P.10 

rv ^ n i 

1257 2 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 51 / Monday, March 17, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 

(d) *.**• ' 

(1) * * * Total annual sales means 

the average of the manufacturer's total 

sales revenue, excluding any revenue 

which represents the collection of 

federal, state, or local excise taxes or 

sales taxes, in each of the three years 

prior to such manufacturer's submittal 

to EPA of the basic registration 

information pursuant to § 79.59(b)(2) 

through (b)(5). 

**** * 

(6) In the case of an additive for 

which the manufacturer is not required 

to meet the requirements of Tier 2 

pursuant to paragraph (d)(3) of this 

section: 

(i) A fuel manufacturer which blends 

such an additive into fuel shall not be 

required to meet-the requirements of 

Tier 2 with respect to such additive/fuel 

mixture. 

(ii) An additive manufacturer which 

blends such an additive, with one or 

more other registered additive products 

and/or with substances containing only 

carbon and/or hydrogen shall not be 

required to meet die requirements of 

Tier 2 with respect to such additive or 

additive blend. 

and to make the current compliance 

schedules unreasonable for such F/FAs. 

Therefore, related deadline adjustments 

are appropriate. Accordingly, this direct 

final rule extends Tier 1 deadlines for 

biodiesel fuels and Tier 2 deadlines for 

atypical F/FAs, These short delays are 

not expected to have a substantial 

impact on the benefits of tie F/FA 

testing program, and may prevent 

certain manufacturers from making 

unnecessary expenditures. 

In this direct final rule, EPA is also 

modifying the survey precision 

requirements under the reformulated 

gasoline (RFG) complex model. This 

action will permit survey managers to 

submit a proposed sample size based 

upon ti e precision with which means of 

emission parameters can be estimated, 

subject to EPA approval. This approach 

is expected to provide significant cost 

savings to respondents, without adverse 

environmental impact. 

DATES: This action will be effective on 

May 16,1997, unless EPA receives 

Wverse comment or a request for a 

public hearing bvApril 16ff1997. If the 

Agency receives atrvciae eomment or a use eo; 

request for a public hearing, EPA will 

* * * * * withdraw this action by publishing 

K

timely notice in ti e Federal Register. 

remove prngupMcKaKu.) and by S i d ,ic„ „ ible ) „ ^ docke t 

removing _ _ _ __ * P.P. . . and reserving paragraph 

(c)(7)(iii) 

[FR Doc. 97-6023 Filed 3-14-97; 8:45 

BILLING CODE 6S60-60-P 

40 CFR Parts 79 and 80 

IFRL-5701-8J ^ 

Registration of Fuels and Fuel 

Additives: Extension of Specified ' 

Deadlines for Atypical Additives and 

Biodiesel Fuels; and, Reformulated 

Gasoline Complex Model: Modification 

of Survey Precision Requirements 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection: 

Agency. 

ACTION: Direct final rule. 

SUMMARY: In a document published July 

11,1996, EPA proposed to modify 

specific provisions of the fuels and fuel 

additives (F/FA) registration and testing 

program which, if finalized, would 

change the applicability of certain 

requirements to specified F/FAs. In the 

case of diat document, EPA proposed 

changes affecting testing requirements 

for "atypical" and biodiesel F/FAs. The 

effect of that proposal has been to make 

ti e current testing requirements 

uncertain for potentially affected F/FAs, 

requiring assistance may call Mr. 

Femandes at (202) 233-9016. 

I. Regulated Entities 

Regulated categories and entities 

potentially affected by this action 

include: 

Category 

Industry 

Examples of regulated entities 

Manufacturers of atypical fuels/fuel 

additives. 

Manufacturers of biodiesel luels/ 

fuel additives. 

Reformulated gasoline survey participants. 

address listed below and to Jim 

Caldwell, U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Fuels and Energy 

Division, 401 M Street, S.W. (6406-J), 

Washington, D.C. 20460. Materials 

relevant to this direct final rule have 

been placed in Public Docket A-90-Q7 

located at U.S. Environmental .. 

Protection Agency, Air Docket Section, 

Room M-1500,401 M Street, S.W., . 

