s authorit yeffectivel yunde r § 211(a) , (b) , an d (e) , an

d t o provid e certaint ya s t o whic hpartie s ar e subjec t t o statutoryrequirement s ) * tha t appl yt o fue l manufacturers . I n addition , i t i s necessaryfo rP. 9

EP At o defin e "additive " t o clarif ywhic hproduct s ar e covere d b y EPA' s regulation s unde r S 211(e ) covering registratio n an d healt h effect s testing requirements .

EPAbelieve s i t i s reasonabl e an d appropriat e t o defin e "fue l manufacturer " t o exclud e partie s tha t ad d additive s i namount s les s tha n 1 % b

yvolume o f th e resulting fuel/additiv e mixture . Th e health , effect s informatio n tha t suc hpartie s woul d b e require d t o submi t wil l als o b e obtaine d fro mth e manufacturer s o f th e additive , wh o woul d no t b e exempte d unde r th e propose d amendment . Therefore , excluding thes e partie s fro mth e definitio no f fue l manufacture r woul d reduc e th e generatio n an d collectio n o f duplicativ e information . Fo r simila r reasons , EPAals o believe s i t i s reasonabl e an

d appropriat e t o defin e "fue l manufacturer " t o exclud e oxygenat e blender s wh o mee t th e regulatorydefinitio n o f a smal l business . A s discusse d below , EPAbelieve s tha t i t i s reasonabl e an

d appropriat e t o defin e "additive " t o exclud e substance s compose d solel yo f carbo n and/o r hydrogen

According t o § 79.1 , th e F/F Aregistratio n regulation s appl y t o al l manufacturer s o f designate d fuel s an d fue l additives . Designate d F/FAs , specifie d i n § § 79.3 0 - 79.33 , ar e currentl y limite d t o moto r vehicl e gasolin e an d diese l fuel s an

d t o additive s intende d fo r us e i n thes e fuels . ..h e applicabl e uefinitio , o f a "fue l manufacturer " i s provide d i n § 79.2(d) : Fue l manufacture r mean s an yperso nwho , fo r sal e o r introductio n int o commerce , produces , manufactures , o r import s a fue l o r cause s o r direct s th e alteratio no f th e chemica l compositio nof , o r th e mixtur e o f chemica l compound s in , a bul k fue l b yadding t o i t a nadditive . 

### 8P.1 0

Th e comprehensivenes s o f thi s definitio n ha s led t o some redundanc yi n registratio nrequirements . I t ha s als o led t o problem s an

d confusio n arising fro mth e fac t tha t registratio nan d testing responsibilitie s ar e sometime s transitive , i.e. , theypas s along fromon e manufacture r t o another , generall yfrombul k additiv e manufacturer s t o thei r fue l manufacture r customers . A numbe r o f manufacturer s hav e contacte d EPAabou t thes e problem s (e.g. , se e docke t item s VI-D-01 , VI-D-05 , VI-D-06 , an d VI-D-11) .

Fo r example , termina l owner s an d other s wh o bu

yan d blend bul k additive s int o fue l are , according t o th e definitio n cite d above , fue l manufacturers WThes e partie s ar e therefor e subjec t t o th e produc t registratio n an d testing responsibilitie s applicabl e t o fue l manufacturers . Under ' th e curren t regulations , the yar e require d t o registe r thei r fue l products , including th e identity , purpose , an

d amoun t o f bul k additive(s ) whic htheyblend (or inten d t o blend ) int o th e fuel . Furthermore , theyar e responsibl e fo r an y testing applicabl e t o th e resulting fuel/additiv e mixture , o r fo r participating i n on e o r mor e testing group s base d o n th e compositio n o f thi s mixture . I n effect , thei r registratio n an d testing responsibilities , an d thei r grouping an d cost-sharing opportunities , ar e define d b yth e compositio no f th e bul k additive s theymi x'.it

o f .••5 1 thoughi nman

y"nstance s theyrn**-/ no t <~*ve n kno w th e actua l compositio n o f th e additiv e product s the ybu yan d use . 

# 4- Xi / However , independen t termina l operator s whic hblend additive s int o thei r customers ' fuel s a t th e specifi c directio no f suc hcustomer s ar e no t considere d fue l manufacturers . Also , en d users , suc ha s flee t owners/operator s wh o blend additive s int o bul k fue l fo r thei r ow n flee t use , ar e no t considere d fue l manufacturers .P.1 1

Th e transitivit yo f registratio n an d testing requirement s fro m additiv e manufacturer s t o thei r fue l manufacture r customer s ha s cause d th e numbe r o f partie s subjec t t o registratio n requirement s t o multipl yan

d ha s led t o confusio n among th e variou s partie s along th e F/F

Aproduction-blending-distributio n chain . I t mayals o hav e unintende d affect s o nth e F/F Acommercia l marketplace . I n some cases , fo r example , blender s maystop using certai nkind s o f additive s rathe r tha n incurring th e responsibilitie s o f a fue l manufacturer , o r mayswitc hfro m thei r traditiona l supplier s t o ne w supplier s base d o n th e grouping propertie s (se t fort hi n § 79.56 ) o f th e competing additives . Aparticularl yawkwar d resul t may occu r whe n th e direc t manufacture r o f a nadditiv e i s exemp t fro m testing requirement s unde r th e program' s smal l busines s provision s ( § 79.58(d)) , bu t th e fue l manufacturer s wh o bu yan d blend th e additiv e int o fue l do.no t qualif yfo r th e exemptio n an d mus t stil l tes t th e additive/fue l mixture . T o keep thei r custome r base , some smal l manufacturer s o f "atypical " additive s (defined i n§ 79.56(e) ) stat e tha t theymayfin d i t necessaryt o waiv e thei r smal l busines s exemption s an

d shiel d thei r customer s fro madditiv e testing requirement s b

yfull yfunding th e testing themselve s (see , fo r example , docke t item VI-D-06) . Clearly , thi s Outcome woul d undermin e th e specia l allowance s whic hEPAintende d t o gran t t o smal l businesses . Arevise d §79.58(d)(3 ) i s propose d t o remed y thi s situation , b yexempting a fue l manufacture r fromTie r 2 requirement s fo r th e us e o f anadditiv e whic hi s exemp t fromTie r 2 . .

Anothe r problem

associate d wit hth e definitio no f "fue l



### 10P.1 2

manufacturer " ha s arise n a s a resul t o f a recen t chang e i nth e definitio n o f "fue l additive" . Th e fina l rul e whic hadde d healt h effect s testing t o th e registratio nrequirement s fo r F/FA s (5 9 FR 33042 ) als o change d th e definitio no f a nadditive , a s specifie d i n

i § 79.2(e) . Previously , substance s compose d solel yo f carbo nand/o r hydroge n ha d bee n specificall yexclude d fromth e definitio n o f a n additive^ ; an

d thu s di d no t hav e t o b e registered . Sinc e thes e substance s wer e no t considere d additives , partie s whic hblende d themint o fuel s wer e no t considere d fue l manufacturer s an d wer e no t subjec t t o th e F/F

Aregistratio nrequirement s o nth e basi s o f thait blending activity . Recognizing tha t all-hydrocarbo n substance s mayhav e toxi c properties , th e ne wrul e remove d th e exclusio no f all-hydrocarbo n substance s fro

mth e definitio n o f an additive . A t the'time , EPA wa s particularl yconcerne d abou t potentia l increase d us e o f benzen e an d othe r aromati c hydrocarbo n additives . However , th e chang e i n th e definitio n o f a n additiv e ha s raise d some unintende d concerns . Unde r th e ne wdefinition , hydrocarbo nfue l blending stock s (e.g. , kerosene , butane , propane) , commonl yuse d o n a seasona l basi s t o chang e th e evaporativ e o r v"owpropertie s o f conventiona l fuels , coul d no wb e considere d a s additives . Thus , partie s whic hblend thes e fue l substance s int o gasolin e o r diese l fue l coul d b e considere d t o fi t th e definitio no f "fue l manufacturt^. " Potentially , hundred s o f additiona l partie s coul d b e require d t o registe r a s F/F

Amanufacturers , creating a substantia l regulatory

•02y*The presenc e o f trac e contaminatio nwit helement s othe r tha n carbo n an

d hydroge n di d no t facto r int o thi s exclusion . &



### 1 1P.1 3

paperwor k burde n whil e providing littl e incrementa l informatio nt o EPA . Thi s wa s no t EPA' s intent . Furthermore , th e concer n abou t benzen e an

d othe r aromatics , whic horiginall ymotivate d EPAt o delet e th e all-hydrocarbo n exclusio n fro mth e additiv e definition , ha s no wbee n largel yaddresse d b yth e reformulate d gasoline/anti

dumping rule s an

d othe r regulatorymechanism s whic hlimi t th e aromati c compositio n o f gasolin e an d diese l fuels . I nsum , therefore , th e chang e i n th e additiv e definitio nha s create d a potentiall ylarg e numbe r o f unintende d ne w"fue l manufacturer " respondent s among thos e wh o ad d commonplac e blending stock s t o gasolin e an

d diese l fuels , whil e achieving littl e i n regar d t o EPA' s origina l intent .

