P. 1



# OAR Box 1165

Prepped by Ollie Stewart



# Document

Number: 

# 255 ) F. R.Jul y 11 , 199 6

Docket Number: 

# A-90-0 7

Printed 4/28/200811:52:23 AM

Sheet 255of 257P.1 2

Federa l Registe r

/ Vol

. 61 , No

. 13 4 / Thursday , Jul y 11 , 199 6 /Propose dRule s 3653 5

final rule s sectio no f

thi s Federa l Register , th e EP A i s approvin g th e exemptio nrequest

a s adirec t

final rul e withou t prio r proposa l becaus e th e Agenc y view s thi s a s anoncontroversia l amendmen t

an danticipate s n o advers e comments

. A detaile drational e fo r th e approva l i s se t

fort hi nth e direc t

final rule

. If n o advers e comment s ar e receive di nrespons e t o thi s propose d rule , n o furthe r

activit y i s contemplate d i nrelationt o thi s propose drule

. If EP A receive s advers e comments , th e direc t final rul e wil l b e withdraw nan dal l publi c comment s receivedwil l b e addresse di nasubsequen t fina l rul e base do nthi s propose drule

. Th e EP A wil l no t institut e asecon dcommen t perio do nthi s document

. An y partie s intereste di ncommentin g o nthi s documen t

shoul dd o s o a t

thi s time

. DATES : T o b e considered , comment s mus t b e receive db y Augus t 12,1996

. ADDRESSES : Writte ncomment s o nthi s actio nshoul db e addresse dt o Willia m Denma na t

th e Environmenta l Protectio nAgency , Regio n4 Ai r Program s Branch , 34 5 Courtlari dStreet , NE , Atlanta , Georgi a30365

. Copie s o f document s relativ e t o thi s actio nar e Dated : Jun e 18,1996

. A

. Stanle y Meiburg , Acting Regional

Administrator. (F RDoc

. 96-1764 6 File d7-10-96 ; 8:4 5 am ] BILUN Q COD E 6560-60- P

4 0 CF R Part 7 9 [FRL-5532-6 ] Registratio n o fFuel s an d Fue l Additives : Change s i n Requirements , an d Applicabilit y t o Blender s o f Deposi t Contro l Gasolin e Additive s AGENCY : Environmenta l Protectio n Agenc y (EPA)

. ACTION : Propose drule

. SUMMARY

: Thi s documen t

propose s severa l specifi c change s t o regulations requirin g th e registrationan dtestin g o f designate dmoto r

vehicl e fuel s an dfue l additive s (F/FAs ) b y thei r manufacturers

. Th e objective s ar e t o reduc e th e numbe r

o f respondents, streamlin e progra mrequirements , furthe r eas e smal l busines s burdens , an d clarif y som e specifi c technica l provision s i nth e existin g registratio n regulations

. Include di nth e propose d grou p o f respondents n o longe r required

. £\t o b e registereda s fue l manufacturer s availabl e fo r

publi c inspectio ndurin g - - ^ A , - , . . , , , , norma l busines s hour s a t th e followin g ev 8 * 8 ^TJ^i°• ? , P ° locations

. Th e intereste dperson s ^contro l additive s int o gasolin e wantin g t o examin e thes e document s 5- ; DATES : Writte n comment s o nth e issue s shoul dmak e a nappointmen t wit htheft ? presente dmthi s documen t wil l b e appropriat e offic e a t

leas t 2 4 hour s befor e th e visitin g day

. Referenc e file, > » > • accente du I accepte dunti l ^Aumis t 12.1996 : ADDRESSES : Comment s shoul db e sen t i n TN167-01-9627 : Th e Regio n4 office^ k du P licat e t o EP A Ai r Docke t Sectio n ^ \(LE

- ma y hav e additiona l backgroun d document s no t

availabl e a t

th e othe r locations

. Ai r an dRadiatio nDocke t

an d Informatio nCente r

(Ai r Docke t 6102) ,

. U.S

. Environmenta l Protectio n Agency , 40 1 M Street , SW. , Washington , D C 20460

. Environmenta l Protectio nAgency , Regio n4 Ai r

Program s Branch , 34 5 Courtlan dStreet , NE. , Atlanta , Georgi a30365

. Willia mDenman , 404 / 347-355 5 extensio n4208

. Tennesse e Departmen t

o f Environmen t an dConservation , Divisio n o f Ai r Pollutio nControl , L& C Annex , 9t h Floor , 40 1 Churc hStreet , Nashville , Tennesse e 37243-1531

. 615/532-055 4 FOR FURTHE R INFORMATIO N CONTACT : Willia m Denma n 404/347-355 5 extensio n 4208

. SUPPLEMENTAR

Y INFORMATION

: Fo r additiona l informatio nse e th e direc t fina l rul e whic his.publishe di nth e rule s sectio no f

thi s Federa l Register

. 131) ; Attention : Publi c Docke t No

. -Aj-Qn-07-Rnn mM-1500,40 1 MStree t STW. , Washington , D C 20460 ; Phon e 202-260-754 8 o r

7549 ; FA X 202-260

- 4000

. Th e docke t

i s ope n fo r

publi c inspectio nfrom8:0 0 a.m
. until,5:3 0 p.m. , Monda y throug hFriday , excep t o n governmen t

holidays

. Previou s rulemakin g document s an dothe r material s relatedt o thi s proposa l ar e availabl e i n th e docket

. A s provide di n 4 0 CF Rpar t

2 , areasonabl e fe e ma y b e charge db y EP A fo r

photocopyin g services

. FO RFURTHE

RINFORMATIO

NCONTACT

: Ji m Caldwel l (202-233-9303 ) o r Josep h Femande s (202-233-9016) , U.S

. EPA , Offic e o f Mobil e Sources , Fuel s an d Energ y Division , Mai l Cod e 6406J , 40 1 M Stree t SW , Washington , D C 20460

. Electroni c copie s o f

thi s propose d rule , th e regulatory tex t fo r thi s propose drule , an dearlie r rulemakin g document s relate dt o th e F/F A Registratio nProgra mar e availabl e fre e o f charg e o nEPA' s Technolog y Transfe r Networ k Bulleti n Boar dSyste m (TTNBBS)

. Fo r

specifi c instructions , contac t Josep hFemande 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 dabove

. SUPPLEMENTAR

YINFORMATION : I

. Regulate dEntitie s Regulate dcategorie s an dentitie s potentiall y affecte db y thi s actio n include : Category Example s o f regulate 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 dt o b e exhaustive , bu t

rathe r provide s aguid e fo r reader s regardin g entitie s likel y t o b e regulate db y thi s action

. Thi s tabl e list s th e type s o f

entitie s tha t

EP A i s no w awar e coul db e potentiall y regulate db y thi s action

. Othe r

type s o f entitie s no t liste di n th e tabl e coul dals o b e regulated

. T o determin e whethe r you r entit y woul db e regulate db y thi s action , yo u shoul dcarefull y examin e thi s preambl e an dth e propose dchange s t o th e regulator y text

. Yo u shoul dals o carefull y examin e th e existin g provision s o f

th e registration progra ma t 4 0 CF Rpar t

79

. II

. Introductio n A. Background Th e F/F A registratio n progra mi s authorize db y sectio n21 1 o f th e Clea n Ai r Ac t (CAA ) an dcodifie di n 4 0 CF R par t 79

. I n accordanc e wit hCA A section s 211(a ) an d(b)(1) , basi c registratio nrequirement s applicabl e t o gasolin e an ddiese l fuel s an dthei r additive s wer e issue di n 1975

. Thes e regulations require manufacturer s t o submi t informatio no n thei r

F/F A products , suc ha s th e commercia l identity , chemica l composition , purpose-in-use , an drang e o f concentration , i n orde r t o hav e suc h product s registere db y th e EPA

. Additiona l registratio n requirements , implementin g section s 211(b)(2 ) an d(e) , wer e propose di n Apri l 199 2 an d Februar y 199 4 (5 7 F R1316 8 an d5 9 F R 8886 , respectively) an dwer e finalize d o nMa y 27,199 4 (5 9 FR.33042 , Jun e 27 , 1994)

. Th e additiona l regulations requir e manufacturers , a s par t o f thei r F / F A registratio nresponsibilities , t o conduc t test s an dsubmi t

informatio n o n th e healt heffect s o f

thei r F/F A products

. Thes e requirement s ar e organize dwithi n thre e tiers. Tie r 1 require s analysis , o f

th e combustio n an d evaporativ e emission s o f F/FA s an da surve y o f

existin g scientifi c informatio n o nth e publi c healt han dwelfar e effect sP.1 3

3653 6 Federa l Registe r/ Vol

. 61 , No

. 13 4 / Thursday , Jul y 11 , 199 6 / Propose dRule s

o f thes e emissions

. T o th e exten t tha t adequat e tes t

dat aar e no t

alread y availabl e (a s define di n th e regulations)

. Tie r 2 require s manufacturer s t o conduc t specifie dtoxicolog y test s t o scree nfo r

potentia l advers e healt h effect s o f di e F/F A emissions

. Unde r Tie r 3 , follow-u p testin g ma y b e require da t

EPA' s discretio nt o furthe r evaluat e concern s identifie di nth e earlie r tiers. Th e rul e als o include s severa l

• provision s t o reduce th e informatio n collectio nan dtestin g burdens

. Amon g thes e provision s i s avoluntar y groupin g an dcos t sharin g progra mwhic hallow s manufacturer s o f

simila r F/FA s t o pool

. tiieir resources an deffort s i ncomplyin g wit hth e requirements

. Specia l provision s fo r

smal l manufacturer s ar e als o included

. I nsubsequen t

section s o f

thi s notice , EP A propose s severa l specifi c change s t o th e F/F A registrationregulations