Washington, D.C. 20460. The docket is 

open for public inspection from 8:00 

a.m. until 5:30 p.m., Monday through , 

Friday, except. On Federal holidays. A . 

reasonable fee may be charged for 

photocopying services. .,. ; .' 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

further information, or to notify EPA of 

an intent to submit an adverse comment 

or public hearing request, contact Jim 

Caldwell, (202) 233-9303, or Joseph 

Femandes, (202) 233-9016. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Electronic 

copies of this direct final rule, the 

regulatory text of this direct final rule, 

and earlier rulemaking documents 

related to the F/FA registration program 

are available free of charge on EPA's 

Technology Transfer Network Bulletin 

Board System (TTNBBS, phone access 

919-541-5742) and on ti e Internet 

(http://www.epa.gov/omswww): Parties 

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 

the types of entities that EPA is now 

aware could be potentially regulated by 

this action. Other types of entities not 

listed in the table could also be 

regulated. To determine whether your 

entity would be regulated by this action, 

you should carefully examine this 

preamble and ti e proposed changes to 

the regulatory text. You should also 

carefully examine all provisions of the 

F/FAs registration program at 40 CFR 

part 79 and ti e RFG program 

requirements at 40 CFR part 80. 

II. Extension of Tier 2 Deadline for 

Atypical F/FAs 

On July 11,1996, EPA published a 

Federal Register notice proposing. 

several changes to the F/FA registration 

and testing regulations.' One proposal 

was a de minimis provision which, if 

finalized, would delete standard Tier 2 

requirements, for certain atypical F/ 

FAs.2 This proposal was based on 

certain conservative judgments' and . 

considering available data which 

indicated that some F/FAs may be 

reasonably anticipated to have no 

adverse effects on public health or the 

environment when they are present at 

very low concentrations in.fuel. F/FAs 

qualifying for this special provision 

were proposed to be" those containing no 

atypical elements other than aluminum, 

boron, calcium, sodium, zinc,' 

magnesium, phosphorus, potassium, 

and/or iron, where the total of these 

elements would not exceed 25 parts per 

million when ti e additive is mixed in 

1

 The F/FA testing requirements are located in 40 

CFR Part 79-Subpart F. A detailed discussion of the 

program.'including Tiers 1, 2, and 3 test 

requirements,'may be found in the preamble to the 

final rule that promulgated these tesUng 

requirements (59 FR 33042, June 27,1994). 

2

 Under the grouping provisions of the F/FA 

health effects testing program, atypical F/FAs are 

those which contain chemical elements other than 

carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen, and sulfur. 

9 
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 51 / Monday, March 17, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 1257 3 

P.11 

fuel at the maximum recommended 

concentration.3 

Significant public comment was 

submitted about all aspects of this 

proposal, and EPA has not yet 

completed its analysis and 

consideration of tie suggestions therein. 

Nevertheless, EPA is aware that further 

delay in resolving the de minimis issue 

might leave some manufacturers of 

atypical additives in an awkward 

position with respect to upcoming ' 

regulatory deadlines. In particular, by 

May 27,1997, all F/FA manufacturers 

(except some small businesses and 

others qualifying for specific 

exemptions or alternative deadlines), 

are required to either complete Tier 2 

testing or to demonstrate the existence 

of suitable contractual arrangements 

with a laboratory forcompletion of Tier 

2 by May 27, 2000.4 However, 

depending on the final construct of the 

de minimis provision, some atypical 

manufacturers may eventually be 

excused from these Tier 2 

responsibilities altogether. 

EPA promulgated the Tier 1 and Tier 

2 testing requirements under the 

authority provided by sections 211(b) 

and 211(e) of ti e CAA. Section 211(b) 

gives EPA broad authority "for the 

purpose of registration of fuels and fuel 

additives" to require manufacturers "to 

conduct tests to determine potential 

public health effects of such fuel or fuel 

additive." Section 211(b) does not 

specify deadlines for submission of ti e 

results of such testing, leaving ti e 

timing requirements to EPA's discretion. 

However, the timing for submission of 

test results is affected by section 211(e). 

This subsection directs EPA to issue 

regulations to implement section 

211(b)(2), and states that such -

regulations shall require that "the 

requisite information" be provided to 

EPA within 3 years from the date of 

promulgation of tie regulations. The 

term "requisite information" is not 

defined in the Act; EPA has interpreted 

the term to mean either data required by 

Tiers 1 and 2, or data required by Tier 

1 and a contract to complete Tier 2 

testing. This interpretation was based, 

in part, on EPA's conclusion that, as a 

practical matter, Tier 2 tests for all F/ 

FAs could not be completed by May 27, 

1997 (i.e., within 3 years of thedate of 

promulgation of the regulations). See 59 

FR at 33047, June 27,1994, for a more 

3

 For further information on the de minimis 

proposal, see "Registration of Fuels and Fuel 

Additives: Changes in Requirements, and 

Applicability to Blenders of Deposit Control ' 

Additives." Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 61 FR 

36535, July 11,1996. 

'Compliance with Tier 1 requirements is also 

required by May 17,1997. 

detailed analysis of EPA's interpretation 

of "requisite information." 

