[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 215 (Thursday, November 6, 1997)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 60052-60058]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-29390]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 80

[AMS-FRL-5917-8]


Regulation of Fuels and Fuel Additives: Proposed Minor Revisions 
to Selected Recordkeeping and Enforcement Provisions Under the 
Regulation of Deposit Control Gasoline Additives

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to revise certain requirements in its program 
for the use of detergent additives in gasoline. Under the current 
regulations, information on the oxygenate content of the gasoline must 
always be included in the required product transfer documents. To avoid 
unnecessary disruption to the gasoline distribution system, EPA is 
proposing to remove this requirement. A party who wants to use a 
detergent additive that is restricted in use with respect to oxygenates 
would be responsible for determining the oxygenate content of the 
gasoline involved. This proposal would continue to ensure that 
detergents with oxygenate restrictions are used in compliance with such 
restrictions, and would avoid the unnecessary disruption to the 
gasoline distribution system which would occur under the current 
regulations. For certain transfers of base gasoline, EPA is also 
proposing to allow the use of product codes in lieu of regulatory 
warning language concerning applicable

[[Page 60053]]

limitations on the sale and use of such gasolines.
    These proposals are expected to provide industry additional 
flexibility, while ensuring the proper use of use-restricted detergents 
and base gasoline. There are no new information collection requirements 
accompanying these proposed changes. These proposals will not affect 
the air quality benefits from EPA's detergent additive program.
    In the final rules section of this Federal Register, EPA is also 
promulgating a direct final rule without prior proposal, which will 
remove the requirement addressed in this NPRM, that mandates that 
information on the oxygenate content of transferred gasoline must be 
included in the required product transfer documents. It is not expected 
that the deletion of this requirement through the direct final rule 
will be controversial or that it will elicit negative comments. No 
detergents are presently certified with restricted oxygenate-use that 
would require the knowledge of gasoline oxygenate content for proper 
use. Further, the issue of the best means of acquiring oxygenate 
information to ensure proper additization is being addressed with 
notice and an opportunity to comment within the context of this NPRM. 
However, if EPA does receive adverse comments or a request for a public 
hearing on the direct final rule, it will be withdrawn and all comments 
received on it will be addressed in the subsequent final rule to be 
based on this NPRM. EPA will not institute a second comment period on 
this NPRM if the direct final rule is withdrawn. Any parties interested 
in commenting on this issue should do so at this time.

DATES: Comments on this NPRM will be accepted until December 8, 1997. 
Additional information on the comments procedure can be found under 
``Public Participation'' in the Supplementary Information Section of 
this document.

ADDRESSES: Interested parties may submit written comments (in duplicate 
if possible) to Public Docket No. A-91-77, at the following address: 
Air Docket Section (LE-131), room M-1500, 401 M Street SW, Washington, 
DC 20460; phone (202) 260-7548; fax (202) 260-4000. The Agency also 
requests that a separate copy be sent to the contact person listed 
below. The docket is open for public inspection from 8:00 a.m. until 
5:30 p.m. Monday through Friday, except on government holidays. As 
provided in 40 CFR Part 2, a reasonable fee may be charged for copying 
docket materials.
    This NPRM is also available electronically on the day of 
publication from the Office of the Federal Register internet Web site 
listed below. A prepublication electronic copy of this notice is also 
available from the EPA Office of Mobile Sources Web site listed below. 
This service is free of charge, except for any cost that you already 
incur for internet connectivity.

Federal Register Web Site:
    http://www.epa.gov/docs/fedrgstr/EPA-AIR/
    (Either select desired date or use Search feature.)

Office of Mobile Sources Web Site:
    http://www.epa.gov/OMSWWW/
    (Look in ``What's New'' or under the specific rulemaking topic.)