Asubstantia l numbe r o f registrant s i s compose d o f person s wh o fi t th e definitio n o f "fue l manufacturer " becaus e theyblend ethano l int o gasoline . I n th e cas e o f oxygenate s othe r tha n ethanol , th e oxygenat e i s generall yadde d t o gasolin e a t th e fue l refinery , befor e th e gasolin e i s distribute d throughth e pipeline . Thes e "upstream " oxygenat e blender s tend t o b e relativel ylimite d i n number , an

d ofte n ar e larg e fue l manufacturing businesses. . Ethanol , o n th e othe r hand , i s generall yprohibite d fromtranspor t throughth e pipelin e (pipelin e policy , technica l reasons) , an d mus t b e adde d t o th e fue l downstream . Thus , rathe r tha nbeing blende d b yrelativel yfewfue l refiners , ethano l i s adde d t o fue l b ylarg e number s o f termina l operators , fue l haulers , an d some fue l retailers . Man

ysuc hethano l blender s qualif ya s smal l businesse s unde r th e definitio n i n § 79.58(d)(2 ) an d thu s ar e excuse d fro mth e Tie r 1 an

d Tie r 2 healt heffect s testing provision s o f th e F/F A 

### 12P.1 4

registratio n regulations . Nevertheless , a s fue l manufacturers , theymus t stil l compl ywit hth e basi c reporting requirement s o f th e F/F Aregistratio n program . Thi s combinatio no f circumstance s maintain s a significan t paperwor k burde nfo r suc hrespondents , whil e adding littl e informatio n t o EP Ai n regard t o oxygenate d fuel s beyond tha t whic hi s currentl yavailabl e throughothe r programreporting mechanisms .

B . ProposedChange s EPApropose s t o addres s th e problem s summarize d abov e b y modifying th e definition s o f "additive " an d "fue l manufacturer. " First , EPApropose s t o revis e th e curren t definitio no f an.additive (a t § 79.2(e) ) t o exclud e substance s compose d solel yo f carbo n and/o r hydrogen , thu s reinstating th e definitio nwhic hwa s i n effec t prio r t o th e fina l rul e o f May27 , 1994 . A s describe d previously , thi s actio n woul d provid e regulatoryrelie f t o perhap s hundred s o f companie s whic har e nowconsidere d "fue l manufacturers " becaus e theyad

d commo n hydrocarbo nstock s t o finishe d fuels . I t shoul d b e note d tha t person s wh o blen d hydrocarbo nstock s togethe r t o produc e a usabl e moto r vehicl e fue l (rathe r tha nadding hydrocarbon s t o a finishe d fuel > woul d continu e t o b e considere d fue l manufacturers . Second , EPApropose s t o ad d proviso s t o th e definitio n o f a fue l manufacture r (a t § 79.2(d) ) suc htha t th e additio no f a smal l volum e o f an

yadditive^/t o fue l woul d no t i nitsel f caus e an ypart y

x l ^ O f course , th e additiv e itsel f mus t stil l b e registered . 

### 1 3P.1 5

t o b e considere d a fue l manufacturer , no r woul d th e additio n o f a n oxygenating additiv e b ya part yqualifying fo r th e smal l busines s provision s o f th e registratio n program . Th e propose d ne w definitio n o f a fue l manufacture r i s a s follows :

Fue l manufacture r mean s an yperso nwho , fo r sal e o r introductio n int o commerce , produces , manufactures , o r import s a fue l o r cause s o r direct s th e alteratio n o f th e chemica l compositio n o f a bul k fuel , o r th e mixtur e o f chemica l compound s i na bul k fuel , b yadding t o i t a n additive , excep t tha t (1 ) a part ywh o add s a quantit yo f additive(s ) amounting t o les s tha n 1. 0 percen t b yvolum e o f th e resultan t additive(s)/fue l mixtur e i s no t thereb y considere d a fue l manufacturer , an d (2 ) a part ywh o qualifie s a s a smal l busines s unde r th e criteri a i n § 79.58(d)(2 ) o f thi s subpart , an d wh o add s a n oxygenat e compound(s ) t o fue l i s no t thereb yconsidere d a fue l manufacturer . Thi s propose d definitio n woul d significantl yreduc e th e numbe r o f F/F Aregistratio n respondent s an d woul d addres s th e problem s describe d abov e tha t resul t fro m th e "transitivity " o f registratio n an d testing requirement s unde r th e curren t regulations . Unde r thi s definition , th e additio n o f mos t "baseline " an d "atypical " additive s a t ordinarytreatmen t rate s woul d no t caus e th e blending part yt o b e a fue l manufacture r becaus e suc hadditive s ar e adde d i n amount s les s tha n 1 % o f th e resultan t mixture . I n th e genera l case , partie s whic hadd oxygenate s t o fuel , i nar t amoun t sufficien t 

### 14P.1 6 

# k/. t o produc e a fue l mixtur e categorize d a s non-baselina^ / woul d stil l b e considere d fue l manufacturers . EPAbelieve s thi s t o b e appropriat e becaus e th e relativel ylarg e adde d volume s ca ncaus e substantiv e change s i n th e basi c . characteristics , emissio n properties , an

d toxi c potentia l o f th e fuel . However , t o reduc e th e numbe r O f respondent s require d onl yt o submi t redundan t registratio n paperwork , th e propose d definitio n o f a fue l manufacture r exclude s oxygenat e blender s wh o qualif yfo r th e smal l busines s provision s o f th e registratio nprogram(chiefly , smal l ethano l blenders) .

Fo r convenience , i t i s propose d tha t th e definition , o f "oxygenat e compound " a t 4 0 CFR79.5 0 als o b e incorporate d a t 4 0 CFR 79.2(k) . EP

Arequest s comment s o nth e propose d change s t o th e definition s o f "additive " an d "fue l manufacturer. "

C . Relationshi pt o th e Gasoline Detergent Additive Progra m A n interfac e exist s betwee n th e F/F Aregistratio n programan d th e detergen t additiv e program s I n orde r t o avoi d duplicat e reporting requirements , th e detergen t additiv e programinteri m regulation s i n 4 0 CFRPar t 8 0 mak e us e o f th e existing F/F A \4/^-A s specifie d i n § 79.56(e ) (3 ) (I ) an d (ii ) , non-baselin e F/FA s contai n (amon g othe r criteria ) n o element s i nadditio n t o carbon , hydrogen , oxygen , nitrogen , an d sulfur , and , i nth e cas e o f gasolin e F/FAs , contai n 1. 5 percen t o r mor e oxyge nb yweight , and , Q i n th e cas e o f diese l F/FAs , contai n1. 0 percen t o r mor e oxyge nb yN/v " weight . \5^Regulatio n o f Fuel s an d Fue l Additives : Standard s fo r Deposi t Contro l Gasolin e Additives . Propose d Rule : 5 9 FR64213 , Dec . 6 , 1993 . Interi mProgra mFina l Rule : 5 9 FR54678 , Nov . 1 , 1994 . Certificatio n Progra mFina l Rul e expecte d i n 1996 . Thes e document s ar e availabl e o n EPA'. s TTNBB S bulleti n board . Se e "Fo r Furthe r Informationi.., " a t th e beginning o f thi s notice . 

