60052 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 215 / Thursday, November 6, 1997 / Proposed Rules

entities under the criteria of the

Regulatory Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

Airspace, Incorporation by reference,

Navigation (air).

The Proposed Amendment

In consideration of the foregoing, the

Federal Aviation Administration

proposes to amend 14 CFR Part 71 as

follows:

PART 71—[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for Part 71

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40113,

40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959–

1963 Comp., p. 389.

§ 71.1 [Amended]

2. The incorporation by reference in

14 CFR 71.1 of Federal Aviation

Administration Order 7400.9E, Airspace

Designations and Reporting Points,

dated September 10, 1997, and effective

September 16, 1997, is proposed to be

amended as follows:

Paragraph 6005 Class E airspace areas

extending upward from 700 feet or more

above the surface of the earth.

* * * * *

AEA PA E5 Allentown, PA [Revised]

Lehigh Valley International Airport, PA

(lat. 40°39′11′′ N., long. 75°26′24′′ W.)

LEEHI LOM

(lat. 40°35′09′′ N., long. 75°32′58′′ W.)

Allentown Queen City Municipal Airport, PA

(lat. 40°34′13′′ N., long. 75°29′18′′ W.)

That airspace extending upward from 700

feet above the surface within a 6.7-mile

radius of Lehigh Valley International Airport

and within 7.5-mile radius of Allentown

Queen City Airport and within 3.1 miles

north and 5 miles south of the Lehigh Valley

International Airport localizer southwest

course extending from the LEEHI LOM to 10

miles southwest of the LOM, excluding that

portion that coincides with the Easton, PA,

and Quakertown, PA, Class E airspace areas.

* * * * *

Issued in Jamaica, New York, on October

7, 1997.

Franklin D. Hatfield,

Manager, Air Traffic Division, Eastern Region.

[FR Doc. 97–29350 Filed 11–5–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–M

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[PA 091–4050b ; FRL–5918–3]

Air Quality Implementation Plans;

Approval and Promulgation:

Pennsylvania

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: This action proposes to

correct an interim final rule, which was

published on January 28, 1997,

regarding EPA conditional approval of

Pennsylvania’s enhanced inspection

and maintenance (I/M) program. This

action pertains to the consequences in

the event that the Pennsylvania

enhanced I/M program failed to

commence per the deadlines set forth in

EPA’s interim final rule. EPA is taking

this action for the purposes of

consistency with rulemaking actions

EPA has since taken on other states’

inspection and maintenance programs.

In the Final Rules section of this

Federal Register, EPA is making this

correction to the Commonwealth’s

January 28, 1996 conditional SIP

approval by issuing a direct final rule

without prior proposal because the

Agency views this correction as a

noncontroversial SIP revision. Thus,

EPA anticipates no adverse comments.

A detailed explanation of this correction

is set forth in the direct final rule. If no

adverse comments are received in

response to this proposed rule, no

further activity is contemplated in

relation to this rule. If EPA receives

adverse comments, the direct final rule

will be withdrawn and all public

comments received will be addressed in

a subsequent final rule based on this

proposed rule. EPA will not institute a

second comment period on this action.

Any parties interested in commenting

on this action should do so at this time.

DATES: Comments must be received in

writing by December 8, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Written comments on this

action should be addressed to David L.

Arnold, Chief, Ozone/CO and Mobile

Sources Section (Mailcode 3AT21), U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency,

Region III, 841 Chestnut Building,

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19107.

Copies of the documents relevant to this

action are available for public

inspection during normal business

hours at the Air, Radiation, and Toxics

Division, U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency, Region III, 841 Chestnut

Building, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

19107. Relevant documents are also

available at the Pennsylvania

Department of Environmental Resources

Bureau of Air Quality Control, P.O. Box

8468, 400 Market Street, Harrisburg,

Pennsylvania 17105.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Brian Rehn, at (215) 566–2176, or in

writing at the EPA Region III address

above.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: See the

information provided in the direct final

action of the same title which is located

in the Rules and Regulations section of

this Federal Register.

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401–7671q.

Dated: October 28, 1997.

William T. Wisniewski,

Acting Regional Administrator, Region III.

[FR Doc. 97–29389 Filed 11–5–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–U

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
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 215 / Thursday, November 6, 1997 / Proposed Rules 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 userestricted 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:

Category Examples of regulated 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 § 80.161(a), the

detergent certification requirements in

§ 80.161(b), the program controls and

prohibitions in § 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
60054 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 215 / Thursday, November 6, 1997 / Proposed Rules

1Letter 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.

2Letter to C.J. Krambuhl, API, from Steven A.

Herman, Assistant Administrator, OECA, EPA,

August 28, 1996, Docket item VII-C–01.