Since the time EPA adopted this 

interpretation of "requisite information" 

for all fuels and fuel additives, EPA 

proposed to exempt some atypical 

additives from Tier 2 testing. As stated 

above, EP A is not at this time able to 

take final action on that proposal. EPA's 

proposal has resulted in significant 

uncertainty for manufacturers of 

atypical additives, who do not know 

whether EPA will finalize the proposed 

exemption, or what tie scope of ti e 

final exemption will be. This 

uncertainty makes it extremely 

impractical for such manufacturers to 

conduct Tier 2 testing, because ti e costs 

of conducting such testing would not 

have to be incurred if EPA finalizes an 

exemption that encompasses their 

additive. Moreover, the uncertainty 

caused by EPA's proposal also makes it 

impractical for such manufacturers to 

enter into contracts with laboratories to 

conduct Tier 2 testing; if EPA finalizes 

an exemption that covers their additive, 

ti e manufacturer would either have to 

break ti e contract (adversely affecting 

the laboratory) or incur ti e cost of 

conducting testing that it is not required 

by regulation to undertake. For tiese 

reasons, EPA is exercising its discretion 

under § 211(b) and § 211(e) to interpret 

the "requisite information" which 

manufacturers of atypical additives 

must submit to EPAiy May 27,1997 to 

include Tier 1 testing only. 

As stated above, EPA adopted the Tier 

J~and Tier 2 testing requirements under 

' the authority of sections 211(b) and 

211(e). While ti e submission deadlines 

for tests required under § 211(e) are 

governed by the language described 

above, EPA has discretion under 

§ 211(b) to set timing requirements for 

tests required under § 211(b). Pursuant 

to this discretion, EPA is establishing a 

deadline of November 27,1998, for 

manufacturers of atypical additives to 

submit Tier 2 requirements (i.e., either 

data required by Tier 2, or a contract to 

complete Tier 2 testing by November 27, 

2001. Specifically, for all F/FAs 

containing "atypical elements" (as 

defined in § 79.50), the Tier 2 

compliance deadlines in 

§§ 79.51(c)(l)(ii) (A) and (B) are 

respectively extended from May 27, 

1997 to November 27, 1998 and from 

May 27, 2000 to November 27, 2001.5 

These extensions will permit EPA to 

consider all issues raised inj response to 

the proposal, without any unnecessary 

adverse impact on the affected 

manufacturers. EPA estimates that ti e 

18-month extension will be adequate for 

tie Agency to complete its analysis and 

publish a final rule (or other action as 

appropriate), while still leaving 

sufficient time for manufacturers of 

atypical F/FAs to comply with ti e 

requirement (if applicable) to secure 

contractual arrangements for timely 

completion of Tier 2 testing. Deadlines 

for requirements not proposed to be 

affected by the de minimis provision 

(i.e., Tier 1 and potential Alternative 

Tier 2 and/or Tier 3 requirements) are 

not affected by tiese extensions. 

This action is expected to prevent 

some manufacturers from making 

unnecessary expenditures while EPA 

completes its determination of the most 

appropriate disposition of the de 

minimis proposal. The limited 

extension in the Tier 2 compliance 

deadlines for this relatively small 

category of F/FAs amounts to a very 

short and reasonable delay that is not 

expected to have a substantial adverse 

impact on the public health or 

environmental benefits of ti e testing 

program. • 

III. Extension of Tier 1 Deadlines for 

Biodiesel Maniufacturers 

As described above, section 211(b) 

does not specify deadlines for the 

submission of test results required 

under this provision; however, section 

211(e) directs EPA to issue regulations 

to implement section 211(b)(2), and 

states that such regulations shall require 

that "tie requisite information" be 

provided to EPA within 3 years of 

promulgation of the regulations. EPA 

has interpreted ti e term "requisite. 

information'.'to mean either data 

required by Tiers 1 and 2, or data 

required by Tier 1 and a contract to 

complete Tier 2 testing. 

In July 1996, EPA proposed to revise 

die existing regulations applying to 

biodiesel F/FAs, including changes to 

ti e grouping regulations and to ti e 

requirements for selecting ti e group 

representative for biodiesel F/FA 

testing.* These proposals raised 

significant uncertainties for 

manufacturers of biodiesel F/FAs. For 

example, EPA solicited public comment 

3

 Generally, F/FA manufacturers must either 

comply with all Tier 2 requirements under 40 CFR 

79.51 (c)(ii)(A) or submit evidence to EPA of a 

contract with a qualified laboratory, or. other 

suitable arrangement to complete Tier 2 testing, by 

May 27,1997 under paragraph (c)(ii)(B). 