### 1 5P.1 7

registratio n systema s th e mechanis m fo r collecting muc ho f th e informatio n require d o f detergen t additiv e blenders . However , i f th e definitio n o f a fue l manufacture r i s change d a s propose d above , the n detergen t additiv e blender s woul d n o longe r b e considere d fue l manufacturer s an

d woul d n o longe r b e require d t o registe r unde r th e F/F Aregistratio n program . Thus , th e sourc e o f informatio no n whic hEPArelie s fo r th e interi mdetergen t additiv e programwoul d n o longe r b e available . However , a s wil l b e discusse d i n th e upcoming fina l detergen t rule , EPAha s conclude d tha t thi s informatio n i s n o longe r necessary . Therefore , ther e woul d b e n o advers e effec t o n th e detergen t additiv e program .

IV . Smal l Busines s Definitio n I n th e F/F

Aregistratio n program , qualificatio n fo r specia l smal l busines s provision s i s base d i n par t o n tota l annua l sale s revenue > specifically , a $5 0 millio n limi t fo r manufacturer s o f baselin e an

d non-baselin e F/FAs , an d a $1 0 millio n limi t fo r manufacturer s o f atypica l F/FAs (se e § § 79.58(d)(2 ) an d (3) , respectively) . Communication s fro mtrad e organization s whic h represen t fue l retailer s (docke t ite mVI-D-05 ) sugges t tha t thes e tota l sale s criteri a shoul d b e revise d t o tak e ta xeffect s int o account . Thes e organization s poin t ou t tha t sale s an d excis e taxe s accumulat e a s th e fue l passe s alo.i g th e re f inint,-distrij-. . * ion

marketin g chain , bu t ar e generall yno t include d i n th e pric e pai d fo r th e fue l (nor i n th e gros s sale s revenu e o f th e seller ) unti l th e fue l i s markete d a t th e retai l level . I n some instances , th e accumulate d sale s an d excis e taxe s o n fuel , including applicabl e



### 1 6P.1 8

taxe s a t th e local , state , an d federa l levels, , mayexcee d 4 0 percen t o f th e pric e pai d b yconsumers , an

d thu s represent s a comparabl e portio n o f th e retailer' s fuel-relate d sale s revenues . Th e commenter s argu e that , sinc e thes e ta xeffect s ar e no t reflecte d i n th e smal l busines s definition , smal l marketer s ar e disadvantage d i n compariso nwit hsmal l refiner s an d othe r upstream businesses .

EPAagree s an

d propose s tha t th e term "tota l annua l sales " a t §79.58(d ) b e modifie d b yadding th e following : "excluding an y revenu e whic hrepresent s th e collectio n o f federal , stat e and/o r loca l excis e taxe s and/o r sale s taxes" . Arevise d §79.59(b)(5)(ii ) i s propose d t o requir e th e submittal , a t EPA' s request , o f applicabl e bill s o f lading o r othe r vali d documentatio nt o suppor t th e legitimacyo f an yfiie l sale s amount s exclude d a s taxes . Comment s ar e requeste d concerning thes e propose d revisions .

V . Biodiese l Provision s Biodiese l fuel s an d mos t blend s o f bio

- an d conventiona l diese l fue l contai n mor e tha n1. 0 weigh t percen t oxyge n an d thus , according t o § 79.56(e)(3)(ii)(B) , fal l int o th e non-baselin e diese l category . Furthermore , unde r § 79.56(e)(4)(ii)(B)(2) , biodiese l fuel s derive d fro mvegetabl e oi l ("mixe d ^lky l ester s o f plan t origin" ) a . » groupe d separatel yfro mbiodiese l fuel s derive d fromanima l fa t ("mixe d alky l ester s o f animal , origin") .

EPAestablishe d thes e tw o separat e biodiese l group s becaus e o f concer n tha t th e compositio no f animal-derive d and vegetable



### 17P.1 9

derive d fuel s migh t diffe r considerably , an d thu s migh t demonstrat e differen t toxicologi c properties . Bot hvegetabl e oi l an d anima l fa t ar e compose d o f triglycerides , an d th e esterificatio n proces s use d t o conver t th e triglyceride s t o fue l (i.e. , methy l esters ) i s th e same fo r both . However , u p t o 3. 0 percen t o f th e resulting chemica l mixtur e i s compose d o f nonesterifie d reactants , othe r reactio n products , an d possibl e contaminants , an d EPAha s bee n concerne d tha t thes e coul d varysignificantl ybetwee n th e differen t feedstocks .

I n subsequen t communication s wit hEPA(docke t item VI-E-01) , representative s o f th e industr yhav e asserte d tha t th e compositio n o f biodiese l fuel s o f anima l an d plan t origi nhav e simila r physica l properties . A s a resul t o f thei r arguments , EPAi s considering a chang e t o th e grouping rule s whic hwoul d permi t animal

- an d vegetable-derive d biodiese l fuel s t o b e groupe d togethe r revise d §79.56(e)(4)(ii)(B)(2 ) i s proposed . EPArequest s comment s o n thi s potentia l action . Dat a demonstrating th e qualitativ e an d quantitativ e difference s betwee n biodiese l fuel s fro mdifferen t feedstocks , including th e identit yan d amoun t o f contaminants , woul d b e particularl yhelpfu l t o EPA' s determinatio n o f th e mos t appropriat e grouping rule s fo r thes e fuels . Availabl e dat a comparing th e speciate d emission s o f thes e fuel s woul d als o b e o f 

## W 

# 0

# \| t

\§YIt i s importan t t o not e that , notwithstanding an ygrouping arrangement s permitte d unde r th e program' s groupin g rules , EPA retain s th e authorit yi n§ 79.54(a ) t o requir e Tie r 3 testing eithe r o n a n individua l o r grou p basis , an

d t o requir e differen t representative(s ) o f a grou p t o b e teste d tha n mayhav e bee n teste d a t th e Tie r 1 and/o r Tie r 2 level . Thus , eve n i f th e regulation s wer e t o b e change d t o allo wbiodiese l fuel s t o grou p together , EPA woul d no t b e preclude d fromrequiring vegetable-derive d an d animal

derive d biodiese l fuel s t o underg o separat e Tie r 3 testing . 

### 18P.2 0

interest . Sectio n 79.56(e ) (4 ) (ii) . (B) (2) .ii . o f th e curren t regulation s contain s generi c requirement s fo r choosing th e representativ e t o b e use d i n testing fo r th e healt heffect s o f biodiese l an d othe r define d group s o f oxygenating compounds . EPAi s considering a requiremen t specifi c t o biodiese l whic hwoul d requir e tha t 10 0 percen t biodiese l fue l b e use d a s th e biodiese l group' s tes t representative . Thi s woul d maximiz e th e likelihoo d o f detecting an ydifference s i n th e emission s and/o r toxicologi c propertie s betwee n conventiona l diese l an d biodiese l fuels . Unde r th e existing regulations , i t i s likel ytha t a 2 0 percen t biodiese l formulatio n wil l b e selecte d a s th e tes t representative ; thus , lowe r exposure s t o biodiese l emission s woul d occu r during th e testing . O n th e othe r hand , a 2 0 percen t formulatio n doe s currentl yappea r t o b e th e mor e likel yformulatio nt o b e introduce d int o commerce , a t leas t i n th e nea r future . Thus , EPArequest s commen t o n whic hbiodiese l fue l specificatio n (2 0 percent , 10 0 percent , o r some othe r percentage ) woul d b e mos t appropriat e i nth e contex t o f th e testing program . Comment s ar e als o requeste d o n th e practicalit yo f eac hopti r wit hrespec t t o tes t vehicle/engin e compatibility .