. Thes e proposal s woul dno t impac t th e overal l structur e no r

(wit hmino r exceptions ) th e scientifi c requirement s o f th e curren t

program
. Rather , EP A i s proposin g t o revis e and/o r ad dcertai n definition s an dprovisions , wit hth e intende dresult

o f decreasin g or , i n som e cases , removin g th e requirements altogethe r

fo r man y F/F A registratio n respondents

. EP A believe s tha t th e propose dchange s woul dsignificantl y reduc e th e overal l burden s o f di e F/F A registratio nprogra mwithou t havin g a n appreciabl e impac t

o nit s monitoring , control , an dinformatio ncollectio n objectives

. B. Public Participation EPA desire s ful l pubh c participatio n i narrivin g a t

it s final decision s an d solicit s comment s focuse dspecificall y o nth e proposal s i nthi s notice

. Whereve r

applicable , ful l supportin g dat aan ddetaile danalysi s shoul db e submitte dt o allo w maximu mus e o f th e comments

. Writte nmaterial s alread y submitte di nregar dt o th e issue s addresse db y thes e proposal s wil l b e full y considere db y EPA , an dnee dno t b e resubmitte di nresponse t o thi s notice

. A t

thi s time , EP A i s no t

seekin g comment s o nissue s othe r tha n thos e specificall y addresse di nthi s notice , an di s unde r

n o obligatio nt o respon dt o an y suc hcomment s i t

ma y receive

. EP A i s no t plannin g t o hol dapubh c hearin g o nthi s propose drule

. However , a hearin g wil l b e hel di f

requeste dwithi n 1 0 day s afte r

publication

. Request s fo r a pubfi c hearin g shoul db e submitte di n writin g t o Josep hFemande s a t th e addres s provide dabove

. An y proprietar y informatio n bein g submitte dfo r

th e Agency' s consideratio nshoul db e markedl y distinguishe dfromothe r submitta l informatio n an dclearl y labele d "Confidentia l Busines s Information. " Proprietar y informatio nshoul db e sen t directl y t o th e contac t

person s liste d above , an dno t

t o th e pubh c docket , t o ensur e tha t

i t i s no t place di nth e docket

. Informatio n thu s labele dan d directe dshal l b e covere db y aclai mo f confidentiall y an dwil l b e disclose db y EP A onl y t o th e exten t

allowe dan db y th e procedure s se t

fort hi n 4 0 CF RPar t 2

. If n o clai mo f

confidentialit y accompanie s asubmissio nwhe ni t i s receive db y EPA , i t

ma y b e mad e availabl e t o th e pubh c withou t furthe r notic e t o th e commenter

. IH . Fue l Manufacture ran d Additiv e Definition s A. Background Sectio n211(a ) o f

th e Clea n Ai r

Ac t authorize s EP A t o designat e fuel s an d fue l additives , an dprohibit s manufacturer s o r

processor s o f designate dfuel s an dadditive s from introducin g the mint o commerc e withou t havin g the mregistered

. Sectio n 211(b ) describe s th e registration requiremen t

fo r designate dfuel s an d fue l additives

. Pursuan t t o § 211(b)(1) , . th e manufacture r

o f an y designate dfue l o r additiv e mus t

provid e EP A wit h certai nidentifyin g informatio n abou t th e fue l o r

additiv e t o obtai n registration

. Sectio n 211(b)(2 ) provide s EP A wit hdiscretionar y authorit y t o requir e healt heffect s testin g informatio nfrommanufacturer s o f designate dfuel s an dadditive s fo r th e purpos e o f

registration

. ""*"

* I nth e 197 7 amendment s t o th e Clea n Ai r Act , Congres s include daprovisio n tha t directe dEP A t o issu e regulations t o implemen t

§ 211(b)(2)

. Thes e regulations wer e issue di nMa y 1994 , an dinclude da n amendmen t t o EPA' s previou s definitio no f

fue l manufacture r t o includ e importers

. 5 9 F R3304 2 (Jun e 27,1994)

. I n today' s notice , EP A i s proposin g t o amen dth e definitio no f fue l manufacture r

t o exclud e partie s tha t ad dadditive s i namount s les s tha n 1 % b y volum e o f

th e resultin g fuel / additiv e mixture , an dt o exclud e oxygenat e blender s wh o mee t th e regulator y definitio n o f asmal l business

. I n addition , EP A i s proposin g t o amen dth e definitio no f "additive " t o exclud e substance s compose dsolel y o f carbo n and/o r

hydrogen

. Th e ter m"manufacture r o f afue l o r fue l additive " i s use di n§ 211(a) , 211(b) , an d211(e) , bu t

th e Ac t i s silen t o n th e definitio no f

"manufacturer " an d "additive. " Promulgatin g regulator y definition s o f

"fue l manufacturer " an d "additive " fo r purpose s o f implementin g thes e subsection s i s withi n th e Agency' s discretio nt o interpre t th e statut e i t

administer s wher e tha t

statut e i s silen t

wit hrespect t o aspecifi c issue

. Se e Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v
. NRDC, 46 7 U.S

. 83 7 (1984)

. A clea r definitio n o f

"fue l manufacturer " i s necessar y fo r

EP A t o implemen t

it s authorit y effectivel y unde r § 211(a) , (b) , an d(e) , an dt o provid e certaint y a s t o whic hpartie s ar e subjec t t o statutor y requirement s tha t

appl y t o fue l manufacturers

. I naddition , i t i s necessar y fo r

EP A t o defin e "additive " t o clarif y whic hproduct s ar e covere db y EPA' s regulation s unde r § 211(e ) coverin g registratio n an dhealt heffect s testin g requirements

. EP A believe 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 dadditive s i n amount s les s tha n1 % b y volum e o f

th e resultin g fuel/additiv e mixture

. Th e healt heffect s informatio n tha t suc hpartie s woul db e require dt o subrni t wil l als o b e obtaine dfro mth e manufacturer s o f

th e additive , wh o woul dno t

b e exempte dunde r

th e propose damendment

. Therefore , excludin g thes e partie s fromth e definitio no f

fue l manufacture r

woul d .reduc e th e generatio nan dcollectio no f duplicativ e information

. Fo r simila r

' 'reasons , EP A als o believe s i t i s reasonabl e an dappropriat e t o defin e * ''.fue l manufacturer " t o exclud e
' oxygenat e blender s wh o mee t th e regulatory definitio n o f asmal l business

. A s discusse dbelow , EP A believe s tha t

i t i s reasonabl e an d

. appropriate-t o defin e "additive " t o exclud e substance s compose dsolel y o f carbo nand/o r

hydrogen

. Accordin g t o § 79.1 , th e F/F A registrationregulations appl y t o al l manufacturer s o f

designate dfuel s an d fue l additives

. Designate dF/FAs , specifie di n§ § 79.30-79.33 , ar e currentl y limite dt o moto r vehicl e gasolin e an ddiese l fuel s an dt o
' additive s intende dfo r us e i n thes e fuels

. Th e applicabl e definitio n o f a"fue l manufacturer " i s provide di n § 79.2(d) : Fuel manufacturer

mean s an y perso n who , fo r sal e o r introductio nint o commerce , produces , manufactures , o r import s afue

l o r cause s o r direct s th e alteratio n o

f th e chemica l compositio n of

, o r th e mixtur e o

f chemica l compound s in , abul k fue l b y addin g t o i t

a n additive

. Th e comprehensivenes s o f dii s • definitio nha s le dt o som e redundanc y i nregistration requirements

. I t ha s als o le dt o problem s an dconfusio n arisin g fromth e fac t

tha t registratio n an d testin g responsibilities ar e sometime s transitive , i.e. , the y pas s alon g fro mon e manufacture r

t o another , generall y fromPJ 4

Federa l Registe r

/ Vol

. 61 , No

. 13 4 / Thursday , Jul y 11 , 199 6 / Propose dRule s 3653 7

bul k additiv e manufacturer s t o thei r fue l manufacture r

customers

. A numbe r

o f manufacturer s hav e contacte dEP A abou 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 y an dblen dbul k additive s int o fue l are , accordin g t o th e definitio ncite dabove , fue l manufacturers. 1 Thes e partie s ar e therefor e subjec t

t o di e produc t registrationan dtestin g responsibilities applicabl e t o fue l manufacturers

. Unde r th e curren t

regulations , the y ar e requiredt o registe r

thei r fue l products , includin g th e identity , purpose , an d amoun t o f bul k additive(s ) whic hthe y blen d(o r

inten dt o blend ) int o th e fuel

. Furthermore , the y ar e responsibl e fo r an y testin g applicabl e t o th e resultin g fuel/additiv e mixture , o r fo r participatin g i n on e o r

mor e testin g group s base do nth e compositio no f thi s mixture

. I neffect , thei r registrationan d testin g responsibilities , an dthei r groupin g an dcost-sharin g opportunities , ar e define db y th e compositio no f

th e bul k additive s the y mi x int o fuel , thoug hi nman y instance s the y ma y no t

eve nkno w di e actua l compositio no f

th e additiv e product s the y bu y an duse
. Th e transitivit y o f

registrationan d testin g requirement s fromadditiv e manufacturer s t o thei r

fuel ' manufacture r

customer s ha s cause ddi e numbe r o f partie s subjec t

t o registratio n requirements t o multipl y an dha s le dt o confusio namon g th e variou s parlie s alon g the : F/F A production-blending

distributio nchain

. I t

ma y als o hav e unintende daffect s o n th e F/F A comrnercia l marketplace

. I nsom e cases , fo r example , blender s ma y sto p usin g certai nkind s o f

additive s rathe r

tha n incurrin g th e responsibilities o f afue l manufacturer , o r

ma y switc hfromthei r traditiona l supplier s t o ne w supplier s base do ndi e groupin g propertie s (set

. fort hi n§ 79.56 ) o f

th e competin g additives

. A particularl y awkwar dresul t ma y occu r

whe nth e direc t manufacture r

o f a nadditiv e i s exemp t fromtestin g requirements unde r th e program' s smal l busines s provisions