    Please note that due to differences between the software used to 
develop the document and the software into which the document may be 
downloaded, changes in format, page length, etc. may occur.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Judith Lubow, U.S. EPA, Office of 
Enforcement and Compliance Assurance, Western Field Office, 12345 West 
Alameda Parkway, Suite 214, Lakewood, CO 80228; Telephone: (303) 969-
6483, FAX (303) 969-6490.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Regulated Entities
II. Introduction
III. Identification of Specific Oxygenate Content on Gasoline 
Product Transfer Documents (PTDs)
    A. Background
    B. Proposal
IV. Product Codes as Substitutes for Warning Language on Certain 
Base Gasoline PTDs
    A. Background
    B. Proposal
V. Public Participation
VI. Environmental and Economic Impacts
VII. Administrative Requirements
    A. Administrative Designation
    B. Impact on Small Entities
    C. Paperwork Reduction Act
    D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
VIII. Statutory Authority

I. Regulated Entities

    Entities potentially regulated by this action are those involved 
with the production, distribution, and sale of gasoline and gasoline 
detergent additives. Regulated categories and entities include:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                Examples of regulated   
                 Category                             entities          
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry..................................  Gasoline refiners and       
                                             importers, Gasoline        
                                             terminals, Detergent       
                                             blenders, Gasoline         
                                             truckers, Gasoline         
                                             retailers and wholesale    
                                             purchaser-consumers, and   
                                             Detergent manufacturers.   
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a 
guide for readers regarding entities likely to be regulated by this 
action. This table lists types of entities that EPA is now aware could 
potentially be regulated by this action. Other types of entities not 
listed in the table could also be regulated. To determine whether your 
organization is regulated by this action, you should carefully examine 
the applicability requirements in Sec. 80.161(a), the detergent 
certification requirements in Sec. 80.161(b), the program controls and 
prohibitions in Sec. 80.168, and other related program requirements in 
Subpart G, title 40, of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). If you 
have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a 
particular entity, consult the person listed in the preceding FOR 
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

II. Introduction

    Section 211(l) of the Clean Air Act (``CAA'') requires that, by 
January 1, 1995, all gasoline must contain detergent additives to 
prevent the accumulation of deposits in motor vehicle engines and fuel 
supply systems. This CAA section also requires EPA to promulgate 
specifications for the detergent additives. Detergent additives prevent 
the accumulation of engine and fuel supply system deposits that have 
adverse effects on vehicle emissions as well as on fuel economy and 
driveabilty.
    In response to section 211(l)'s requirements, EPA published a 
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (``NPRM'') on December 6, 1993 (59 FR 
64213) proposing a detergent additives regulatory program. The 
detergent program was finalized in two parts. Regulations for the 
interim detergent program, requiring the use of detergent additives in 
gasoline but not mandating specific detergent efficiency testing, were 
published on October 14, 1994 (59 FR 54678). Regulations for the 
detergent certification program, mandating the use of certified 
detergents with specified detergent efficiency testing, were published 
on July 5, 1996 (61 FR 35310).
    One important implementation issue that has arisen since the 
publication of the detergent certification rule concerns

[[Page 60054]]

the requirement that the product transfer documents (PTDs) for gasoline 
transfers must identify all oxygenates found in the gasoline. Members 
of the gasoline refining and distribution industry informed EPA that 
this requirement's implementation would, as an unintended consequence, 
significantly disrupt gasoline distribution.<SUP>1</SUP>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Letter to Judith Lubow, Office of Enforcement and Compliance 
Assurance (OECA), EPA, from C.J. Krambuhl, Director, Manufacturing, 
Distribution, and Marketing, American Petroleum Institute (API), 
August 14, 1996, Docket item VII-D-01.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For the reasons described below, EPA exercised its enforcement 
discretion and announced by letter to the American Petroleum Institute 
(``API'') that it would temporarily not enforce the PTD oxygenate 
identification requirement pending resolution of the issue through a 
rulemaking or until September 3, 1997, whichever occurrence came 
first.<SUP>2</SUP> The Agency reserved the right to rescind the 
exercise of this enforcement discretion if it determined that 
restricted-use detergents were actually being certified or that the PTD 
oxygenate identification requirements otherwise became appropriate. The 
Agency further advised that if violations involving the improper use of 
oxygenate-restricted detergents occurred, parties wishing to 
successfully assert an affirmative defense to liability for such 
violations might need to provide information establishing the 
appropriate oxygenate content of the gasoline in question. 
Subsequently, EPA extended this exercise of enforcement discretion 
until implementation of the direct final rule removing the PTD 
oxygenate requirement (which is associated with this NPRM), or until 
December 31, 1997, whichever occurrence came first.<SUP>3</SUP>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Letter to C.J. Krambuhl, API, from Steven A. Herman, 
Assistant Administrator, OECA, EPA, August 28, 1996, Docket item 
VII-C-01.
    \3\ Letter to C.J. Krambuhl, API, from Steven A. Herman, 
Assistant Administrator, OECA, EPA, September 4, 1997, Docket item 
VII-C-02.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A second issue about the detergent program's PTD requirements, 
concerning the use of product codes, also arose since publication of 
the certification rule. The detergent program's two PTD implementation 
issues, plus the Agency's proposed regulatory solutions to these 
issues, will be discussed below.