VI . Syntheti c Fue l Provision s A . Backgroun

d According t o § § 79.56(e)(3)(I)(B ) an d (3)(ii)(B) , a fue l derive d froman

ysyntheti c crud e source , suc ha s shale , coal , o r



### 1 9P.2 1

ta r sands , i s assigne d t o a non-baselin e category . Th e regulatio n doe s no t specif ya minimu mamoun t o f syntheti c componen t whic h woul d caus e a fue l t o fal l int o th e non-baselin e category . Section s 79.56(e)(4.(ii)(A) (3) an d (ii)(B)(3) . fo r gasolin e an d diese i F/FA s respectively , defin e separat e non-baselin e group s fo r "formulation s derive d fro meac hparticula r non-conventiona l petroleu

m source , or

process"

(italic s adde d fo r emphasis) , and list s th e following type s o f fue l formulation s a s example s o f suc h groups : "coal-derive d formulations ; chemically-synthesize d formulation s (including thos e using recycle d chemica l o f petrochemica l products) ; ta r sand-derive d formulations ; shale

derive d formulations ; an d othe r type s o f soil-recovere d product s use d i n formulating (fuel)" . Sinc e publicatio n o f thes e regulations , EPAha s receive d communication s an

d informatio nfro

mth e affecte d industry(see . docke t item s VI-D-0 2 an d VI-D-03 ) claiming tha t syntheti c fuel s shoul d b e categorize d a s baselin e rathe r tha nnon-baselin e products . The ypoin t ou t tha t th e curren t regulation s d o no t reflec t th e fac t tha t finishe d moto r vehicl e fuel s ar e rarely , i f ever , refine d solel yfro msyntheti c crude . Rather , whe nsyntheti c crud e i s used , i t generall ycomprise s a relativel ysmal l fractio n (e.g. , iO-1 5 percent ) o f th e tota l crud e whic hi s refine d int o moto r vehicl e fuel , _•_- ; -eover , th e industryclaim s tha t suc hfuels , onc e refined , ar e no t significantl ydifferen t from conventiona l fuels . The yar e no t labele d differentl yo r store d separatel yfro m fuel s derive d wholl yfro mconventiona l crud e sources . I nfact , theyar e commonl ydistribute d b ywayo f th e conventiona l fue l

2 0P.2 2

pipelin e system . Downstrea mpartie s maytherefor e bu yan d sell , additize , an

d otherwis e handl e fuel s wit hsome syntheti c derivation , withou t eve n knowing whe n o r i f thi s i s th e case . Th e F/F Aregistratio nprogra mcover s onl ydesignate d moto r vehicl e fuel s an

d thei r associate d additives . I t doe s no t requir e th e registratio n o f crud e feedstock s fro mwhic hthes e F/FAs ar e made . Thus , i n th e cas e o f conventiona l fuels , i t i s no t th e entit ywhic htake s crud e oi l fro mth e ground wh o i s responsibl e fo r fue l registration ; rather , i t i s th e entit ywhic hrefine s finishe d fue l from

crud e oi l wh o i s require d t o hav e tha t fue l registere d prio r t o placing i t i n commerce ^ Similarly , synfue l registratio n i s no t th e responsibilit yo f partie s wh o min e (or otherwis e obtain ) a syntheti c crud e sourc e an d subjec t i t t o upgrading an d purificatio n processe s prio r t o actua l fue l refining . Onl yafte r th e syntheti c crud e i s refine d (alone o r a s par t o f a synthetic/conventiona l crud e mixture ) i s th e produc t subjec t t o registration . Clearly , th e responsibilit yfo r registering synfue l fall s t o thos e busines s entitie s (usuall yfue l refiners ) whic har e th e firs t .fi , partie s alon g thei r respectiv e productio n chain s t o introduce..int o commerc e a designate d moto r vehicl e fue l derive d i nwhol e o r i n par t froma nonconventibna l source , an d conforming t o standar d specification s fo r th e designate d fuel . Thes e manufacturer s ar e responsibl e fo r testing th e synfue l product s the yhav e had \hyOf. course , thi s distinctio ni s moo t i f th e tw o activitie s ar e accomplishe d b yth e same busines s entity .



### 2 1P.2 3

.registered . Thu s i t i s incumben t o nthes e manufacturer s t o tak e step s t o determin e i f an yo f th e material s fromwhic hthe yproduc e designate d fuel s ar e o f syntheti c origin . Unde r th e curren t grouping provisions , thos e wh o manufactur e synfue l derive d fro mth e same non-conventiona l sourc e ar e abl e t o for mtesting group s withi n th e applicabl e (gasoline o r diesel ) non-baselin e categories .

B . ProposedChange s I n th e even t tha t suc hsynfue l group s ar e formed , th e curren t regulation s d o no t contai nadequat e guideline s fo r choosing synfue l grou p representatives . T o facilitat e detectio no f difference s betwee n a syntheti c fue l an d th e respectiv e conventiona l fuel , EPA propose s that , fo r an ysynfue l group , th e representativ e shoul d b e a fue l derive d totall yfro mth e relevan t syntheti c source . I f productio n o f a useabl e 10 0 percen t synfue l i s impractical , the n th e grou

p representativ e coul d b e a fue l reflecting th e highes t percentag e o f syncrud e feedstoc k tha t i s practica l an d suitabl e fo r operating th e relevan t engin e type . Revise d § § 79.56(e)(4)(ii)(A)(3)(ii ) an d (B)(3)(ii ) ar e proposed . Alternatively , th e synfue l grou p representativ e coul d b e specifie d a s a fue l re f lectin. , th e highes t percentag e o. f syntheti c crud e whic hi s actuall yinpu t t o an ymembe r refinery' s crud e distillatio n unit(s) . Th e tes t fue l woul d otherwis e b e require d t o conformt o th e additizatio n requirement s an d an yothe r relevan t bas e fue l specification s i n § 79.55 . Comment s o nthes e proposal s fo r selecting synfue l grou p representative s ar e requested .

EPAals o request s comment s o n some potentia l change s t o th e 

### 2 2P.2 4

synfue l grouping rule s themselves . First > EP Apropose s t o delet e th e phras e "..o r process " fro m§ § 79.56(e)(4)(ii)(A)(3 ) an d (ii)(B)(3 ) o f th e registratio n regulations . Th e inclusio n i nthes e section s o f non-conventiona l processe s i n additio n t o non conventiona l source s a s delineatef s o f non-conventiona l fuel s i s potentiall ymisleading . Fo r example , th e curren t languag e ca nb e interprete d a s meaning tha t heavy , bu t otherwis e conventiona l crud e feedstock s shoul d b e considere d non-conventiona l (an d therefor e non-baseline ) becaus e theynee d sligh t modificatio nprio r t o sal e an d transport . Th e propose d change s a t § § 79.56(e)(3)(I)(B ) an d (3)(ii)(B ) t o delet e th e phase s "heav yoi l deposits " woul d narro w thes e provision s s o tha t theyfocu s o n fuel s o f greate r concer n t o EPA , i.e. , fuel s derive d fro mnon-conventiona l sources , no t from mechanica l o r chemica l productio nprocesse s o n otherwis e conventiona l feedstocks . Comment s ar e requeste d o n thi s propose d revision .

I n developing th e curren t regulations , EPAsough t t o segregat e non-conventiona l fuel s int o separat e non-baselin e group s becaus e o f concern s tha t theywer e likel yt o contai nunknow n contaminant s an

d relativel yhighlevel s o f trac e o r background elements . However , limite d publishe d informatio nan d othe r dat a receive d from th e industrysugges t that , afte r processing , some mine d syncrud e feedstock s mayno t b e significantl ydifferen t from mor e conventiona l crudes .

Becaus e theymus t b e compatibl e wit hconventiona l refinery processe s an

d mus t b e fungibl e wit hconventiona l fuels , syntheti c

2 3P.2 5

'crude s ar e reportedl ysubjecte d t o extensiv e upgrading t o remov e heav yresidua l oil s ("tan k bottoms") , sulfur , inorgani c elements , organo-metalli c compounds , an d clay s prio r t o shipping t o refineries . I n preparing it s produc t fo r sale , th e syncrud e manufacture r typicall ysubject s th e mine d materia l t o de-salting an d coking processe s (t o remov e meta l contaminants ) an d atmospheri c an d vacuu

mdistillation s (t o remov e tank bottom s an d asphalti c residues) . Limite d produc t assa yresult s provide d t o EPA(docke t itemVI-D-02 ) indicat e tha t syncrud e feedstock s mayb e lowe r tha n typica l petroleu

mcrude s i n vanadium , nickel , an d iron . Th e industrymonitor s thes e characteristic s becaus e severa l catalyti c refineryprocesse s ar e intoleran t o f metalli c contaminants .