. ( § 79.58(d)) , bu t

th e fue l manufacturer s wh o bu y an dblen dth e additiv e int o fue l do.no t

qualif y fo r th e exemptio n an dmus t

stil l tes t th e additive/fue l mixture

. T o kee p thei r

custome r

base , . som e smal l manufacturer s o f "atypical "

1 However , independent

termina l operator s whic h blen dadditive 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 dfue

l manufacturers

. Also , en dusers , suc ha s flee

t owners/operator s wh o blen dadditive s int o bul k fue l fo r thei r ow n flee t use , ar e no t considere dfue

l manufacturers

. additive s (define di n§ 79.56(e) ) stat e dia t the y ma y findi t

necessar y t o waiv e thei r smal l busines s exemption s an d shiel dthei r

customer s fromadditiv e testin g requirement s b y full y fundin g th e testin g themselve s (see , fo r example , docke t ite mVI-D-06)

. Clearly , thi s outcom e woul dundermin e th e specia l allowance s whic hEP A intende dt o gran t t o smal l businesses

. A revise d § 79.58(d)(3 ) i s propose dt o remedy thi s situation , b y exemptin g afue l manufacture r

fromTie r

2 requirements fo r th e us e o f

a nadditiv e whic hi s .exemp t fromTie r

2

. Anothe r proble massociate dwit hth e definitio no f

"fue l manufacturer " ha s arise n a s aresult

o f arecen t chang e i n th e definitio no f

"fue l additive"

. Th e final rul e whic hadde dhealt heffect s testin g t o th e registration requirements fo r F/FA s (5 9 F R33042 ) als o change d th e definitio no f

a n additive , a s specifie di n§ 79.2(e)

. Previously , substance s compose dsolel y o f carbo n and/o r hydroge nha dbee nspecificall y exclude dfromth e definitio n o f a n additive, 2 an dthu s di dno t hav e t o b e registered

. Sinc e thes e substance s wer e no t considere dadditives , partie s whic h blende ddie mint o fuel s wer e no t considere dfue l manufacturer s an dwer e no t subjec t t o th e F/F A registratio n requirements o nth e basi s o f tha t blendin g activity

. Recognizin g tna t

all-hydrocarbo n substance s ma y hav e toxi c properties , th e ne w rul e removedth e exclusio n o f all-hydrocarbo n substance s frofhth e definitio no f

a n additive

. A t

th e time , EP A wa s particularl y concerne dabou t potentia l increase dus e o f benzen e an d otheraromati c hydrocarbo nadditives

. However , th e chang e i nth e definitio n o f a nadditiv e ha s raise dsom e unintende d concerns
. Unde r

th e ne w definition , hydrocarbo nfue l blendin g stock s (e.g. , kerosene , butane , propane) , commonl y use do n aseasona l basi s t o chang e th e ' evaporativ e o r

flo w propertie s o f conventiona l fuels , coul dno w b e considere da s additives

. Thus , partie s whic hblen dthes e fue l substance s int o gasolin e o r

diese l fue l coul db e considered , t o fit

th e definitio no f

"fue l manufacturer. " Potentially , hundred s o f additiona l partie s coul db e requiredt o register a s F/F A manufacturers , creatin g asubstantia l regulatory, paperwor k burde n whil e providin g littl e incrementa l informatio nt o EPA

. Thi s wa s no t EPA' s intent

. Furthermore , th e concer nabou t

benzen e an dothe r aromatics , whic horiginall y motivate d EP A t o delet e th e all-hydrocarbo n

2 Th e presenc e o

f trac e contaminatio n with element s other

tha n carbo n an dhydroge n di dno t facto r int o thi s exclusion

. exclusio n fromth e additiv e definition , ha s no w bee n largel y addresse db y th e reformulatedgasoline/anti-dumpin g rule s an dothe r

regulator y mechanism s whic hlimi t

th e aromati c compositio n o f gasolin e an ddiese l fuels

. I n sum , therefore , th e chang e i n th e additiv e definitio nha s create dapotentiall y larg e numbe r o f unintende dne w "fue l manufacturer " respondents amon g thos e wh o ad dcommonplac e blendin g stock s t o gasolin e an ddiese l fuels , whil e achievin g littl e i n regardt o EPA' s origina l intent

. A substantia l numbe r

o f registrants i s compose do f

person s wh o fit

th e definitio n o f

"fue l manufacturer " becaus e tiiey blen dethano l int o gasohne

. I nth e cas e o f oxygenate s othe r tha nethanol , di e oxygenat e i s generall y adde dt o gasolin e a t

th e fue l refinery , befor e th e gasolin e i s distribute d throug hth e pipeline

. Thes e "upstream " oxygenat e blender s ten dt o b e relatively limite di n number , an dofte nar e larg e fue l manufacturin g businesses

. Ethanol , o n th e othe r

hand , i s generall y prohibite dfromtranspor t throug hth e pipelin e (pipelin e policy , technica l reasons) , an dmus t

b e adde dt o th e fue l downstream

. Thus , rathe r tha n bein g blende db y relativel y fe w fue l refiners , ethano l i s adde dt o fiiel b y larg e number s o f

termina l operators , fue l haulers , an dsom e fue l retailers. Man y suc hethano l blender s qualif y a s smal l businesse s unde r

th e definitio n i n § 79.58(d)(2 ) an dthu s ar e excuse dfrom th e Tie r 1 an dTie r

2 healt heffect s testin g provision s o f

th e F/F A registratio nregulations. Nevertheless , a s fue l manufacturers , the y mus t stil l compl y wit hth e basi c reporting requirement s o f

th e F/F A registratio n program
. Thi s combinatio n o f circumstance s maintain s asignifican t paperwor k

burde n fo r

suc hrespondents, whil e addin g littl e informatio n t o EP A i nregar dt o oxygenate dfuel s beyon d tha t whic hi s currentl y availabl e throug hothe r

progra mreporting mechanisms

. B. Proposed

Changes EP A propose s t o addres s th e problem s summarize dabov e b y modifyin g th e definition s o f

"additive " an d"fue l manufacturer. " First , EP A propose s t o

• revise th e curren t

definitio n o f

a n additiv e (a t

§ 79.2(e) ) t o exclud e substance s compose dsolel y o f carbo n and/o r hydrogen , thu s reinstatin g th e definitio n whic hwa s i n effec t prio r t o th e final ml e o f

Ma y 27,1994

. A s describe dpreviously , thi s actio nwoul d provid e regulator y relie f t o perhap s hundred s o f

companie s whic har e no w considere d"fue l manufacturers " becaus e the y ad dcommo nhydrocarbo n

### 3653 8 Federa l Registe r / Vol

. 61 , No

. 13 4 /

Thursday , Jul y 11 , 199 6 / Propose dRule s P.1 5

stock s t o finishedfuels

. I t shoul db e note dtha t

person s wh o blen d hydrocarbo nstock s togethe r t o produc e ausabl e moto r

vehicl e fue l (rathe r

tha n addin g hydrocarbon s t o afinishedfuel ) woul dcontinu e t o b e considere dfue l manufacturers

. Second , EP A propose s t p ad dproviso s t o th e definitio no f

afue l manufacture r (a t § 79.2(d) ) suc htha t

th e additio no f

a smal l volum e o f

an y additiv e 3 t o fue l woul dno t

i nitsel f caus e an y part y t o b e considere dafue l manufacturer , no r woul dth e additio no f

a noxygenatin g additiv e b y apart y qualifyin g fo r th e smal l busines s provision s o f th e registrationprogram
. Th e propose dne w definitio no f

afue l manufacture r

i s a s follows : Fuel manufacturer

mean s an y perso n who , fo r sal e o r introductio nint o commerce , produces , manufactures , o r import s afuel o r cause s o r direct s th e alteratio nof

th e chemica l compositio no

f abul k fuel , o r th e mixtur e of

chemica l compound s i nabul k fuel , b y addin g t o i t

a nadditive , excep t

tha t (1 ) apart y wh o add s aquantit y o f additive(s ) amountin g to les s tha n1. 0 percen t b y volum e of th e resultan t

additive(s)/fue l mixtur e i s not thereb y considere dafuel manufacturer , an d (2 ) apart y wh o qualifie s a s asmal l busines s unde r th e criteri ai n § 79.58(d)(2 ) of thi s subpart , ari dwh o add s a noxygenate compound(s ) t o fuel i s no t thereb y considere dafuel manufacturer

. Thi s propose ddefinitio nwoul d significantl y reduce th e numbe r o f F/F A registratio nrespondent s an dwoul d addres s th e problem s describe dabov e tha t result fromth e "transitivity " o f registrationan dtestin g requirement s unde r th e curren t

regulations. Unde r thi s definition , di e additio no f mos t "baseline " an d"atypical " additive s a t ordinar y treatmen t

rate s woul dno t caus e th e blendin g part y t o b e afue l manufacture r

becaus e suc hadditive s ar e adde di namount s les s tha n1 % o f th e resultant mixture

. I ndi e genera l case , partie s whic had doxygenate s t o fuel , i n a namoun t

sufficien t

t o produc e afue l mixtur e categorize da s non-baseline, 4 woul dstil l b e considere dfue l manufacturers

. EP A believe s thi s t o b e appropriat e becaus e th e relatively larg e adde dvolume s ca ncaus e substantiv e change s i nth e basi c characteristics , emissio nproperties , an dtoxi c potentia l o f di e fuel

. However , t o reduc e th e numbe r o f respondents requiredonl y t o submi t redundan t

registratio n paperwork , th e propose ddefinitio n o f a fue l manufacture r

exclude s oxygenat e blender s wh o qualif

y fo r th e smal l busines s provision s o f

th e registration progra m(chiefly , smal l ethano l blenders)

. Fo r convenience , i t

i s propose dtha t th e definitio n o f

"oxygenat e compound " a t 4 0 CF R79.5 0 als o b e incorporate da t 4 0 C f R79.2(k)