III. Identification of Specific Oxygenate Content on Gasoline Product 
Transfer Documents (PTDs)

A. Background

    The gasoline detergent additive program requires all regulated 
parties transferring products controlled under the program to provide 
to the transferee PTDs giving pertinent information about the products 
transferred. (40 CFR 80.158 and 80.171) The products subject to the 
detergent program PTD requirements are gasoline, detergent additives, 
and additized components, such as ethanol, which are blended into 
gasoline after the refinery process (additized post-refinery 
components, or ``PRC''). For transfers of these regulated products, the 
PTDs must identify the parties to the transfer, the product being 
transferred, and appropriate warning information about regulatory 
requirements.
    One requirement is that PTDs for transferred gasoline must identify 
all oxygenates and PRCs contained in the gasoline. Further, if the 
gasoline is comprised of commingled fuels, all oxygenates and PRCs in 
the fuels comprising the commingled product must be identified. (40 CFR 
80.158(a)(5) and 80.171(a)(5)) The purpose of this identification 
requirement is to alert the parties receiving the gasoline about the 
oxygenates and PRCs in the received product. This information would be 
useful to the recipient because, under the detergent certification 
program, parties may choose to additize gasoline with a detergent whose 
certification is restricted for use only with a specific oxygenate or 
no oxygenate, or, in the case of fuel-specific certified detergents, 
for use in gasoline without PRCs. Thus, parties choosing to use such 
restricted-use detergents must know the oxygenate or PRC 
(``oxygenate'') content of the gasoline they intend to additize with 
these detergents. The PTD oxygenate identification requirement was 
intended to provide such information for the transferred gasoline.
    In creating this identification requirement, the Agency was not 
aware that many parties did not know the specific oxygenate content of 
the gasoline they were transferring. EPA has since learned that, under 
typical industry practice prior to this requirement, parties could and 
did commingle gasolines without knowledge of what (if any) specific 
ethers (a type of oxygenate) were present. Under the interim detergent 
rule's PTD requirements, no information about the oxygenate content of 
base gasoline was required. Parties were thus typically unaware of the 
specific ether content (in type(s) and concentration) of commingled 
gasoline they received or possessed themselves. To comply with this new 
oxygenate identification requirement and to become knowledgeable about 
the ether status of their gasoline, parties would have to ascertain the 
ether content of received gasoline (which would be the imposition of a 
new practice), stop commingling gasolines with different ether 
contents, or start testing all batches to determine such content. In 
any of these scenarios, gasoline distribution as presently practiced 
would be significantly disrupted.
    It was never EPA's intention to disrupt gasoline distribution 
practices through the imposition of this PTD oxygenate identification 
requirement. Consequently, the Agency temporarily suspended enforcement 
of this PTD requirement.