Fo r thes e reasons , EP Ai s considering option s tha t woul d furthe r eas e or , possibly , remov e some o f th e curren t provision s whic hdistinguis hsome fuel s derive d fro m syntheti c source s fro m conventiona l petroleu mfuels . Substantiv e comment s an d additiona l dat a ar e neede d t o hel p EPAdecid e whethe r an yo f thes e additiona l option s shoul d b e adopte d and , i f so , t o whic hcrud e source s they shoul d appl y(i.e. , some o r al l mine d crud e sources , othe r petrochemica l crud e sources , o r al l type s o f crud e feedstocks) .

On e alternativ e provisio nund^ r consideratio n wo' " I d permi t a synfue l manufacture r (or group ) t o submi t th e result s o f a the Dug h chemica l analysi s o f th e rawsynfue l i n conjunctio nwit hth e Tie r 1 emissio n characterizatio n data . Thi s specia l analysi s woul d emphasiz e th e identificatio n o f elevate d level s o f trac e element s o r compound s a s compare d wit hth e bas e fue l fo r th e respectiv e fue l



### 2 4P.2 6

.family . Th e dat a woul d nee d t o includ e sufficien t number s o f fue l sample s t o b e viewe d a s a vali d sampling o f th e rang e o f th e particula r crud e feedstoc k and , likewise , woul d nee d t o cove r a broad rang e o f measurabl e feedstoc k characteristics . Base d o nth e specia l Tie r 1 analysis , EPAwoul d determine , o na case-by-cas e basis , whethe r th e synfue l i n questio nshoul d b e permitte d t o joi n th e baselin e grou

p fo r purpose s o f Tie r 2 , o r whethe r th e synfue l woul d continu e t o b e categorize d a s non-baseline . Anothe r possibilit yunder , consideratio nwoul d simpl ydelet e some o r al l syntheti c crud e source s fromth e lis t o f non conventiona l sources . Thi s woul d mea n tha t fuel s fromthes e feedstock s woul d b e classifie d a s baselin e products . Thi s choic e woul d recogniz e tha t i t i s i n th e vita l interes t o f th e fuel s industryt o continu e t o monito r th e qualit yo f th e synfuel s tha t ar e transporte d ihth e existing pipelin e systems . Th e demand s o f fungibilit ywoul d thu s b e assume d t o maintai nth e qualit yan d similarit yo f syncrud e product s o na pa r wit htha t o f mor e conventiona l F/FAs .

Comment s ar e requeste d o nthes e possibl e provisions . T o th e degre e tha t suc hcomment s ar e substantiv e an d provid e objectiv e dat a supporting thes e alternativ e provisions , EPAmayb e mor e persuade d tha t i. r origina l concern s abou t synfue

_competitio n may hav e bee n exaggerated . Comment s ar e als o requeste d o n whethe r shale-derive d synfuel s shoul d continu e t o b e categorize d a s non baseline , eve n i f fuel s fromothe r mine d source s (coal , ta r sands ) ar e re-categorize d a s baseline . 

### 2 5P.2 7

C othe r Alternative s Unde r a differen t approach , th e grouping system' s curren t definitio n o f syntheti c fuel s woul d b e retained , bu t a particula r manufacturer' s synfue l produc t woul d b e categorize d a s baselin e o r non-baselin e depending o n th e proportio no f syntheti c crud e represente d i n th e finishe d product . A s mentione d earlier , th e curren t F/F

Aregulation s d o no t establis ha minimu mamoun t o f syntheti c crud e feedstoc k whic hcause s a fue l t o b e categorize d a s non-baseline . Give n th e variabilit yi nsyncrud e proportio n an d th e apparen t fungibilit yo f man ysynfue l product s wit hconventiona l fuels , suc ha minimu mwoul d appea r t o b e appropriate . Unde r thi s approach , fo r example , EP Acoul d specif ytha t a synfue l produc t wil l b e considere d non-baselin e onl yi f mor e tha n1 5 percen t b y volume o f th e crud e uni t charg e (i.e. , th e inpu t t o a refinery' s crud e distillatio n unit(s) ) i s compose d o f syntheti c crud e o r mixe d synthetic-conventiona l crud e feedstock / Th e choic e o f 1 5 percen t a s th e cutof f volume woul d mea n tha t mos t o f th e synfuel s produce d todaywoul d b e classifie d a s baseline . Sinc e thei r manufacturer s coul d thu s joi n th e respectiv e baselin e group(s) , i t i s likel ytha t some type s o f synfue l woul d no t routinel yunderg o testingA yI n practice , an

ycutof f poin t adopte d i n th e regulation s woul d probabl yfunctio n a s a cap o n th e syncrud e proportio nuse d b y 

# vU \£< YThi s statemen t assume s ther e ar e n o othe r condition s (e.g. , highoxyge n content ) tha t woul d caus e th e fue l t o b e non-baseline . s^fsHowever , unde r th e Tie r 3 provision s o f th e F/F A registratio n regulations , EPAcoul d stil l requir e an yemissio n speciatio n and/o r healt heffect s testing i t deem s necessaryif , a t some futur e time , EPAfind s tha t a synfue l o r othe r F/F Ai s no t wel l represente d b

yth e tes t fue l designate d t o represen t it s F/F A group . r 2 6synfue l manufacturers .

A s a variatio n o n thi s approach , differen t baseline/non

baselin e cutof f point s coul d b e establishe d fo r differen t kind s o f synfuels . Unde r thi s variation , fuel s containing mor e tha n 1 5 percen t conten t derive d fro mmine d source s (e.g. , coal , shale , an d ta r sands ) woul d b e considere d non-baseline , whil e fuel s containing mor e tha n 2 percen t conten t derive d fromothe r petrochemica l source s (e.g. , use d moto r oils , recovere d chemica l spills , recycle d plastics , an

d industria l wast e streams ) woul d b e considere d non baseline . Othe r cutof f point s migh t als o b e appropriate .

EPArequest s commen t a s t o th e appropriatenes s o f using 1 5 percen t o f crud e uni t charg e a s th e cutof f poin t fo r al l syncrud e feedstock s i n determining whethe r a fue l belong s i na non-baselin e group . Comment s ar e als o requeste d o nth e alternativ e approac ho f setting differen t cutof f point s fo r differen t type s o f synfuel . Suggestion s fo r othe r cutof f point s tha nth e one s discusse d above , wit hsuppor t an

d justificatio n fo r suc hsuggestions , ar e welcome . I n addition , EPArequest s informatio no nth e amoun t o f syncrud e typicall yrepresente d i n sy-fuel s a s theyleave th e refinery , a s wel l a s th e usua l maximu m amoun t o f syncrud e use d i n suc hfuel s today . informatio n i s als o sough t o n an ydifference s i nthes e formulatio n practice s whic hmayoccu r a s a functio no f th e typ ^ o f syncrud e i n question .