. EP A request s comment s o nth e propose dchange s t o th e defuMtion s o f

"additive " an d"fue l manafacturer. " C

. Relationship to the Gasoline Detergent Additive Program A ninterfac e exist s betwee n th e F/F A registrationprogra man dth e detergen t additiv e program. 5 I norde r t o avoi d duplicat e reportin g requirements, th e detesgen t

additiv e progra minteri m regulation s i n4 0 CF RPar t 8 0 mak e us e o f th e existin g F/F A registratio n syste m a s th e mechanis mfo r

collectin g muc ho f th e iaformatio n require do f detergen t additiv e blenders

. However , i f th e definitio n o f

afue l manufacture r

i s change da s propose dabove , the n determen t

additiv e blender s woul dn o longe r b e considere dfue l manufacturer s an dwoul dn o longe r

b e require dt o register unde r th e F/F A registration program
. Thus , th e sourc e o f informatio n o n whic hEP A relie s fo r th e interi mdetergen t

additiv e progra m woul dn o longe r

b e available

. However , a s wil l b e discusse di nth e upcomin g final detergen t

rule , EP A ha s conclude d tha t tki s informatio ni s n o longer , necessary
. Therefore , ther e woul db e n o advers e effec t

o nth e detergen t

additiv e program
. IV

. Smal l Busines s Definitio n I nth e F/F A registrationprogram , qualificatio n fo r

specia l smal l busines s

• provision s i s base di n par t o n tota l annua l sale s revenue , specifically , a$5 0 millio nlimi t

fo r manufacturer s o f baselin e an dnon-baselin e F/FAs , an da $1 0 rasliion limi t

fo r manufacturer s o f atypica l F/FA s (se e § § 79.58(d ) (2 ) ari d (3) , respectively)

. Communication s from trad e organization s whic hrepresent fue l retailer s (docke t

ite mVI-D-05 ) sugges t tha t thes e tota l sale s criteri ashoul db e revisedt o tak e ta x effect s int o account

. Thes e organization s poin t ou t tha t sale s an dexcis e taxe s accumulat e a s th e fue l passe s alon g the refining-'distributionmarketin g chain , bu t

ar e generall y no t 3 Of course , th e additiv e itsel f mus t stil l b e registered

. 4 A s specifie di 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 in additio n t o carbon , hydrogen , oxygen , nitrogen , an dsulfur , and , i nth e cas e o f gasolin e F / FAs , contai n1. 5 percen t

o r more oxygenby weight , and , i nth e cas e of

diese l F/FAs , contai n1.0 percen t o r more oxygenb

y weigh t 5 Regulatio n o f Fuels an dFue l Additives : Standards fo

r Deposi t Contro l Gasolin e Additives

. Propose dRule : 59 F

R64213 , Dec

. 6.1993

. Interi m Program , Fina l Rule : 59 F

R54678

. Nov

. 1 , 1994

. CertificStie n Progra mFina l Rul e expecte di n1996

. These document

s ar e availabl e o n EPA' s TTNBBS bulletin board

. Se

e "Fo r Furthe r Information..., " a t th e beginnin g o f thi s notice

. include di nth e pric e pai dfo r th e fue l (no r i n th e gros s sale s revenue o f th e seller ) unti l th e fue l i s markete da t th o retail level

. I nsom e instances , th e accumulate dsale s an dexcis e taxe s o n fuel , includin g applicabl e taxe s a t th e local , state , an dfedera l levels , ma y excee d4 0 percen t

o f th e pric e pai db y consumers , an dthu s represent s a comparabl e portio no f

th e retailer' s fuel

relate dsale s revenues. Th e commenter s argu e that , sinc e thes e ta x effect s ar e no t reflectedi n th e smal l busines s definition , smal l marketer s ar e disadvantage di n compariso n wit hsmal l refiner s an dotiie r

upstrea mbusinesses

. EP A agree s an dpropose s tha t th e ter m "tota l annua l sales " a t

§ 79.58(d ) b e modifie db y addin g th e following : "excludin g an y revenu e whic h represents th e collectio no f federal , stat e and/o r loca l excis e taxe s and/o r sale s taxes"

. A revise d§ 79.59(b)(5)(ii ) i s propose dt o requir e th e submittal , a t EPA' s request , o f

applicabl e bill s o f ladin g o r othe r vali ddocumentatio n t o suppor t th e legitimac y o f

an y fue l sale s amount s exclude da s taxes

. Comment s ar e requestedconcernin g thes e propose drevisions

. V

. Biodiese l Provision s Biodiese l fuel s an dmos t blend s o f bio

- an dconventiona l diese l fue l contai nmor e tha n1. 0 weigh t percen t oxyge n an dtiius, accordin g 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 dfromvegetabl e oi l ("mixe d alky l ester s o f

plant , origin" ) ar e groupe d separatel y frombiodiese l fuel s derive d fromanima l fat

("mixe dalky l ester s o f anima l origin")

. EP A establishe dthes e tw o separat e biodiese l group s becaus e o f concer ntha t th e compositio n o f

animal-derive dan d vegetabl e derive dfuel s migh t diffe r considerably , an dthu s migh t demonstrat e differen t

toxicologi c properties

. Bot hvegetabl e oi l an d anima l fat

ar e compose do f

triglycerides , an dth e esterificatio n proces s use dt o conver t th e triglyceride s t o fue l (i.e. , methy l esters ) i s th e sam e 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 dreactants, othe r reactio n products , an dpossibl e contaminants , an dEP A ha s bee nconcerne dtha t thes e coul dvar y significantl y betwee n th e differen t feedstocks

. I nsubsequen t

communication s wit h EP A (docke t

ite mVI-E-01) , representative s o f

th e industr y hav e asserte dtha t

th e compositio n o f biodiese l fuel s o f

anima l an dplan t origi n hav e simila r

physica l properties

. A s aresult

o f thei r arguments , EP A i sP.1 6

Federa l Registe r/

Vol

. 61 , No

. 13 4 / Thursday , Jul y 11 , 199 6 / Propose dRule s 3653 9

considerin g achang e t o th e groupin g rule s whic hwoul dpermi t animal

- an d vegetable-derive dbiodiese l fuel s t o b e groupe dtogether. 6 A revise d § 79.56(e)(4)(ii)(B)(2 ) i s proposed

. EP A request s comment s o n thi s potentia l action

. Dat ademonstratin g th e qualitativ e an dquantitativ e difference s betwee nbiodiese l fuel s fromdifferen t feedstocks , includin g th e identit y an d amoun t o f contaminants , woul db e particularl y helpfu l t o EPA' s determinatio no f

th e mos t

appropriat e groupin g rule s fo r

thes e fuels

. Availabl e dat acomparin g th e speciate demission s o f tiiese fuel s woul dals o b e o f interest

. Sectio n79.56(e)(4)(ii)(B)f-?^7 J o f th e curren t regulation s contain s generi c requirements fo r

choosin g th e representativ e t o b e use di ntestin g fo r th e healt heffect s o f

biodiese l an dothe r define dgroup s o f

oxygenatin g compounds

. EP A i s considerin g a requiremen t

specifi c t o biodiese l whic h woul drequir e tha t

10 0 percen t

biodiese l fue l b e use da s th e biodiese l group' s tes t representative

. Thi s woul dmaximiz e the'likelihoo do f

detectin g an y difference s i nth e emission s .and/o r toxicologi c propertie s betwee n conventiona l diese l an dbiodiese l fuels

. Unde r th e existin g regulations , i t i s likel y tha t

a2 0 percen t

biodiese l formulatio nwil l b e selecte da s th e tes t representative ; thus , lowe r exposure s t o biodiese l emission s woul doccu r durin g th e testing

. O nth e othe r hand , a2 0 percen t formulatio ndoe s currentl y appea r t o b e th e mor e likel y formulatio n t o b e introduce dint o commerce , a t leas t i nth e nea r

future

. Thus , EP A requests commen t

o nwhic hbiodiese l fue l specificatio n(2 0 percent , 10 0 percent , o r som e othe r

percentage ) woul db e mos t appropriat e i nth e contex t o f th e testin g program
. Comment s ar e als o requestedo nth e practicalit y o f eac h optio nwit hrespect

t o tes t vehicle / engin e compatibility

. VI . Syntheti cFue l Provision s A. Background Accordin g t o § § 79.56(e)(3)(I)(B ) an d (3)(ii)(B) , aftiel derive dfroman y syntheti c crud e source , suc ha s shale , coal , o r ta r sands , i s assigne dt o anon
baselin e category

. Th e regulationdoe s no t specif y aminimu mamoun t

o f

6 I t i s importan t

t o not e that , notwithstandin g an y groupin g arrangement s permitte dunde r th e program' s groupin g rules

. EP A retain s th e authorit y i n§ 79.54(a ) t o requir e Tie r 3 testin g eithe r

o na n individua l o r

grou p basis , an dt o requir e differen t representative(s ) o f

agrou p t o b e teste dtha nma y hav e bee nteste da t

th e Tie r 1 and/o r Tie r 2 level

. Thus , eve nif

th e regulation s wer e t o b e change dt o allo w biodiese l fuel s t o grou p together , EP A woul d no t b e preclude dfro mrequirin g vegetable-derive d an danimal-derive dbiodiese l fuel s t o underg o separat e Tie r

3 testing

. syntheti c componen t whic hwoul d caus e afue l t o fal l int o th e non-baselin e category

. Section s 79.56(e)(4)(ii)(A)f3 j an d(ii)(B)(3), fo r

gasolin e an ddiese l F / FA s respectively , defin e separat e non
baselin e group s fo r

"formulation s derive dfromeac hparticula r non
conventiona l petroleu msourc e or process" (italic s adde dfo r

emphasis) , an dlist s th e followin g type s o f fue l formulation s a s example s o f suc h groups : "coal-derive dformulations ; chemically-synthesize dformulation s (includin g thos e usin g recycle d chemica l o r

petrochemica l products) ; ta r sand-derive dformulations ; shale

derive dformulations ; an dothe r type s o f soil-recovere dproduct s use di n formulatin g (fuel)"