3Letter to C.J. Krambuhl, API, from Steven A.

Herman, Assistant Administrator, OECA, EPA,

September 4, 1997, Docket item VII-C–02.

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.1

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.2

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.3

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 postrefinery 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 restricteduse 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 oxygenaterestricted 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.
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 215 / Thursday, November 6, 1997 / Proposed Rules 60055

4Memorandum 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.

5Memorandum 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.

EPA was advised by the Independent

Fuel Terminal Operators Association

(IFTOA) of a concern about this

proposed amendment.4 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.

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.5 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.

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 purchaserconsumer 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
60056 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 215 / Thursday, November 6, 1997 / Proposed Rules

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 oxygenaterestricted 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
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 215 / Thursday, November 6, 1997 / Proposed Rules 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:

§ 80.158 Product Transfer Documents

(PTDs)

* * * * *

(c) Use of product codes and other

non-regulatory language.
60058 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 215 / Thursday, November 6, 1997 / Proposed Rules

(1) Product codes and other nonregulatory 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:

§ 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:

§ 80.171 Product Transfer Documents

(PTDs)

* * * * *

(b) Use of product codes and other

non-regulatory language.

(1) Product codes and other nonregulatory 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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 300

[FRL–5916–7]

National Oil and Hazardous

Substances Pollution Contingency

Plan National Priorities List

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of intent to delete the

Browning-Ferris Industries—South

Brunswick Landfill Site from the

National Priorities List; request for

comments.

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA) Region II announces its

intent to delete the Browning-Ferris

Industries—South Brunswick Landfill

Site (Site) from the National Priorities

List (NPL) and requests public comment

on this action. The NPL constitutes

Appendix B of 40 CFR part 300 which

is the National Oil and Hazardous

Substances Pollution Contingency Plan

(NCP), which EPA promulgated

pursuant to section 105 of the

Comprehensive Environmental

Response, Compensation, and Liability

Act of 1980 (CERCLA), as amended, 42

U.S.C 9601 et seq. EPA and the New

Jersey Department of Environmental

Protection (NJDEP) have determined

that the Site poses no significant threat

to public health or the environment and,

therefore, further remedial measures

pursuant to CERCLA are not

appropriate.

DATES: Comments concerning this Site

may be submitted on or before

December 8, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed

to: Mary Anne Rosa, Remedial Project

Manager, U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency, Region II, 290 Broadway-19th

Floor, New York, NY 10007–1866.

The deletion docket and other

comprehensive information on this Site

is available for viewing at the BrowningFerris Industries—South Brunswick

Landfill Site information repository at

the following location: Town of South

Brunswick Municipal Building, P.O.

Box 190, Monmouth Junction, New

Jersey 08852, (908) 329–4000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Mary Anne Rosa, Remedial Project

Manager, U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency, Region II, 290 Broadway—19th

Floor, New York, New York 10007–

1866, (212) 637–4407.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Introduction

II. NPL Deletion Criteria

III. Deletion Procedures

IV. Basis for Intended Site Deletion

I. Introduction

EPA Region II announces its intent to

delete the Browning-Ferris Industries—

South Brunswick Landfill Site, which is

located in South Brunswick Township,

Middlesex County, New Jersey, from the

NPL, which constitutes Appendix B of

the NCP, 40 CFR part 300, and requests

comments on this deletion. EPA

identifies sites that appear to present a

significant risk to public health, welfare,

or the environment and maintains the

NPL as the list of these sites. As

described in § 300.425(e)(3) of the NCP,

sites deleted from the NPL remain

eligible for remedial actions in the

unlikely event that conditions at the site

warrant such action.

EPA will accept comments on the

proposal to delete this Site until

December 8, 1997.

Section II of this notice explains the

criteria for deleting sites from the NPL.

Section III discusses the procedures that

EPA is using for this action. Section IV

discusses the Site and explains how the

Site meets the deletion criteria.

II. NPL Deletion Criteria

Section 300.425(e) of the NCP

provides that sites may be deleted from

the NPL where no further response is

appropriate. In making a determination

to delete a site from the NPL, EPA in

consultation with NJDEP, shall consider

whether any of the following criteria

have been met:

(i) Responsible parties or other parties

have implemented all appropriate

response actions required; or

(ii) All appropriate responses under

CERCLA have been implemented, and

no further action by responsible parties

is appropriate; or

(iii)The remedial investigation has

shown that the release of hazardous

substances poses no significant threat to

public health or the environment and,

therefore, remedial measures are not

appropriate.

III. Deletion Procedures

The following procedures were used

for the intended deletion of this Site: (1)

EPA Region II issued a Record of

Decision (ROD) which documented the

remedial action activities; (2) all

appropriate responses under CERCLA