VII . De Minimi s Provision s A . Backgroun

d 

### 2 7I n th e NPR Mpublishe d Apri l 15 , 1992 , EPAraise d th e possibilit yo f setting d e minimislevel s fo r some atypica l F/FAs\ % i.e. , maximu

mconcentration s o r emissio nrate s fo r atypica l element s belo wwhic hth e manufacturer s o f F/FAs containing suc h element s woul d b e excuse d fro msome o r al l o f th e testing requirement s fo r th e product . EPArecognize d tha t th e extr a emissio n testing requirement s propose d fo r atypica l F/FAs an d th e relativel yscarc e grouping opportunitie s among suc hproduct s coul d subjec t manufacturer s o f atypica l F/FAs t o considerabl yhighe r registratio n cost s tha n othe r manufacturers . D e minimisprovision s wer e discusse d a s a possibl e wayt o reduc e thes e burden s whe n atypica l F/FA s coul d reasonabl yb e anticipate d t o hav e n o advers e effect s o n th e publi c healt ho r th e environmen t (i.e. , having n o incrementa l effect s relativ e t o th e effect s o f th e associate d bas e fuel) . , Th e propose d de minimisprovisio nwoul d b e limite d t o specifi c atypica l element s whic hwer e generall yregarde d a s no t producing over t toxicologica l effect s whe n inhale d an d wer e presen t i n th e produc t an

d it s emission s i n verylowquantities . Whe n th e F/F

Ates t rul e wa s promulgate d i n May1994 , however , thes e specia l d e minimisprovision s wer e no t finalized . EPAnote d tha t verylittl e speciate d chemica l compound informatio nwa s availabl e o n .atypica l F/FAs o r thei r emissio nproducts , fromwhic h possibl e atypica l F/J_ . candidate s an d d e minimislevel s coul d b e identified . Likewise , littl e dat a existe d regarding th e potentia l toxicities , exposures , o r healt hrisk s associate d wit hatypica l violi n th e gasolin e an d diese l fue l families , a n atypica l F/F A i s on e whic hcontain s on e o r mor e element s othe r tha n carbon , hydrogen , oxygen , nitrogen , and/o r sulfur . 2 8 

# \J LP.3 0

F/FAs o r thei r emissions . Finally , ther e wa s a concer nthat , i n promulgating , de-minimislevels.fo r atypica l elements , EPA' s action s woul d b e misinterprete d a s setting "safe " level s fo r exposur e t o variou s atypica l compound s when , i nfact , veryfewapplicable , reliabl e healt han

d safet yexposur e standard s exis t fo r an yo f th e substance s o f concern .

However , th e practica l effec t o f no t promulgating d e minimis level s fo r some atypica l F/FAs ha s bee nt o subjec t al l atypica l F/FAs t o th e same leve l o f scrutiny , eve nthoughth e overal l leve l o f concer n abou t thei r potentia l healt heffect s mayb e markedl y different . Thus , unde r th e existing regulations , manufacturer s o f F/FAs containing suc hunlik e element s as , say , mercuryan d sodiu m eac hhav e t o compl ywit hth e same detaile d emission s characterizatio n an d healt heffect s testing requirement s unde r th e same se t o f conservativ e assumptions .

I n an attemp t t o improve thi s outcome , EPAi s thu s agai n proposing a de minimisprovision . Thi s propose d provision , describe d i n th e nex t section , differ s somewha t fromth e previou s de minimisproposal ; however , i t doe s no t solv e al l o f th e origina l objections . Reliabl e quantitativ e dat a o nth e toxicit yo f mos t atypica l F/FA s an d thei r emissio nproduct s i s stil l lacking . Nevertheless , th e proposa l describe d belo wi s conservativ e i n approac han

d applicability , an d EP Abelieve s i t t o b e a reasonabl e an d pruden t alternativ e t o th e curren t program , whic hallow s fo r n o distinction s t o b e mad e base d o n th e anticipate d healt heffect s an d exposure s associate d wit hsubstance s which , i n fact , varygreatl y

2 9P.3 1

i n chemica l compositio n an d rat e o f usage .

EPAwishe s t o emphasiz e onc e agai nthat , i nproposing d e minimisproyision s fo r certai natypica l F/FAs , th e Agenc yi s no t setting a safet yleve l fo r thes e F/FAs o r thei r emission s tha t i s meaningfu l o r vali d outsid e a verylimite d context . Th e proposa l recognize s tha t a relativel ylowe r leve l o f overal l health-relate d concer n exist s fo r some o f th e atypica l element s use d i n F/FAs , especiall yunde r limite d exposur e condition s a t verylow concentration s .\

/ Th e relativel ylowproductio nvolume s o f mos t atypica l F/FAs mean s tha t th e populatio n a t larg e woul d potentiall y b e expose d t o exceedingl ysmal l amount s o f th e element s fo r whic h EPAi s proposing t o se t d e minimi s levels , particularl yafte r they underg o combustio n i n moto r vehicl e engine s an d th e emission s ar e dilute d i n air . I n combination , thes e factor s mak e i t extremel y unlikel ytha t th e propose d de minimisprovision s coul d resul t i n advers e publi c healt ho r welfar e outcomes . Nevertheless , shoul d suc hconcern s aris e i n th e future , th e propose d de minimis provision s woul d i n n o waylimi t EPA' s flexibilit yunde r it s Tie r 3 testing authorit yt o requir e additiona l emissio ncharacterizatio n and/o r toxicologi c testing o f an vaffecte d F/FA , an d t o tak e an

y \^/4Mtowever , recen t studie s sugges t tha t pulmonaryinjur ymay b e cause d b

yinhalatio n expos u e _ o substance s generall yregarde d a s biologicall yinactive , i f thexposur e t o suc hsubstance s i s i n th e for mo f "ultrafine " particle s (les s tha n20nm) . See , fo r example , OberdSrster , G. , etal. , "Rol e o f th e Alveola r Macrophag e i n Lung Injury : Studie s wit hUltrafin e Particles, " Environmenta l Healt hPerspectives . 97 : 193-199 , 1992 . Whil e testing t o detec t th e potentia l occurrenc e o f ultrafin e particle s o f atypica l element s i n F/F

Acombustio n emission s i s outsid e th e scop e o f Tier s 1 an d 2 , suc htesting coul d b e require d unde r Tie r 3 i f deeme d necessaryb

yEPA . EPA' s authorit yt o requir e suc htesting woul d no t b e affecte d b

yan yd e minimi s provisio nfo r whic ha fue l o r additiv e migh t otherwis e qualify . 3 0 

# IP.3 2

•follow-u

p regulatoryactio n warrante d b yth e results .

B . ProposedProvision s 

### 1. Selection of

Elements Anumbe r o f atypica l element s ar e reporte d b ythei r manufacturer s t o b e component s o f on e o r mor e F/FAs occurring o n EPA' s F/F

Aregistratio n databaseV . EP Ai s todayproposing d e minimisprovision s applicabl e t bth e following nin e atypica l elements :

s* Aluminu m(Al ) Magnesiu m(Mg ) Boro n (B ) Phosphoru s (P ) Calciu m(Ca ) Potassiu m(K ) Sodiu m(Na ) Iro n (Fe ) Zin c (Zn ) Thes e nin e element s wer e selecte d b yevaluating a numbe r o f factors . First , an yelemen t (alone o r i ncompound form ) know no r believe d t o hav e significan t inhalation-relate d healt heffect s o r t o b e a precurso r t o emissio nspecie s o f particula r concer n wa s eliminate d a s a candidat e fo r th e de minimisprovision . Fo r example , element s i n th e haloge n famil ywer e eliminate d becaus e o f thei r occurrenc e i n toxi c chemica l specie s (e.g. , halogenate d methan e compounds ) and/o r thei r potentia l rol e i n forming dioxi n an d dioxin-lik e compounds . Othe r example s includ e manganese , mercury , tin , an

d lead , whic hwer e eliminate d fro mconsideratio n \^<^Thes e element s occu r o n EPA' s F/F Aregistratio n databas e a s constituent s o f some diese l F/FAs , o r i n aftermarke t gasolin e additive s whic hwer e "grandfathered " whe nrestriction s o nsuc h atypica l element s wer e implemented . Thes e "grandfathering " provision s wer e previousl yreviewe d i n th e NPRMan d Reopening Notice s fo r th e F/F ARegistratio nrulemaking (se e 5 7 FR1316 8 an d 5 9 FR8886) . 

### 3 1 

# vVP.3 3

becaus e o f thei r neurologi c effects , an d cobalt , platinum , silicon , an d antimony,, , whic hwer e eliminate d becaus e o f concern s abou t thei r potentia l respiratoryeffect s i n some chemica l forms .