. Sinc e publicatio n o f

thes e regulations, EP A ha s receive dcommunication s an d informatio nfromth e affecte dindustr y (se e docke t

item s VI-D-0 2 an dVI-D

03 ) claimin g tha t

syntheti c fuel s shoul d b e categorize da s baselin e rathe r tha n non-baselin e products

. The y poin t ou t tha t th e curren t

regulation s d o no t reflec t th e fac t tha t finishedmoto r vehicl e fuel s ar e rarely , i f ever , refine d solel y fromsyntheti c crude

. Rather , whe nsyntheti c crud e i s used , i t generall y comprise s arelativel y smal l fractio n (e.g. , 10-1 5 percent ) o f th e tota l crud e whic hi s refine dint o moto r vehicl e fuel

. Moreover , th e industr y claim s tha t

suc hfuels , onc e refined , ar e no t significantl y differen t

from conventiona l fuels : The y ar e no t labele d differentl y o r

store dseparatel y from fuel s derive dwholl y fromconventiona l crud e sources
. I n fact , the y ar e commonl y distribute db y wa y o f th e conventiona l fue l pipelin e system

. Downstrea mpartie s ma y therefor e bu y an dsell , additize , an dotherwis e handl e fuel s wit hsom e syntheti c derivation , withou t eve nknowin g whe no r i f thi s i s th e case
. Th e F/F A registratio n progra mcover s onl y designate dmoto r

vehicl e fuel s an d thei r associate dadditives

. I t doe s no t requir e th e registratio n o f crud e feedstock s fro mwhic hthes e F/FA s ar e made

. Thus , i n th e cas e o f conventiona l fuels , i t i s no t th e entit y whic htake s crud e oi l fromth e groun dwh o i s responsibl e fo r

fue l registration ; rather , i t i s th e entit y whic hrefine s finished fue l fro mcrud e oi l wh o i s require dt o hav e tha t

fue l registere dprio r

t o placin g i t i ncommerce. 7 Similarly , synfue l

. . registratio ni s no t

th e responsibilit y o f partie s wh o min e (o r

otherwis e obtain ) asyntheti c crud e sourc e an dsubjec t i t t o upgradin g an dpurificatio nprocesse s

7 O f course , thi s distinctio ni s moo t if th e tw o activitie s ar e accomplishe db y th e sam e busines s entity

. prio r t o actua l fue l refining

. Onl y afte r th e syntheti c crud e i s refine d(alon e o r a s par t o f asynthetic/conventiona l crud e mixture ) i s th e produc t subjec t t o registration

. Clearly , th e responsibilit y fo r registerin g synfue l fall s t o thos e busines s entitie s (usuall y fue l refiners ) whic har e th e first

partie s alon g thei r respective productio nchain s t o introduc e int o commerc e adesignate d moto r vehicl e fue l derive di n whol e o r i n par t fro manonconventiona l source , an dconformin g t o standar d specification s fo r

th e designate dfuel

. Thes e manufacturer s ar e responsibl e fo r testin g th e synfue l product s the y hav e ha dregistered. Thu s i t i s incumben t

o n thes e manufacturer s t o tak e step s t o determin e i f

an y o f th e material s fro m whic hthe y produc e designate dfuel s ar e o f syntheti c origin

. Unde r th e curren t groupin g provisions , thos e wh o manufactur e synfue l derive dfromth e sam e non-conventiona l sourc e ar e abl e t o for mtestin g group s withi n th e applicabl e (gasolin e o r diesel ) non
baselin e categories

. B. Proposed

Changes I nth e even t

tha t suc hsynfue l group s ar e formed , th e curren t regulation s d o no t contai n adequat e guideline s fo r choosin g synfue l grou p representatives

. T o facilitat e detectio no f difference s betwee nasyntheti c fue l an dth e respectiv e conventiona l fuel , EP A propose s that , fo r

an y synfue l group , th e representativ e shoul db e afue l derive d totall y fromth e relevan t syntheti c source
. If

productio no f

auseabl e 10 0 percen t synfue l i s impractical , the nth e grou p representativ e coul db e afue l reflecting th e highes t

percentag e o f syncrud e feedstoc k

tha t i s practicalan d suitabl e fo r

operatin g 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 representative coul db e specifie d a s afue l reflectin g th e highes t percentag e o f

syntheti c crud e whic hi s actuall y inpu t

t o an y membe r

refinery' s crud e distillatio n unit(s)

. Th e tes t fue l woul dotherwis e b e require dt o confor m t o th e additizatio nrequirement s an d an y othe r

relevant bas e fuel

. specification s i n § 79.55

. Comment s o n thes e proposal s fo r

selectin g synfue l

• grou p representative s ar e requested

. EP A als o request s comment s o n som e potentia l change s t o th e synfue l groupin g rule s themselves

. First , EP A ' propose s t o delet e th e phras e "..o r process " fro m§ § 79.56(e)(4)(ii)(A)(3 j an d{ii)(B)(3) o f

th e registratio n regulations

. Th e inclusio ni n thes e section s o f

non-conventiona l processes i nadditio n t o non-conventiona l source sP.1 7

3654 0 Federa l Registe r/ Vol

. 61 , No

. 13 4 / Thursday , Jul y 11 , 199 6 / Propose dRule s

a s delineater s o f

non-conventiona l fuel s i s potentiall y misleading

. Fo r example , th e current'languag e ca n b e interprete d a s meanin g tha t

heavy , bu t

otherwis e conventiona l crud e feedstock s shoul d b e considere dnon-conventiona l (an d therefor e non-baseline ) becaus e the y nee dsligh t

modificatio nprio r

t o sal e an dtransport

. Th e propose dchange s a t § § 79.56(e)(3)(I)(B ) an d(3)(ii)(B ) t o delet e th e phase s "heav y oi l deposits " woul dnarro w thes e provision s s o tha t the y focu s o nfuel s o f

greate r concer n t o EPA , i.e. , fuel s derive dfromnon
conventiona l sources , no t from mechanica l o r

chemica l productio n processe s o notherwis e conventiona l feedstocks

. Comment s ar e requeste do n thi s propose drevision. I ndevelopin g th e curren t regulations , EP A sough 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 the y wer e hkel y t o contai nunknow n contaminant s an drelativel y hig hlevel s o f trac e o r backgroun delements

. However , limite dpublishe dinformatio n an dothe r

dat areceive dfromth e industr y sugges t

that , afte r

processing , som e mine dsyncrud e feedstock s ma y no t b e significantl y differen t frommor e conventiona l crudes

. Becaus e the y mus t

b e compatibl e wit h conventiona l Tefiner y processe s an d mus t b e fungibl e wit hconventiona l fuels , syntheti c crude s ar e reportedl y subjecte dt o extensiv e upgradin g t o remove heav y residua l oil s ("tan k bottoms") , sulfur , inorgani c elements , organo-metalli c compounds , an dclay s prio r t o shippin g t o refineries

. I n preparin g it s produc t

fo r sale , th e syncrud e manufacture r typicall y subject s th e mine dmateria l t o de-saltin g an dcokin g processe s (t o remove meta l contaminants ) an datmospheri c an d vacuu mdistillation s (t o remov e tan k bottom s an dasphalti c residues)

. Limite dproduc t

assa y result s provide d t o EP A (docke t

ite mVI-D-02 ) indicat e tha t syncrud e feedstock s ma y b e lowe r tha ntypica l petroleu mcrude s i n vanadium , nickel , an diron

. Th e industr y monitor s thes e characteristic s becaus e severa l catalyti c refiner y processe s ar e intoleran t o f metalli c contaminants

. Fo r thes e reasons , EP A i s considerin g option s tha t

woul dfurthe r

eas e or , possibly , remov e som e o f th e curren t provision s whic hdistinguis hsom e fuel s derive dfro msyntheti c source s fro m conventiona l petroleu mfuels

. Substantiv e comment s an dadditiona l dat aar e neede dt o hel p EP A decid e whethe r an y o f thes e additiona l option s shoul db e adopte dand , i f so , t o whic h crud e source s the y shoul dappl y (i.e. , som e o r al l mine dcrud 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 n unde r consideratio n woul dpermi t asynfue l manufacture r

(o r group ) t o submi t

th e result s o f

athoroug hchemica l analysi s o f th e ra w synfue l i nconjunctio nwit h th 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 dwit hth e bas e fue l fo r th e respectiv e fue l family

. Th e dat awoul d nee dt o includ e sufficien t number s o f fue l sample s t o b e viewed , a s avali d samplin g o f

th e rang e o f

th e particula r crud e feedstoc k

and , likewise , woul d nee dt o cove r

abroa drang e o f measurabl e feedstoc k

characteristics

. Base do nth e specia l Tier

. 1 analysis , EP A woul ddetermine , o n acase-by-cas e basis , whethe r

th e synfue l i nquestio n shoul db e permitte dt 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 dcontinu e t o b e categorize da s non-baseline

. Anothe r possibilit y unde r consideratio n woul dsimpl y delet e som e o r al l syntheti c crud e source s fromth e lis t o f non-conventiona l sources
. Thi s woul dmea ntha t

fuel s fro mthes e feedstock s woul db e classifie da s baselin e products

. Thi s choic e woul d recogniz e tha t

i t i s i nth e vita l interes t o f th e fuel s industr y t o continu e t o monito r th e qualit y o f

th e synfuel s tha t "ar e transporte di n th e existin g pipelin e systems

. Th e demand s o f fungibilit y woul dthu s b e assume dt o maintai n th e qualit y an dsimilarit y o f syncrud e product s o napa r

wit htha t

o f mor e conventiona l F/FAs

. Comment s ar e requeste do n thes 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 asupportin g thes e alternativ e provisions , EP A ma y b e mor e persuade dtha t

it s origina l concern s abou t

synfue l compositio n ma y hav e bee nexaggerated

. Comment s ar e als o requeste do nwhethe r shale

derive dsynfuel s shoul dcontinu e t o b e categorize da s non-baseline , eve ni f fuel s fromothe r

mine dsource s (coal , ta r sands ) ar e re-categorize da s baseline

. C. Other Alternatives Unde r adifferen t

approach , th e groupin g system' s curren t definitio n o f syntheti c fuel s woul db e retained, bu t a particula r

manufacturer' s synfue l produc t woul db e categorize da s baselin e o r

non-baselin e dependin g o n th e proportio n o f

syntheti c crud e represente di n th e finishedproduct

. A s mentione dearlier , th e curren t F/F A regulation s d o no t

establis haminimu m amoun t o f syntheti c crud e feedstoc k whic hcause s afue l t o b e categorize da s non-baseline