Manufacturers who proceed under paragraph 

(c)(ii)(B) are required to comply with all Tier 2 

requirements by May 27. 2000. 

'Biodiesel F/FAs are mixed alkyl esters of plant 

and/or animal origin. See discussion of biodiesel 

provisions in "Registration of Fuels and Fuel 

Additives: Changes in Requirements and 

Applicability." which appears elsewhere in this 

issue of the Federal Register. 

0 
P.12 

1257 4 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 51 / Monday, March 17, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 

on whether ti e group representative 

selection criteria should be revised from 

a requirement that ti e group 

representative for testing purposes 

contain the highest actual or 

recommended maximum concentrationin-use of tie biodiesel product to a 

requirement that it contain a specified 

amount (anywhere between 20 and 100 

percent) of ti e biodiesel product. 

Because EPA proposed tiese revisions 

in July 1996, less than one year before 

the current deadline for submission of 

Tier 1 test results and, at a minimum, 

a contract for completion of Tier 2 

testing, die manufacturers of biodiesel 

F/FAs did not know what group 

representative they should be testing in 

light of EPA's proposal. If they 

conducted testing of afuel witi die 

highest registerecTconcentration of 

biodiesel product, and EPA • 

promulgated a revision to die 

regulations that changed the criteria for 

an acceptable group representative, ti e 

manufacturers would have incurred the 

costs of testing ti e wrong product. 

For these reasons, die date of 

promulgation of regulations requiring 

testing of biodiesel F/FAs is the 

effective date of today's regulations, 

ratier tian ti e effective date of ti e preexisting testing regulations (May 27, 

1994). The changes EPA proposed were 

such that ti e manufacturers of such F/ 

FAs could not know tie specific 

product that would be required to be 

tested once EPA took final action on ti e 

July 1996 proposal. While a minor 

revision or technical amendment to ti e 

pre-existing testing regulations would 

not be adequate to conclude that ti e 

"date of promulgation" under 211(e)(2) 

is affected, a change of tie nature that 

EPA proposed for biodiesel F/FAs 

would have altered:the-basic testing 

requirement that manufacturers must 

meet, and is therefore an appropriate 

basis for adjusting die date of . 

promulgation for purposes'of ' 

determining when manufacturers must 

comply with the testing requirements. 

Therefore, EPA is revising the F/FA 

regulations to allow the deadline for 

biodiesel manufacturers until March 17, 

1998 to comply with Tier 1 and to 

submit information showing a contract 

with aqualified laboratory, or other 

suitable arrangement to-conduct Tier 2 

testing on biodiesel fuels. These 

deadlines will ensure that ti e requisite . 

information under section 211(e) is 

submitted within three years of 

promulgation of today's rule. All other 

deadlines for compliance, including the 

deadline for compliance witi Tier 2 

testing, remain unaffected by this 

action. EPA believes that this limited 

extension, which is short in duration, 

will not have any substantial impact on' 

the public health or environmental goals 

of the F/FAs testing program. 

IV. Satisfaction of Survey Precision 

Requirements Under the Complex 

Model for Reformulated Gasoline (RFG) 

The regulations Tor RFG surveys [in 

§ 80.68(c)(13)(iii) (A) and (B)] prescribe 

the widti of tie largest allowable 95% 

confidence interval when estimating 

parameter means. Under the simple 

model, such widths are provided for 

oxygen, benzene, RVP, and aromatic 

hydrocarbons. Witi ti e complex model, 

widths are provided for the additional 

parameters that must be estimated in 

order to determine emission levels for 

VOCs, NOx , and toxics, i.e., olefins, T— 

50, T-90, and sulfur. The reason for 

tiese prescribed precision limits for 

survey estimates was to ensure that 

organizations conducting surveys 

provided large enough samples to make 

erroneous pass/fail decisions on survey 

results very unlikely. 

The specification of precision limits 

for individual chemical parameters was 

appropriate under the simple model, 

since pass/fail decisions mostly 

involved such individual parameters. 

With the complex model, though, ti e 

pass/fail decisions are made on 

emission parameters that are functions 

of several chemical parameters. EPA 

believes survey managers should be 

afforded the flexibility to determine 

sample sizes based upon the precision 

with which the means of emission 

parameters can be estimated, so long as 

the final result is at least as precise as 

would have resulted from ti e originally 

prescribed limits on individual. 

chemical parameters. • • 

Such an approach may be particularly 

appropriate where sulfur is concerned. 