B. Proposal

    EPA does not believe that the benefits from the PTD requirement of 
providing oxygenate information to those parties who might choose to 
use oxygenate-restricted certified detergents warrants the resulting 
disruption to the gasoline distribution system. Therefore, the Agency 
is now proposing a regulatory change in the detergent program which 
would eliminate the requirement that PTDs for gasoline must identify 
the oxygenates found in the transferred product. Instead, a new 
requirement would take its place, that those detergent-blending parties 
wishing to use oxygenate-restricted detergents must maintain 
documentation fully identifying the oxygenate content of the fuel into 
which the detergent was blended, as evidence that the fuel complied 
with the detergent's oxygenate use restriction.
    Under this proposal, a detergent blender could use different types 
of documentation to comply with this new requirement. Examples of such 
documentation would be PTDs or other written statements from suppliers 
fully identifying the oxygenate content of the received fuel; test 
results of oxygenate content, either of its own or from suppliers; or 
contractual agreements with suppliers establishing the oxygenate 
content of the received fuel.
    The proposed modification of the PTD requirement would not change 
the existing requirement that detergent blenders use oxygenate-
restricted detergents only in fuel which complies with the restriction. 
The new requirement would merely substitute a range of alternative 
documentation for the formerly required PTD information provided by the 
supplier, that could be used to help a party establish proper usage of 
oxygenate-restricted detergent. Therefore, adoption of this proposal 
would not impose an additional information collection requirement, but 
rather would refocus the existing requirement only on those parties who 
have need of information on gasoline oxygenate content.

[[Page 60055]]

    EPA was advised by the Independent Fuel Terminal Operators 
Association (IFTOA) of a concern about this proposed 
amendment.<SUP>4</SUP> According to IFTOA, if suppliers will no longer 
be required to identify on PTDs the oxygenate content of transferred 
gasoline, then detergent blenders wishing to use potentially less 
expensive oxygenate-restricted detergents might be forced to test each 
batch of gasoline. IFTOA believed that such testing would be necessary 
to establish compliance with the detergent's oxygenate restriction. 
According to this commenter, these tests might be prohibitively 
expensive for small detergent blenders. This party asserted it was 
inequitable to place the entire burden of establishing oxygenate 
content on the fuel's end-user.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Memorandum to the Air Docket from Judith Lubow, OECA, 
entitled, ``8/28/1996 EPA Phone Conversation with Andrea Grant of 
the Independent Fuel Terminal Operators Association'', Docket Item 
VII-E-01.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Agency believes that its proposal, as stated, is the most 
appropriate and equitable means of ensuring proper oxygenate content of 
product blended with oxygenate-restricted detergents, while limiting 
disruption to the gasoline distribution system. The Agency's proposal 
places the burden of procuring oxygenate information only on those 
parties, self-selected, who will choose to use these restricted 
detergents, not on the entire industry. In addition, although existing 
data indicates that oxygenates increase gasoline deposit forming 
tendency (severity) and that different oxygenates types might differ in 
the magnitude of their impact on fuel severity, EPA has no specific 
information on whether this will result in the use of oxygenate 
restricted detergents. Since there are many generic detergents 
available that are not oxygenate use-restricted, parties not wishing to 
meet the documentation burden by performing oxygenate testing could 
also choose to use non-oxygenate restricted detergents.
    In addition, self-performed oxygenate testing is only one of 
several ways that a detergent blender could use to comply with the 
proposed oxygenate identification requirement. Other means specifically 
approved by the proposed regulation include obtaining full information 
about oxygenate content from the gasoline supplier, and having a 
contract with the supplier which establishes the oxygenate content of 
the supplied gasoline. Use of these alternative methods would generally 
preclude the need for oxygenate testing by the detergent blender 
itself.
    For these reasons, the Agency does not believe that the proposed 
removal of the PTD oxygenate identification requirement puts an unfair 
burden on end-users of oxygenate-restricted detergents. On the 
contrary, the proposed oxygenate documentation requirement regarding 
the volumetric accounting reconciliation records (VAR) maintained by 
detergent blenders, which would only be triggered when an oxygenate-
restricted detergent is being used by the blender, seems the most 
equitable means of identifying oxygenates while ensuring proper 
additization with oxygenate-restricted detergents. However, the Agency 
is interested in receiving comments from interested parties on any 
other reasonable procedure that would equitably ensure proper oxygenate 
identification and resultant additization compliance for oxygenate-
restricted detergents, while limiting disruption to the gasoline 
distribution system.