. Give n th e variabilit y i n syncrud e proportio n an dth e apparen t fungibilit y o f

man y synfue l product s wit hconventiona l fuels , suc ha minimu mwoul dappea r t o b e appropriate

. Unde r

thi s approach , fo r example , EP A coul dspecif y tha t a synfue l produc t

wil l b e considere dnon
baselin e onl y i f

mor e tha n1 5 percen t

b y volum e o f

th e crud e uni t

charg e (i.e. , th e inpu t t o arefinery's crud e distillatio n unit(s) ) i s compose do f syntheti c crud e or
. mixe dsynthetic-conventiona l crud e feedstock. 8 Th e choic e o f 1 5 percen t

a s th e cutof f volum e woul dmea n tha t mos t o f th e synfuel s produce dtoda y woul d b e classifie da s baseline

. Sinc e thei r manufacturer s coul dthu s joi nth e respectiv e baselin e group(s) , i t i s likel y tha t som e type s o f

synfue l woul dno t routinel y underg o testing. 9 I n practice , an y cutof f poin t adopte di nth e regulation s woul dprobabl y functio na s aca p o nth e syncrud e proportio n use d b y synfue l manufacturers

. A s avariatio n o nthi s approach , differen t baseline/non-baselin e cutof f point s coul db e establishe dfo r differen t kind s o f synfuels

. Unde r

thi s variation , fuel s containin g mor e tha n1 5 percen t conten t derive dfro mmine dsource s (e.g. , coal , shale , an dta r sands ) woul d b e considere dnon-baseline , whil e fuel s containin g mor e tha n 2 percen t conten t • derive dfromothe r

petrochemica l source s (e.g. , use dmoto r oils , recovere d chemica l spills , recycle dplastics , an d industria l wast e streams ) woul db e considere dnon-baseline

. Othe r cutof f pomt s migh t

als o b e appropriate

. EP A requests commen t a s t o th e appropriatenes s o f

usin g 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 determinin g whethe r afue l belong s i nanon-baselin e group
. Comment s ar e als o requestedo n th e alternativ e approac ho f settin g 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 n th e one s discusse dabove , wit hsuppor t

an djustificatio n fo r

suc h• suggestions , ar e welcome

. I naddition , EP A requests informatio no n th e amoun t o f syncrud e typicall y representedi n synfuel s a s the y leav e th e refinery , a s wel l a s th e usua l maximu m amoun t o f syncrud e use di n suc hfuel s today

. Informatio ni s als o sough t o n an y difference s i nthes e formulatio n
8 Thi s statemen t

assume s ther e ar e n o othe r condition s (e.g. , hig hoxyge n content ) that woul d caus e th e fue

l t o b e non-baseline

. ' However , unde r

th e Tie r 3 provision s of

th o F / F A registratio n regulations , EP A coul dstil l requir e an y emissio n speciation and/o r healtheffects testin g it deem s necessary if

, a t some futur

e time , EP A finds that

asynfue l o r

othe r F/F A i s no t wel l represente dby th e tes t

fue l designate dto represen t it s F/F A group
.P.1 8

Federa l Registe r/

Vol

. 61 , No

. 13 4 / Thursday , Jul y 11 , 199 6 / Propose dRule s 3654 1 practice s whic hma y occu r a s afunctio n o f th e typ e o f

syncrud e i nquestion

. VII . D e Minimi s Provision s A. Background I nth e NPR M publishe dApri l 15 , 1992 , EP A raise dth e possibilit y o f settin g de minimis level s for som e atypica l F/FAs, 1 0 i.e. , maximu m concentration s o r

emissio nrate s fo r atypica l element s belo w whic hth e manufacturer s o f

F/FA s containin g suc h element s woul db e excuse dfromsom e o r al l o f th e testin g requirement s for th e product

. EP A recognize dtha t th e extr a emissio ntestin g requirement s propose d fo r atypica l F/FA s an dth e relativel y scarc e groupin g opportunitie s amon g suc hproduct s coul dsubjec t

. manufacturer s o f

atypica l F/FA s t o considerabl y highe r

registratio n cost s tha notiie r

manufacturers

. De minimis provision s wer e discusse da s apossibl e wa y t o reduc e thes e burden s whe n atypica l F/FA s coul dreasonabl y b e anticipate dt o hav e n o advers e effect s o n th e publi c healt ho r

th e environmen t (i.e. , havin g n o incrementa l effect s relative t o th e effect s o f th e associate d bas e fuel)

. Th e propose dde minimis provisio nwoul db e limite dt o specifi c atypica l element s whic hwer e generall y regarde da s no t

producin g over t toxicologica l effect s whe n inhale dand wer e presen t

i n th e produc t

an dit s emission s i nver y lo w quantities

. - Whe nth e F/F A tes t

rul e wa s promulgate di nMa y 1994 , however , thes e specia l de minimis provision s wer e no t finalized

. EP A note dtha t ver y littl e speciate dchernica l compoun d informatio nwa s availabl e o natypica l F / FA s o r thei r emissio n products , from whic hpossibl e atypica l F/F A candidate s an dde minimis level s coul d b e identified

. Likewise , littl e dat a existe dregarding th e potentia l toxicities , exposures , o r healt hrisks associate dwit hatypica l F/FA s o r thei r emissions

. Finally , ther e wa s aconcer n that , i npromulgatin g de minimis level s fo r atypica l elements , EPA' s action s woul db e misinterprete da s settin g "safe " level s fo r

exposur e t o variou s atypica l compound s when , i n fact , ver y fe w applicable , reliable healt han d safet y exposur e standard s exis t fo r an y o f th e substance s o f

concern
. However , th e practica l effec t o f no t promulgatin g de minimis, level s fo r som e atypica l F/FA s ha s bee nt o subjec t al l atypica l F/FA s t o th e sam e leve l o f scrutiny , eve nthoug hth e overal l leve l o f concer n abou t

thei r potentia l healt h effect s ma y b e markedl y different

. Thus , unde r th e existin g regulations, manufacturer s o f

F/FA s containin g suc h unlik e element s as , say , mercur y an d sodiu meac hhav e t o compl y wit hth e sam e detaile demission s characterizatio nan dhealt heffect s testin g requirement s unde r th e sam e se t o f conservativ e assumptions

. I n a nattemp t

t o improv e thi s outcome , EP A i s thu s agai nproposin g a de minimis provision

. Thi s propose d provision , describe di nth e nex t section , differ s somewha t

fro mth e previou s de minimis proposal ; however , i t doe s no t solv e al l o f

th e origina l objections

. Reliabl e quantitativ e dat ao nth e toxicit y o f mos t atypica l F/FA s an dthei r emissio nproduct s i s stil l lacking

. Nevertheless , th e proposa l describe d belo w i s conservativ e i napproac han d applicability , an dEP A believe s i t t o b e areasonabl e an dpruden 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 do nth e anticipate dhealt heffect s an dexposure s associate dwit hsubstance s which , i n fact , var y greatl y i n chemica l compositio nan drat e o f usage
. EP A wishe s t o emphasiz e onc e agai n that , i n proposin g d e minimi s provision s fo r

certai n atypica l F/FAs , th e Agenc y i s not

settin g asafet y leve l fo r thes e F/FA s o r

thei r emission s tha t i s meaningfu l o r

vali doutsid e aver y limite dcontext

. Th e proposa l recognize s tha t

arelatively lowe r

leve l o f overal l health-relate dconcer nexist s fo r som e o f th e atypica l element s use d i nF/FAs , especiall y unde r limite d exposur e condition s a t ver y lo w concentrations.' ' Th e relativel y lo w productio nvolume s o f mos t atypica l F / FA s mean s tha t

th e populatio na t

larg e woul dpotentiall y b e expose dt o exceedingl y smal l amount s o f th e element s fo r

whic hEP A i s proposin g t o se t de minimis levels , particularl y afte r
. the y underg o combustio n i n moto r vehicl e engine s an dth e emission s ar e dilute di nair

. I ncombination , thes e factor s mak e i t

extremel y unlikel y tha t ., c th e propose dde minimis provision s

,0 I n th e gasolin e an ddiese l fue l families , an atypica l F/FA i s on e whic hcontain s on e o r more element s othe r tha ncarbon , hydrogen , oxygen , nitrogen , and/ o r sulfur

. 1 ' However , recen t studie s sugges t

that pulmonary injur y ma y b e cause dby inhalatio n exposur e t o substance s generall y regarde da s biologicall y inactive , if

th e exposure t o suc hsubstance s i s i n th e for mof "ultrafine " particle s (les s tha n 20nm)

. See , fo r example , Oberdorster , G. , et al. , "Rol e o

f th e Alveola r Macrophag e i n Lung Injury : Studie s with Ultrafin e Particles, " Environmental Health Perspectives, 97:193-199,1992

. Whil e testin g t o detec t th e potential occurrenc e of ultrafin e particle s o f atypica l element s in F/F

A combustio n emission s i s outsid e th e scop e o

f Tier s 1 an d2 , suc htestin g coul db e require dunde r

Tier 3 i f deeme dnecessar

y b y EPA

. EPA' s authority t o requir e suc htestin g woul dno t b e affectedby any de minimis provisio n fo r whic hafuel o r

additiv e might

otherwis e qualify

. coul dresul t i n advers e publi c healt ho r welfar e outcomes

. Nevertheless , shoul d suc hconcern s aris e i nth e future , th e propose dde minimis provision s woul d i n n o wa y limi t