EPAals o examine d an yexisting exposur e assessmen t value s whic hmayexis t fo r th e atypica l element s (or compound s containing them) , including industria l exposur e guideline s suc ha s Threshol d Limi t Valu e (TLV) , Permissibl e Exposur e Limi t (PEL) , Recommende d Exposur e Limi t (REL) , an d Healt hEffect s Assessmen t SummaryTabl e (HEAST ) values . Recognizing tha t non e o f thes e value s i s specificall yintende d fo r us e i n estimating th e toxi c potentia l o f long-ter

mcontinuou s exposure' s t o th e genera l population , EPA looke d a t themonl ya s general , relativ e indicator s o f potentia l toxicity , t o b e viewe d i n conjunctio nwit heac hothe r an d subjec t t o conservatively-applie d scientifi c judgment . I nthi s way , EP A divide d th e atypica l element s int o tw o groups . FO r on e group , containing th e nin e element s listed above , i t appeare d tha t limite d exposure s t o ambien t concentration s o f a t leas t 0. 1 milligram s o f th e element s pe r cubi c mete r o f ai r (mg/m 3 ) coul d occu r withou t raising appreciabl e concerns . Fo r al l th e remaining atypica l elements , specifi c publi c healt hand/o r welfar e effect s issue s wer e identifie d and/o r th e exposur e assessmen t value s generall y indicate d tha t health-relate d concern s mayaris e a t exposur e level s considerabl ylowe r tha n 0. 1 mg/m 3

. . EP Adecide d t

l __ t d e j.. . t

mis provision s woul d therefor e no t b e propose d t o appl yt o an yo f th e element s i n th e latte r group .

EPArequest s comment s o nth e appropriatenes s o f establishing 

### 3 2P.3 4

a d e minimisprovisio n fo r atypica l F/FAs , give nth e acknowledge d lac k o f reliabl e quantitativ e toxicit ydat a fo r mos t o f th e substance s concerned . Specifi c comment s ar e als o requeste d o nth e approac hdescribe d abov e fo r differentiating betwee nhigh

- an d low

concer n atypica l elements , an d o n th e nin e element s propose d a s candidate s fo r th e potentia l de minimisprovision . Shoul d some o f thes e nin e element s b e delete d fro mth e list ? 2. De MinimisLevel Th e d e minimisprovisio n coul d theoreticall yb e structure d t o appl yeithe r t o 1 ) th e amoun t o f anatypica l elemen t i nth e "raw " stat e (i.e. , i n th e uncombuste' d fuel/additiv e mixture ) , o r 2 ) th e amoun t occurring i n th e combustio n emissions . Whil e th e emission s approac hmigh t appea r t o provid e a mor e direc t measuremen t o f th e substance s o f concern , EP Abelieve s that , i nthi s instance , th e raw mixtur e approac hprovide s a simple r an d ultimatel ymor e effectiv e mechanis mfo r manufacturer s t o appl yan d fo r EPAt o evaluat e an d enforce . Basing th e de minimisprovisio no nth e concentratio no f atypica l element s i n th e rawstat e avoid s a numbe r o f complicate d issue s tha t woul d aris e i f th e provisio n wer e base d o nmeasuremen t o f atypica l element s i n th e emissions , e.g. : 1 ) ho wmuc h accumulate d mileag e woul d b e require d befor e generating , sampling , an d analyzing th e emission s fo r possibl e d e minimisqualification ; 2 ) ho w_tn

ysam , V: s woul d b e nee c a ; 3 ) onc e sam p -id , whc kind s o f emission s analyse s Woul d b e required ; 4 ) ho waccurat e an d sensitiv e woul d th e detectio n equipmen t hav e t o be ; an d 5 ) ho wEPAcoul d efficientl yconfirmth e results ?

3 3P.3 5

A s discusse d above , fo r th e grou p o f nin e candidat e elements , i t appear s that-ambien t ai r concentration s o f a t leas t 0. 1 mg/m 3 (10 0 /xg/m

3 ) coul d occu r fo r limite d exposure s withou t raising significan t concerns . Th e concentratio no f a particula r elementa l constituen t o f a fuel/additiv e mixtur e which , afte r combustio ni n a n engine , woul d yiel d a give nconcentratio n o f th e elemen t i nai r depend s o n a numbe r o f factor s an d relationships , e.g. , th e chemica l characteristic s o f th e elemen t an d it s hos t compound (s. ) , th e natur e o f th e bas e fuel , engin e type , an d driving cycl e involved , th e scal e an d complexit yo f th e ambien t environment , etc . Thus , corresponding fue l an d ai r concentration s canno t b e calculate d wit hprecision . ' However , base d o na serie s o f approximation s an

d conservativ e assumptions , EPAestimate s tha t a concentratio n o f 2 5 part s pe r millio n (ppm ) o f atypica l element(s ) i n a bas e fue l (i.e. , 0.002 5 percen t b yweight}^ 3 /shoul d generall y yiel d a concentratio n i n ai r o f les s tha n 0.1 . mg/m 3 , eve nunde r th e theoretica l assumptio n tha t th e characteristic s o f th e ambien t ai r ar e a direc t functio n o f th e combustio nemission s o f a singl e vehicl e operating o n th e atypica l F/F AmixtureV

V

Thus , EPAi s todayproposing a de minimisprovisio nbase d o n a qualifying leve l o f 2 5 pp mi n bas e fuel , disregarding trac e amount s o f thes e element s whic hmayexis t i nth e unadditize d bas e fuel . Specifically , i f a natypica l additiv e contain s h o atypica l \1^

- Thes e measurement s refe r t o th e specifie d element s themselves , no t t o th e weight s o f th e compound s i n whic hthes e element s mayb e bound . \14/*t£

- Speci f ica l ly , th e veryconservativ e assumptio n i s mad e tha t th e ambien t ai r consist s o f fully-passed-throughemission s o f th e atypica l element(s ) dilute d b ya facto r o f 1 t o 2,000 . 

### 3 4 

# iP.3 6

element s othe r tha n Al , B , Ca , Fe , Mg , P , K , Na , and/o r Zn , an d i f th e tota l o f thes e element s adde d t o bas e fue l doe s no t excee d 2 5 pp mb yweigh t whe n th e additiv e i s mixe d int o th e applicabl e bas e fue l a t th e highes t treatmen t rat e recommende d b yth e • additiv e manufacturer , the n th e additiv e (an d F/F Amixture ) woul d qualif y fo r th e d e minimi s provision . Comment s o nthi s genera l approac h an d o n th e propose d d e minimisleve l ar e requested . Th e specia l allowance s fo r whic hsuc hF/FAs woul d qualif yar e describe d i nth e nex t section . 3 . Allowancesfor

Qualifying F/FAs EPApropose s tha t manufacturer s o f atypica l F/FAs whic h qualif yfo r th e d e minimisprovision , unde r th e criteri a specifie d above , woul d b e excuse d fro mth e testing requirement s include d i n Tie r 2 ( § 79.53) . Thi s i s th e same allowanc e provide d b yth e existing regulatio n ( § 79.58(d)(3) ) fo r atypica l F/FAs produce d b y smal l manufacturer s (i.e. , thos e wit hles s than $1 0 millio ni n annua l revenue) . Th e d e minimisprovisio nwoul d no t excus e manufacturer s fro mth e Tie r 1 emissio n characterizatio n requirement s tha t pertai nspecificall yt o atypica l F/FAs , i.e. , th e identificatio n an

d measu i .inven

t o f individua l emissio nproduct s containing th e atypica l element s ( § 79.52(b)(2)(iv ) and , i f applicable , § 79.52(b)(3)(iv)) . Notwithstanding th e d e minimis provisio n no r an

yothe r specia l provision s fo r whicl i a F/F Aray qualify , th e provision s o f Tie r 3 permi t EPAt o requir e an y additiona l testing a t it s discretion , including testing whic hmigh t hav e bee n require d i n th e absenc e o f th e specia l provision .