IV. Product Codes as Substitutes for Warning Language on Certain Base 
Gasoline PTDs

A. Background

    It is common practice in the petroleum industry to use product 
codes on commercially prepared transfer documents to provide 
information about the product being transferred. Industry uses these 
product codes to save space on the transfer documents, which typically 
provide a great deal of information. The interim detergent rule did not 
address the use of product codes or other non-regulatory language as 
substitutes for required regulatory language in fulfilling PTD 
requirements. In response to industry comments, the interim program was 
amended to include a provision similar to one in the certification 
program which addresses this issue. In most instances, the requirements 
under both the certification and interim programs permit the use of 
product codes or other non-regulatory language to be substituted for 
required product identification information, provided certain accuracy 
safeguards are met, such as that the codes are clear, standardized, and 
have been explained to downstream parties. (40 CFR 80.158(c) and 
80.171(b))
    The requirements under interim and certification programs do not, 
however, permit the use of product codes or other non-regulatory 
language to be used in place of required warning language about non-
additized, base gasoline. The required warning language, found in 40 
CFR 80.158(a)(6) and 80.171(a)(6), informs the transferee in specified 
language that the base gasoline either is not for sale to the ultimate 
consumer, or is for research and development purposes only. At the time 
the certification rule was published, the Agency believed that these 
warnings were too important to be the subject of coded language 
substitutions.
    After the issuance of the final certification rule, the Agency was 
notified by Colonial Pipeline that the regulatory prohibition against 
using product codes to substitute for the base gasoline language 
warning against the sale of the product to the ultimate consumer was 
burdensome and was not necessary for transfers between upstream 
parties.<SUP>5</SUP> This commenter stated that its upstream customers 
were familiar with product code usage and would not be confused by the 
substitution of product codes for the base gasoline warning language. 
This commenter believed that providing the warning language in addition 
to providing the base gasoline product code was redundant and 
unnecessarily wasteful of needed PTD space.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Memorandum to the Air Docket from Judith Lubow, OECA, 
entitled, ``10/24/1996 and 12/2/1996 Phone Conversations with J.E. 
Brown of Colonial Pipeline'', Docket Item VII-E-02.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Proposal

    Upon consideration of this comment, the Agency now agrees that the 
prohibition against substituting a product code for the required base 
gasoline warning language is not necessary for upstream bulk transfers 
of ordinary base gasoline which is not subject to the research and 
development exemption. The Agency agrees that upstream parties, long 
accustomed to the use of product codes to identify product information, 
should find such codes satisfactory conveyors of the needed base 
gasoline information. This is especially true since gasoline is almost 
always unadditized before it reaches the truck rack terminal, so 
confusion about its status is unlikely.
    However, the Agency is still concerned that the lack of such clear 
warning language on PTDs for downstream custody transfers of 
unadditized product to truck carriers, retail outlets, or wholesale 
purchaser-consumer facilities (WPCs), might cause confusion about 
product transfers and might result in mis-use of the unadditized 
product. Agency enforcement experience has also shown that such 
downstream parties are not always knowledgeable about the meaning of 
product codes on received PTDs. Further, the Agency continues to 
believe that base gasoline being used for

[[Page 60056]]

research and development purposes, being a special category of product 
exempt from the ordinary requirements of the detergent program, must 
continue to be identified as such in clear language.
    Therefore, the Agency is today proposing that product codes and 
other non-regulatory language may be used to substitute on PTDs for the 
required base gasoline warning language, with two exceptions: (1) 
transferors must continue to provide the regulatory warning language 
against sale to the ultimate consumer on PTDs for product custody 
transfers to truck carriers, retail outlets, or WPCs; and (2) the 
warning language as to exclusive research use must continue to be 
provided on PTDs for all transfers of research base gasoline. The 
Agency believes that this proposal will lessen paperwork burdens on the 
upstream parties who would not be confused by the product codes, and 
will maintain the specific warning language requirement for downstream 
parties most in need of seeing the exact language, and for all 
transfers of base gasoline for research purposes.