EPA' s flexibilit y unde r it s Tie r 3 testin g authorit y t o require additiona l emissio n characterizatio n and/o r toxicologi c testin g o f

an y affecte dF/FA , an dt o tak e an y follow

u p regulator y actio n warrante db y th e results

. B. Proposed

Provisions 1

. Selectio n o f

Element s A numbe r

o f atypica l element s ar e reporte db y thei r

manufacturer s t o b e component s o f

on e o r mor e F/FA s occurrin g o nEPA' s F/F A registration database. I 2 EP A i s toda y proposin g de minimis provision s applicabl e t o th e followin g nin e atypica l elements : Aluminu m(Al ) Boro n(B ) Calciu m(Ca ) Sodiu m(Na ) " Zin c (Zn ) Magnesium

. (Mg ) Phosphoru s (P ) Potassiu m(K) Iro n(Fe ) Thes e nin e element s wer e selecte db y evaluatin g anumbe r

o f factors

. First , an y elemen t

(alone'o r

i ncompoun d form ) know no r

believe dt o hav e significan t

inhalation-relate dhealt h effect s o r t o b e aprecurso r

t o emissio n specie s o f

particula r

concer nwa s eliminate da s acandidat e fo r th e de •minimis provision

. Fo r example , element s i n th e haloge n famil y wer e eliminate dbecaus e o f

thei r occurrenc e i ntoxi c chemica l specie s (e.g. , halogenate dmethan e compounds ) and / o r thei r potentia l rol e i n formin g dioxi n an ddioxin-lik e compounds

. Othe r example s includ e manganese , mercury , tin , an dlead , whic hwer e eliminate d fromconsideratio nbecaus e o f thei r neurologi c effects , an dcobalt , platinum , silicon , an dantimony , whic hwer e eliminate dbecaus e o f

concern s abou t their'potentia l respirator y effect s i n -som e chemica l forms. ' EP A als o examine dan y existin g exposur e assessmen t

value s whic hma y exis t fo r th e atypica l element s (o r compound s containin g them) , includin g industria l exposur e guideline s suc ha s Threshol dLimi t

Valu e (TLV) , Permissibl e Exposur e Limi t (PEL) ,

l2 Thes e element s occur

o n EPA' s F/FA registratio n databas e a s constituent s of some diese l F/FAs , or in aftermarket

gasolin e additive s whic h were "grandfathered " whe n restriction s o n suc h atypical element s were implemented

. Thes e "grandfathering " provision s wer e previousl y reviewe di n th e NPR

M an dReopenin g Notice s fo r th e F/F A Registratio n rulemakin g (se e 5 7 F R1316 8 an d5 9 F R8886)

.P.1 9



### 3654 2 Federa l Registe r/ Vol

. 61 , No

. 13 4 / Thursday , Jul y 11 , 199 6 / Propose dRule s
Recommende dExposur e Limi t (REL) , an dHealt hEffect s Assessmen t Summar y Tabl e (HEAST ) values

. Recognizin g tha t

non e o f thes e value s i s specificall y intende dfo r us e i n estimatin g th e toxi c potentia l o f long

ter mcontinuou s exposure s t o th e genera l population , EP A looke da t the m onl y a s general , relativ e indicator s o f potentia l toxicity , t o b e viewe di n conjunctio nwid i eac hothe r an dsubjec t t o conservatively-applie dscientifi c judgment

. I nthi s way , EP A divide dth e atypica l element s int o tw o groups
. Fo r on e group , containin g th e nin e element s liste dabove , i t

appeare dtha 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 raisin g appreciabl e concerns
. Fo r

al l th e remainin g atypica l elements , specifi c pubh 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 dtha t health-relate d concern s ma y aris e a t

exposur e level s considerabl y lowe r

tha n0. 1 mg/m 3

. EP A decide dtha t

de minimis provision s woul dtherefor e no t

b e propose dt o appl y t o an y o f

th e element s i ndi e latte r group
. EP A requests comment s o nth e appropriatenes s o f

establishin g ade minimis provisio n fo r

atypica l F/FAs , give nth e acknowledge dlac k o f reliabl e quantitativ e toxicit y dat afo r mos t o f th e substance s concerned

. Specifi c comment s ar e als o requeste do nth e approac hdescribe dabov e fo r differentiatin g betwee nhigh

- an dlow

conce matypica l elements , an do nth e nin e element s propose da s candidate s fo r th e potentia l de minimis provision

. Shoul dsom e o f

thes e nin e element s b e delete dfromth e list ? 2

. ti e minimis Leve l Th e de minimis provisio n coul d theoreticall y b e structure dt o appl y eithe r t o (1 ) th e amoun t

o f a natypica l elemen t i nth e "raw " stat e (i.e. , i nth e uncombuste dfuel/additiv e mixture) , o r (2 ) th e amoun t

occurrin g i nth e combustio nemissions

. Whil e th e emission s approac hmigh t appea r t o provid e amor e direc t

measuremen t

o f th e substance s o f

concern , EP A believe s that , i nthi s instance , th e raw mixtur e approac hprovide s asimple r an d ultimatel y mor e effectiv e mechanis mfo r manufacturer s t o appl y an dfo r EP A t o evaluat e an denforce

. Basin g th e de minimis provisio no nth e concentratio n o f atypica l element s i nth e ra w stat e avoids anumbe r

o f complicate dissue s tha t woul daris e i f

th e provisio nwer e base do nmeasuremen t o f atypica l element s i nth e emissions , e.g. : (1 ) Ho w muc haccumulate dmileag e woul db e require dbefor e generating , sampling , an danalyzin g di e emission s fo r possibl e de minimis qualification ; (2 ) ho w man y sample s woul db e needed ; (3 ) onc e sampled , wha t

kind s o f emission s analyse s woul db e required; (4 ) ho w accurat e an dsensitiv e woul ddi e detectio nequipmen t

hav e t o be ; an d(5 ) ho w EP A coul defficientl y confir mth e results ? A s discusse dabove , fo r th e grou p o f nin e candidat e elements , i t appear s tha t ambien t ai r concentration s o f

a t leas t 0. 1 mg/m 3 (10 0 ug/m 3 ) coul doccu r fo r limite dexposure s withou t raisin g significan t

concerns
. Th e concentratio n o f aparticula r

elementa l constituen t

o f afuel/additiv e mixtur e which , afte r combustio n i na n engine , woul dyiel da give nconcentratio no f

th e elemen t

i nai r depend s o nanumbe r

o f factor s an d relationships , e.g. , di e chemica l characteristic s o f

th e elemen t

an dit s hos t compound(s) , th e natur e o f th e bas e fuel , engin e type , an ddrivin g cycl e involved , th e scal e an dcomplexit y o f th e ambien t

environment , etc

. Thus , correspondin g fue l an dai r concentration s canno t

b e calculate d wid i precision

. However , base do na serie s o f approximation s an d conservativ e assumptions , EP A estimate s tha t

aconcentratio no f

2 5 part s pe r millio n (ppm ) o f

atypica l element(s ) i n abas e fue l (i.e. , 0.002 5 percen t by weight) , 3 shoul dgenerall y yiel daconcentratio n i nai r o f les s tha n 0. 1 mg/m 3
, eve n unde r th e theoretical

. assumptio ndia l th e characteristic s o f th e ambien t

ai r ar e adirec t

functio n o f th e combustio n emission s o f asingle

. vehicl e operatin g o n th e atypica l F/F A mixture. 1 4 Thus , EP A i s toda y proposin g ad e minimi s provisio nbase do naqualifyin g leve l o f 2 5 pp mi n bas e fuel , disregardin g trac e amount s o f thes e element s whic hma y exis t i n th e unadditize dbas e fuel

. Specifically , i f a n atypica l additiv e contain s n o atypica l element s othe r

tha n Al , B , Ca , Fe , Mg , P , K , Na , and/o r

Zn , an di f

th e tota l o f thes e element s adde dt o bas e fue l doe s no t excee d2 5 pp mb y weigh t when , the

edditiv e i s mixe dint o th e applicabl e bas e fue l a t

th e highes t

treatmen t

rat e recommende db y th e additiv e manufacturer , the n th e additiv e (an dF / F A mixture ) woul dqualif y fo r th e d e - minimi s provision

. Comment s o nthi s genera l approac han do nth e propose d d e minimi s leve l ar e requested

. Th e

l3 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 ma y b e bound

. "Specifically , th e ver

y conservativ e assumptio n i s mad e tha

t th e ambien t

ai r consist s o

f fully

passed-throug hemission s o f th e atypica l element(s ) dilute dby afacto

r o f 1 t o 2,000

. specia l allowance s fo r whic hsuc hF / FA s woul dqualif

y ar e describe di n th e nex t section

. 3

. Allowance s fo r

Qualifyin g F/FA s
. EP A propose s tha t

manufacturer s o f atypica l F/FA s whic hqualif y fo r th e d e minimi s provision , unde r th e criteri a specifie dabove , woul db e excuse dfro m th e testin g requirerhent s include di n Tie r 2 ( § 79.53)

. Thi s i s th e sam e allowanc e provide db y th e existin g regulatio n( § 79.58(d)(3) ) fo r atypica l F / FA s produce db y smal l manufacturer s (i.e. , thos e wit hles s tha n$1 0 millio n i n annua l revenue). Th e d e minimi s provisio n woul dno t

excus e manufacturer s fro mth e Tie r 1 emissio n characterizatio nrequirements tha t pertai nspecificall y t o atypica l F/FAs , i.e. , di e identificatio n an dmeasuremen t o f individua l emissio n product s containin g th e atypica l element s ( § 79.52(b)(2)(iv ) and , i f applicable , . § 79.52(b)(3)(iv))