### 3 5P.3 7

Comment s o n thi s proposa l t o excus e qualifying F/FAs fro mTie r 2 requirement s ar e requested . Se e th e propose d regulatorylanguag e a t § 79.58(f) . Comment s ar e als o requeste d o nth e scop e an d specifi c detail s o f th e propose d d e minimisprovisio n i ngeneral . An ysuggestion s fo r easing th e provisio n(i.e. , adding element s o r increasing th e d e minimislevel ) shoul d b e accompanie d b ydat a t o justif ysuc ha change . Thi s proposa l i s deliberatel ybase d o n conservativ e assumption s and , EP Arequest s tha t commenter s provid e soli d supporting dat a t o justif yan ysuggeste d change s whic hwoul d wide n th e applicabilit yo f th e propose d provision . EPAi s unlikel y t o adop t an

ysuc hsuggestion s fro mcommenter s withou t suc hdata .

VIII . Minor Change s to th e Testin

gRequirement fo

r Registratio

n Mino r change s t o th e testing requirement s ar e proposed . I n th e fina l rule s sectio n o f thi s Federa l Register , thes e change s ar e being promulgate d a s a direc t fina l rul e withou t prio r proposal , becaus e theyar e viewe d a s noncontroversia l an d n o advers e comment s ar e anticipated . Adetaile d rational e fo r thes e propose d change s i s se t fort hi n th e direc t fina l rule . I f anadvers e commen t o n reques t fo r hearing i s no t receive d i nrespons e t o th e direc t fina l rule , n o furthe r activit yi s contemplate d i n relatio nt o thi s propose d rule . I f a n advers e commen t o r hearing reques t i s received , th e porti o o f th e direc t fina l rul e a t is~u e wil l b e withdraw

n an d al l publi c comment s receive d wil l b e addresse d i n a subseiquent fina l rul e base d o n thi s propose d rule . EPAwil l no t institut e a second commen t perio d o nthes e mino r changes . An y partie s intereste d i n commenting shoul d d o s o a t thi s time . 

### 3 6P.3 8

'IX . Tie r 1 Exposure Analysi s Sectio n 79.52(c ) require s a manufacturer , using annua l an d projecte d productio n volume , marketing , an d distributio ndat a (alread yrequire d t o submitte d a s a conditio n fo r registration) , t o provid e a qualitativ e discussio no f th e potentia l publi c healt h exposure s t o th e emissio nproduct s o f it s fuel s and/o r additives . Upo n review , EPAha s conclude d tha t thi s qualitativ e discussio n wil l ad d littl e relevan t informatio nbeyon d th e registratio ndata . Therefore , i t i s propose d t o delet e §79.52(c ) an d modif y introductoryparagraph79.52(a ) accordingly .



### 3 7P.3 9

X . Environmenta l an dEconomi c Impact s

Th e environmenta l impact s o f today' s actio n ar e minimal , a s discusse d above . Additionally , economi c impact s ar e beneficia l t o affecte d manufacturer s du e t o th e additiona l flexibilit yafforde d i n today' s notice . Minima l anti-competitiv e effect s ar e expected . Aregulatorysuppor t documen t whic hpresent s EPA' s analysi s o f th e cos t impact s o f th e May199 4 rul e i s availabl e i nPubli c Docke t A 90-0 7 locate d a t Room M-1500 , Watersid e Mal l (groun d floor) , U.S . Environmenta l Protectio n Agency , 40 1 MSt . S.W. , Washington , D.C . 20460 . '

3 8•XI . Regulator y Flexibility

Analysi s

EPAha s determine d tha t i t i s no t necessaryt o prepar e a regulatory/Flexibilit yanalysi s i nconnectio n wit hthi s rule . Thi s rul e wil l reduc e regulatoryburden s o nsmal l businesse s b yreducing o r eliminating the reporting an d testing requirement s fo r man y smal l businesses . EPAha s determine d tha t thi s rul e wil l not.have a significan t advers e economi c impac t o n a substantia l numbe r p f smal l businesses . . . • . • • XII . Administrativ

e Designatio

n

Pursuan t t o Executiv e Orde r 12866(5 8 F R51735 ' [Octobe r 4 ,



# * V

3 9P.4 1

*1993]) , th e Agenc ymus t determin e whethe r a regulatoryactio n i s "significant".. , .an

d therefore , subjec t t o OMB revie wan d th e requirement s o f th e executiv e order . Th e orde r define s "significan t regulatoryaction s a s on e tha t i s likel yt o resul t i n a . rul e tha t may :

(1 ) Hav e an annua l effec t o nth e econom yo f $10 0 millio n o r mor e o r adversel yaffec t i na materia l wayth e economy , a secto r o f th e economy , productivity , competition , jobs , th e environment , publi c healt ho r safety , o r State , loca l o r triba l government s o r communities ; (2 ) Creat e a seriou s inconsistencyo r otherwis e interfer e wit han actio n take no r planne d b yanothe r agency ; (3 ) Materiall yalte r th e budgetaryimpac t o f entitlement , grants , use r fees , o r loanprogram s o r th e right s an d obligation s o f recipient s thereof ; o r (4 ) Rais e nove l lega l o r policyissue s arising ou t o f lega l mandates , th e President' s priorities , o r th e principle s se t fort hi n th e Executiv e Order .

Pursuan t t o th e term s o f Executiv e Orde r 12866 , i t ha s bee n determine d tha t thi s notic e i s proposa l rulemaking i s no t a "significan t regulatoryaction" , Th e proposal s i n thi s notic e wil l decreas e th e numbe r o f partie s t o whic hthes e regulation s appl yan d 

### 3 9 c vP.4 2

* wil l reduc e th e requirement s an d cost s o f othe r partie s subjec t t o th e regulations

XVI . PaperworkReductio nAc t

Th e paperwor k Reductio n Ac t o f 1980 , 4 4 U.S.C . 350 1 e t seq. , an d implementing regulations , 5 CFRPar t 1320 , d o no t appl yt o thi s actio n a s i t doe s no t involve th e collectio no f informatio na s define d therein .

XVII . Unfunde

dMandate s Ac t # Unde r sectio n 20 2 o f th e Unfunde d Mandate s ReformAc t o f 199 5 ("Unfunde

d Mandate s Act") , signe d int o la wo nMarc h22 , 1995 , EP A mus t prepar e a budgetaryimpac t statemen t t o accompan yan ypropose d o r fina l rul e tha t include s a Federa l mandat e tha t mayresul t i n expenditur e b

yState , local , an d triba l governments , i nth e aggregate ; o r b

yth e privat e sector , o f $10 0 millio n o r more . Unde r Sectio n 205 , EPAmus t selec t th e mos t cost-effectiv e an d leas t burdensome alternativ e tha t achieve s th e objective s o f th e rul e an d i s consisten t wit hstatutoryrequirements . Sectio n20 3 require s EPAt o establis ha pla nfo r informing an d .advisin

g an y smal l government s tha t mayb e significantl yo r uniquel yimpacte d b y th e rul~ .

EPAha s determine d tha t th e actio npromulgate d todaydoe s no t includ e a federa l mandat e tha t mayresul t i nestimate d cost s o f $10 0 millio n o r mor e t o eithe r State , local , o r triba l government s 

### 4 0P.4 3

•• * i n th e aggregate , o r t o th e privat e sector . Thi s propose d actio n doe s no t establis hregulatoryrequirement s tha t maysignificantl y o r uniquel yaffec t smal l governments . I nfact , thi s propose d actio n ha s th e ne t effec t o f reducing th e burde no f th e fue l an d fue l additiv e registratio nprogra m o nregulate d entities . Therefore , th e requirement s o f th e Unfunde d Mandate s Ac t d o no t appl yt o thi s action .

i o n— • Proposedo f Fue l Page ue l Additive s Regis J [41] .

XVIII . Statutor

y Authority Th e statutoryauthorit yfo r thi s propose d rul e i s provide d b y section s 205(b ) an

d (c) , 211 , an

d 301(a ) o f th e Clea nAi r Ac t a s amende d (4 2 U.S.C . 7524(b ) an d (c) , 7545 , an

d 7601(a) , Publi c Law 95-95) . 

# v« Lis t o f Subject s in4 0 CF Rpar t 7 9 Fuel , Fue l additive , Gasoline , Moto r vehicl e pollution , Penalties/ ^ IriujipoidLlO. . p ykei'eren

c

Dated : 

## M



## Zl 199 6

Administrator 

# <- * ° 

# at <* '



## >£ • 41