V. Public Participation

    EPA seeks full public participation in arriving at its final 
decisions, and strongly encourages comments on all aspects of this 
proposal from all interested parties, including small businesses. 
Whenever applicable, full supporting data and detailed analysis should 
be submitted to allow EPA to make maximum use of the comments. All 
comments should be directed to the EPA Air Docket, Docket No. A-91-77 
(see ADDRESSES). Comments on this notice will be accepted until the 
date specified in DATES. EPA has not planned a public hearing to 
discuss the issues raised in this proposal.
    Commenters wishing to submit proprietary information for 
consideration should clearly distinguish such information from other 
comments, and clearly label it ``Confidential Business Information''. 
Submissions containing such proprietary information should be sent 
directly to the contact person listed above, and not to the public 
docket, to ensure that proprietary information is not inadvertently 
placed in the docket. Information covered by such a claim of 
confidentiality will be disclosed by EPA only to the extent allowed and 
by the procedures set forth in 40 CFR Part 2. If no claim of 
confidentiality accompanies the submission when it is received by EPA, 
it may be made available to the public without further notice to the 
commenter.

VI. Environmental and Economic Impacts

    The proposed revisions to the product transfer document (PTD) 
requirements would provide an equal degree of assurance to the current 
requirements that specially-certified detergent additives would only be 
used in gasoline stocks for which these detergents are certified for 
use. Therefore, the proposed requirements are not expected to impact 
the environmental benefits of the detergent program.
    Under the first proposal, documentation on the specific oxygenate 
content of gasolines is only required to be maintained by those parties 
who have a direct interest in such information to support their 
voluntary use of specially-certified oxygenate-restricted detergents in 
that gasoline. It would no longer be required that all regulated 
parties transferring gasoline must indicate gasoline oxygenate content 
on the PTD for the product. Adoption of this proposal would avoid the 
potentially significant disruption of the current gasoline distribution 
system which might result from the current regulatory requirement of 
PTD oxygenate identification for all transfers of gasoline.
    Establishing the oxygenate information as proposed is not expected 
to result in significant economic hardship to downstream parties who 
wish to voluntarily use oxygenate-restricted detergents. Placing the 
responsibility of establishing information on the specific oxygenate 
content of gasoline only on such detergent blending parties will 
eliminate unnecessary costs that would otherwise be incurred by others 
in the distribution system.
    The second proposed change to the PTD requirements would provide 
industry additional flexibility by permitting the use of product codes 
rather than the currently-required regulatory warning language on PTDs 
for certain transfers of base gasoline. EPA expects that adoption of 
this proposal would decrease the cost of producing and maintaining 
PTDs. Based on the above discussion, EPA expects that adoption of the 
proposed requirements would result in an overall reduction in the 
economic burden of the regulation.

VII. Administrative Requirements

A. Administrative Designation

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, Oct. 4, 1993), the Agency 
must determine whether this regulatory action is ``significant'' and 
therefore subject to OMB review and the requirements of the Executive 
Order. The order defines ``significant regulatory action'' as any 
regulatory action that is likely to result in a rule that may:
    (1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or 
adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the 
economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public 
health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or 
communities;
    (2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an 
action taken or planned by another agency;
    (3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, 
user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients 
thereof; or,
    (4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal 
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in 
the Executive Order.
    Pursuant to the terms of Executive Order 12866, EPA has determined 
that the proposed modifications to the regulation of deposit control 
additives contained in today's notice do not meet any of the criteria 
listed above, and therefore do not constitute a ``significant 
regulatory action''.