. Notwithstandin g th e d e minimi s provisio nno r an y othe r specia l provision s fo r

whic haF/F A ma y qualify , th e provision s o f Tie r 3 permi t EP A t o requir e an y additiona l testin g a t it s discretion , includin g testin g whic hmigh t

hav e bee n required i nth e absenc e o f

th e specia l provision

. Comment s o nthi s proposa l t o excus e qualifyin g F/FA s fromTie r 2 requirements ar e requested

. Se e di e propose dregulator y languag e a t § 79.58(f)

. Comment s ar e als o requested o nth e scop e an dspecifi c detail s o f th e propose dd e minimi s provisio n i n general

. An y suggestion s fo r easin g th e provisio n (i.e. , addin g element s o r increasin g th e d e minimi s level ) shoul d b e accompanie db y dat at o justif y suc h achange

. Thi s proposa l i s deliberatel y base do n conservativ e assumption s and , EP A request s tha t

commenter s provid e soli dsupportin g dat at o justif y an y suggeste dchange s whic hwoul dwide n th e applicabilit y o f

th e propose d, provision

. EP A i s unlikel y t o adop t an y suc hsuggestion s fromcommenter s withou t suc hdata

. VIII . Mino rChange s t o di e Testin g Requiremen tfo rRegistratio n Mino r change s t o th e testin g requirement s ar e proposed.'I n tile final rule s sectio n o f

thi s Federa l Register , thes e change s ar e bein g promulgate da s adirec t fina l ml e withou t

prio r proposal , becaus e the y ar e viewe da s noncontroversia l an dn o advers e comment s ar e anticipated

. A detaile d rational e fo r

thes e propose dchange s i s se t fort hi nth e direc t

final mle

. I f

a n advers e commen t

o nreques t

fo r hearin g i s no t receive di n response t o th e direc t final mle , n o furthe r

activit y i s contemplate di nrelatio n t o thi sP.2 0

Federa l Registe r

/ Vol

. 61 , No

. 13 4 / Thursday , Jul y 11 , 199 6 / Propose dRule s 3654 3

propose drule

. If

a nadvers e commen t

o r hearin g reques t

i s received, th e portio n o f di e direc t

final ml e a t

issu e wil l b e witiidraw n an dal l publi c comment s receivedwil l b e addresse di n a subsequen t

final rul e base do nthi s propose drule

. EP A wil l no t institut e a secon dcommen t

perio do nthes e mino r changes

. An y partie s intereste di n commentin g shoul dd o s o a t thi s time

. IX

. Tie r 1 Exposur e Analysi s

. Sectio n79.52(c ) require s a manufacturer , usin g annua l an d projecte dproductio n volume , marketing , an ddistributio n dat a (alread y requiredt o submitte da s a conditio n fo r

registration), t o provid e a qualitativ e discussio n o f th e potentia l publi c healt hexposure s t o th e emissio n product s o f

it s fuel s and/o r

additives

. Upo nreview , EP A ha s conclude dtha t thi s qualitativ e discussio nwil l ad dlittl e relevant informatio nbeyon dth e registratio ndata

. Therefore , i t i s propose dt o delet e § 79.52(c ) an d modif y introductor y paragrap h79.52(a ) accordingly

. X

. Environmenta l an dEconomi c Impact s Th e environmenta l impact s o f today' s actio nar e minimal , a s discusse dabove

. Additionally , economi c impact s ar e beneficia l t o affecte dmanufacturer s du e t o th e additiona l flexibilit y afforde di n today' s notice

. Minima l anti

competitiv e effect s ar e expected

. A regulatory suppor t

documen t

whic h present s EPA' s analysi s o f th e cos t impact s o f

th e Ma y 199 4 rul e i s ayailabl e i nPubh c Docke t A--90-0 7 locate da t

Roo mM-1500 , Watersid e Mal l (groun dfloor) , U.S

. Environmenta l Protectio nAgency , 40 1 M St

. S.W. , Washington , D.C

. 20460

. XI

. Regulator y Flexibilit y Analysi s EP A ha s determine dtha t i t i s no t necessar y t o prepar e aregulator y flexibilit y analysi s i nconnectio nwit h thi s rule

. Thi s ml e wil l reduc e regulator y burden s o nsmal l businesse s b y reducing o r

eliminatin g th e reporting an dtestin g requirerrients fo r man y smal l businesses

. EP A ha s determine dthat l thi s ml e wil l no t

hav e asignifican t advers e economi c impac t o na substantia l numbe r

o f smal l businesses

. XII

. Administrativ e Designatio n Pursuan t t o Executiv e Orde r

1286 6 (5 8 F R5173 5 [Octobe r

4,1993]) , th e Agenc y mus t

determin e whethe r

a regulatory actio ni s "significant " an d therefor e subjec t

t o OM B revie w an dth e requirements o f

th e executiv e order

. Th e orde r define s "significan t

regulatory action s a s on e tha t i s likel y t o result

i n arul e tha t

may : (1 ) Hav e a nannua l effec t o n th e econom y o f

$10 0 millio n o r

mor e o r adversel y affec t

i namateria l wa y th e economy , asecto r

o f th e economy , productivity , competition , jobs , th e environment , pubh c healt ho r safety , o r State , loca l o r

triba l government s o r communities ; (2 ) Creat e aseriou s inconsistenc y o r otherwis e interfer e wit ha nactio n take n o r planne db y anothe r

agericy ; (3 ) Materiall y alte r

th e budgetar y impac t o f entitlement , grants , use r fees , o r loa n program s o r

th e right s an d obligation s o f

recipients thereof ; o r (4 ) Rais e nove l lega l o r polic y issue s arisin g 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 ndetermine d tha t thi s notic e i s proposa l rulemakin g i s no t a"significan t

regulator y action"

. 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 h thes e regulation s appl y an dwil l reduce th e requirement s an dcost s o f othe r partie s subjec t

t o th e regulations

. XIII

. Paperwor k

Reductio n Ac t Th e Paperwor k

Reductio n Ac t

o f 1980 , 4 4 U.S.C

. 350 1 et seq., an d implementin g regulations , 5 CF RPar t 1320 , d o no t

appl y t o thi s actio n a s i t doe s no t involv e th e collectio no f informatio n a s define dtherein

. XIV

. Unfunde dMandate s Ac t Unde r sectio n20 2 o f

th e Unfunde d Mandate s Refor mAc t

o f 199 5 ("Unfunde dMandate s Act") , signe d int o la w o nMarc h22,1995 , EP A mus t prepar e abudgetar y impac t statemen t

t o accompan y an y propose do r fina l rul e tha t include s aFedera l mandat e tha t ma y resul t

i nexpenditur e b y State , local , an dtriba l governments , i nth e aggregate ; b r

b y th e privat e sector , o f " • $10 0 millio n o r

more
. Unde r

Sectio n 205 , EP A mus t

selec t th e mos t

cost

effectiv e an dleas t

burdensom e alternative , tha t

achieve s th e objective s o f th e rul e an di s consisten t wit h statutor y requireriients

. Sectio n 20 3 requires EPA't o establis hapla nfo r informin g an dadvisin g an y smal l government s tha t

ma y b e significantl y o r uniquel y impacte db y th e rule

. EP A ha s determine dtha t th e actio n promulgate dtoda y doe s no t includ e a federa l mandat e tha t

ma y resul t

i n estimate dcost s o f

$10 0 millio no r

mor e t o eithe r State , local , o r

triba l government s i n th e aggregate , o r t o th e privat e sector

. Thi s propose dactio n doe s no t establis hregulator y requirement s tha t

ma y significantl y o r uniquel y affec t smal l governments

. I n fact , thi s propose dactio n ha s th e ne t effec t o f reducing th e burde n o f th e fue l an dfue l additiv e registration progra m o n regulatedentities

. Therefore , th e requirement s o f

th e Unfunde dMandate s Ac t d o no t appl y t o thi s action

. XV

. Statutor y Authorit y Th e statutor y authorit y fo r thi s propose drul e i s provide db y section s 20 5 (b ) an d(c) , 211 , an d301(a ) o f th e Clea nAi r

Ac t a s amende d(4 2 U.S.C

. 752 4 (b ) an d(c) , 7545 , an d7601(a) , Publi c La w 95-95)

. Lis t o f Subject s i n 4 0 CF RPar t 7 9 Environmenta l protection , Fuel , Fue l additive

. Gasoline , Moto r vehicl e pollution , Penalties

. Dated : Jun e 27,1996

. Caro l M

. Browner , Administrator

. (F RDoc

. 96-1755 0 File d7-10-96 ; 8:4 5 am] BILLING COO E 6S60-60- P

DEPARTMEN TO F TRANSPORTATIO N Coas t Guar d 4 6 CF R Part s 1 0 an d 1 5 [CG D 94-055 ] RIN2115-AF2 3 Licensin g an d Mannin g fo r Officer s o f Towin g Vessels ; Correction s AGENCY : Coas t Guard , DOT

. ACTION : Correction s t o notic e o f propose drulemaking

. SUMMARY

: Thi s documen t

contain s correction s t o th e notic e o f propose d rulemakin g (NPRM ) i n CGD 94-055 , publishe do n Wednesday , Jun e 19 , 1996 , a t 6 1 F R31332

. Th e rulemakin g relate s t o licensin g an dmannin g fo r officer s o f

towin g vessels

. • DATE: Thes e correction s ar e mad e o n Jul y 11,1996

. FO RFURTHE

RINFORMATIO

NCONTACT

: Lieutenan t

Commande r

Do n Darcy , Operatin g an dEnvironmenta l Standard s Division , (202 ) 267-0221

. SUPPLEMENTAR

Y INFORMATION

: Th e NPR M tha t

i s th e subjec t

o f thes e correction s propose s amajo r restructurin g o f

th e licensin g schem e fo r officer s o f

towin g vessels

. Nee dfo r Correction s A s published , th e NPR M contain s typographica l error s ari domission s tha t ma y prov e t o b e misleadin g an dtha t therefor e nee dcorrections

.