B. Impact on Small Entities

    EPA has determined that the proposed modifications to the 
regulation of deposit control additives contained in today's notice 
would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of 
small entities, and that it is therefore not necessary to prepare a 
regulatory flexibility analysis in conjunction with this proposal.
    Under the proposed requirements in today's notice, rather than 
requiring all parties in the gasoline distribution system to report the 
specific oxygenate content of gasoline on product transfer documents as 
under the current requirements (which would typically require testing 
for oxygenates and would disrupt current gasoline commingling 
practices), only those parties who wish to voluntarily take advantage 
of the potential cost savings from the use of specially-certified 
oxygenate-restricted detergents would be required to produce such 
information. A detergent blender who does not wish to incur this 
requirement could use any generic-certified detergent (i.e., detergents 
that do not have use restrictions).
    Other proposed changes to the product transfer document (PTD) 
requirements would provide industry more flexibility by allowing the 
use of product codes rather than regulatory

[[Page 60057]]

warning language for certain upstream transfers of base gasoline not 
used for research purposes. This added flexibility is expected to 
decrease the cost of producing and maintaining PTDs for most regulated 
parties who transfer base gasoline. Based on the above discussion, EPA 
expects that adoption of the proposed requirements in today's notice 
would result in a reduction of the economic burden of the regulation 
for many parties and would not significantly increase the economic 
burden of compliance for any regulated party, including small entities.

C. Paperwork Reduction Act

    The proposed actions in today's notice do not impose any new 
information collection burden. The first proposal would eliminate the 
existing requirement that product transfer documents (PTDs) for 
gasoline must identify the oxygenates present. Under the proposal, a 
range of alternative documentation could be used by the detergent 
blender to help establish the specific oxygenate content of gasoline in 
order to allow the optional use of oxygenate-restricted detergents 
rather than generic detergents (which do not have oxygenate 
restrictions). No new information collection requirements would result 
from implementation of this proposal. To the contrary, the proposed 
change would eliminate a compliance burden from the majority of 
regulated parties, while continuing to allow blenders to choose to use 
oxygenate-restricted detergents.
    The second proposal would allow greater flexibility to industry by 
allowing the use of product codes on certain non-research base gasoline 
PTDs rather than the currently required warning language. The 
information collection requirements associated with this provision 
would not change. The increased flexibility is expected to result in a 
reduced compliance burden.
    The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has previously approved 
the information collection requirements of the Regulation of Deposit 
Control Additives contained in 40 CFR Part 80 under the provisions of 
the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. and has assigned 
OMB control number 2060-0275(EPA ICR Numbers 1655-01, 1655-02, and 
1655-03).
    Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources 
expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or 
provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time 
needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize 
technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and 
verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and 
disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to 
comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; 
train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; 
search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; 
and transmit or otherwise disclose the information.
    Copies of the ICR documents may be obtained from Sandy Farmer, 
Information Policy Branch; EPA; 401 M St., SW. (mail code 2136); 
Washington, DC 20460 or by calling (202) 260-2740. Include the ICR and/
or OMB number in any correspondence.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public 
Law 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the 
effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal 
governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, EPA 
generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-benefit 
analysis, for proposed and final rules with ``Federal mandates'' that 
may result in expenditures to state, local, and tribal governments, in 
the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100 million or more for 
any one year.
    Before promulgating an EPA rule for which a written statement is 
needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires EPA to identify and 
consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt the 
least costly, most cost effective, or least burdensome alternative that 
achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of section 205 do 
not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover, 
section 205 allows EPA to adopt an alternative other than the least 
costly, most cost effective, or least burdensome alternative if the 
Administrator publishes with the final rule an explanation of why that 
alternative was not adopted.
    Before EPA establishes any regulatory requirements that may 
significantly or uniquely affect small governments, including tribal 
governments, it must have developed under section 203 of the UMRA a 
small government agency plan. The plan must provide for notifying 
potentially affected small governments, enabling officials of affected 
small governments to have meaningful and timely input in the 
development of EPA regulatory proposals with significant Federal 
intergovernmental mandates, and informing, educating, and advising 
small governments on compliance with the regulatory requirements.
    Today's proposed revisions to the Regulation of Gasoline Deposit 
Control Additives contains no Federal mandates (under the regulatory 
provisions of Title II of the UMRA) for State, local, or tribal 
governments. The proposed revisions impose no enforceable duties on any 
of these governmental entities. Nothing in the proposal would 
significantly or uniquely affect small governments. EPA has determined 
that the provisions in today's proposal do not contain Federal mandates 
that will result in expenditures of $100 million or more in any one 
year for the private sector. To the contrary, EPA expects the proposed 
changes would result in reduced compliance costs. EPA believes that the 
proposed regulatory changes represent the least costly, most cost-
effective approach to addressing implementation concerns expressed by 
industry, while achieving the air quality goals of the gasoline 
detergent program.

VIII. Statutory Authority

    The statutory authority for the proposed actions in this notice is 
granted to EPA by sections 114, 211(a), (b), (c), and (l), and 301 of 
the Clean Air Act as amended: 42 U.S.C. 7414, 7545 (a), (b), (c) and 
(l), and 7601.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 80

    Environmental protection, Fuel additives, Gasoline detergent 
additives, Gasoline, Motor vehicle pollution, Penalties, Reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: October 30, 1997.
Carol M. Browner,
Administrator.

    For the reasons set forth in the preamble, part 80 of title 40 of 
the Code of Federal Regulations is proposed to be amended as follows:

PART 80--[AMENDED]

    1. The authority citation for part 80 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: Sections 114, 211 and 301(a) of the Clean Air Act as 
amended (42 U.S.C. 7414, 7545, and 7601(a)).

    2. Section 80.158 is amended as follows:
    a. Paragraph (a)(5) is removed.
    b. Paragraphs (a)(6) through (a)(10) are redesignated as paragraphs 
(a)(5) through (a)(9).
    c. Paragraph (c)(1) is revised to read as follows:


Sec. 80.158  Product Transfer Documents (PTDs)

* * * * *
    (c) Use of product codes and other non-regulatory language.

[[Page 60058]]

    (1) Product codes and other non-regulatory language may not be used 
as a substitute for the specified PTD warning language specified in 
paragraph (a)(6) of this section for custody transfers of base gasoline 
to truck carriers, retail outlets, and wholesale purchaser-consumer 
facilities or for transfers of exempt base gasoline to be used for 
research, development, or test purposes.
* * * * *
    3. Section 80.170 is amended by adding a new paragraph (f)(7) to 
read as follows:


Sec. 80.170  Volumetric additive reconciliation (VAR), equipment 
calibration, and recordkeeping requirements.

* * * * *
    (f) * * *
    (7) If a detergent blender uses an oxygenate -or PRC-restricted 
certified detergent to additize fuel, documentation must be maintained 
by that blender fully identifying the oxygenate and/or PRC (as 
applicable) content of the fuel into which the oxygenate or PRC-
restricted detergent was blended, so as to confirm or to substantially 
confirm that the fuel into which the restricted detergent was blended 
complied with the use restriction. Documentation which may be used to 
fulfill this requirement includes, but is not limited to: PTD(s) from 
the fuel supplier identifying all the oxygenates or PRC (as 
appropriate) in the fuel; test results identifying all the oxygenates 
or PRC (as appropriate) in the fuel; written contract language between 
the supplier and the blender establishing the complete oxygenate and/or 
PRC (as appropriate) content of the supplied fuel.
* * * * *
    4. Section 80.171 is amended as follows:
    a. Paragraph (a)(5) is removed.
    b. Paragraphs (a)(6) through (12) are redesignated as paragraphs 
(a)(5) through (a)(11).
    c. Paragraph(b)(1) is revised to read as follows:


Sec. 80.171  Product Transfer Documents (PTDs)

* * * * *
    (b) Use of product codes and other non-regulatory language.
    (1) Product codes and other non-regulatory language may not be used 
as a substitute for the PTD warning language specified in paragraph 
(a)(6) of this section for custody transfers of base gasoline to truck 
carriers, retail outlets, and wholesale purchaser-consumer facilities, 
or for transfers of exempt base gasoline to be used for research, 
development, or test purposes.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 97-29390 Filed 11-5-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P