The large variability of sulfur was not . 

fully appreciated when ti e regulations 

were developed and has not been an 

issue under the simple model. The 

addition of sulfur to ti e parameters 

subject to survey precision limits under 

the complex model would result in a •.. 

substantial increase in sample sizes, 

possibly increasing survey costs by a 

factor of diree or more. EPA believes 

that determining survey precision from 

t i e complex model's emission level 

outputs will be welcomed by ti e 

industry as a cost saving measure and 

will not result in sacrificing die 

precision needed to make survey pass/ 

fail decisions witi confidence. 

EPA is thus amending ti e complex 

model survey precision requirements set 

forth at § 80.68(c)(13)(iii)(B) to allow a 

survey manager to satisfy ti e 

requirements either by conforming to 

the original precision limits on each 

measured parameter or by providing a • 

level of precision for the modeldetermined emission parameters that is 

equivalent. Use of the latter approach 

requires diat a detailed explanation be 

included in or attached to tile annual 

survey plan demonstrating diat ti e 

proposed sample size provides 

precision in estimating ti e emissions 

parameters that is equivalent to that 

which would result from strict 

adherence to die originally prescribed 

limits for measured parameters. The 

explanation must be approved by EPA, 

along witi the remainder of the survey 

plan, before survey operations can 

proceed. 

V. Environmental and Economic 

Impacts 

The relatively short extensions 

granted to manufacturers of atypical 

F/FAs and manufacturers of biodiesel 

F/FAs are not expected to have a 

substantial impact on die public health 

and environmental benefits of the F/FAs 

• testing program. No adverse 

environmental impact is expected as a 

result of today's action related to RFG 

surveys as die emission reduction 

standards are unchanged. 

Today's direct final action will have 

a positive economic impact. 

Manufacturers of atypical F/FAs may 

face special compliance burdens 

because they have limited opportunity 

to conduct joint testing or cost sharing 

with other manufacturers. Extending die 

deadline for this unique category of 

regulated parties to permit the Agency 

to consider all comments received on 

tie July 11,1996 Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking and to issue appropriate 

final regulations may reasonably 

prevent unnecessary economic hardship 

and will provide certainty witi regard 

to compliance dates. Until issuance of a 

separate final rule published elsewhere 

in this issue of die Federal Register, 

manufacturers of biodiesel F/FAs faced 

some uncertainties widi regard to ti e . • 

grouping of tieir additives and 

representative concentrations for 

sampling. The relatively short deadline 

extension granted by diis action will 

provide affected manufacturers with 

reasonable time to comply with Tier 1 

testing requirements and to make 

arrangements for the timely completion 

of Tier 2 testing requirements. With 

regard to tie change related to RFG 

survey satisfaction, EPA expects a 

substantial cost savings for regulated 

parties or consortia of regulated parties 

who elect to.follow, ti e emissions 

parameters-based approach to planning 

for complex model-survey precision 

included in today's direct final rule. 
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 51 / Monday, March 17, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 12575 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 

generally requires an agency to conduct 

a regulatory flexibility analysis of any 

rule subject to notice and comment 

rulemaking requirements unless ti e 

agency certifies diat die rule will not 

have a significant impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

Small entities include small businesses, 

small not-for-profit enterprises, and 

small governmental jurisdictions. This 

rule will not have a significant impact ' 

on a substantial number of small entities 

because it will provide greater flexibility 

to affected industries, including small 

businesses. 

VI. Executive Order 12866 

Pursuant to Executive Order 12866(58 

FR 51735 [October 4;=4993]), ti e Agency 

must determine whether ti e regulatory 

action is "significant" and therefore 

subject to OMB review and the 

requirements of die Executive Order. 

The Order defines "significant" 

regulatory actions as one that is likely 

to result in a rule diat 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 

entitlement, 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, it has been determined 

that this rulemaking is not a "significant 

regulatory action". Today's action is 

expected to reduce compliance costs 

associated with certain F/FA and RFG 

survey requirements and will not result 

in any additional regulatory burden for 

affected parties. 

VII. Paperwork Reduction Act 

Per ti e Paperwork Reduction Act 44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq., and implementing 

regulations, 5 CFR Part 1320, the F/FArelated portion of diis~action, does not 

involve die collection of information as 

defined therein. An Information 

Collection Request (ICR No. 1591) was 

prepared for die reformulated gasoline, 

program and addresses aspects of diat 

program, including surveys. A copy may 

be obtained from Sandy Farmer, 

Regulatory Information Division; U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency 

(2137); 401 M St., S.W. Washington. DC 

20640 or by calling (202) 260-2740! 

Today's direct final rule related to 

survey design does not create any new 

information collection requirements. 

VIII. Unfunded Mandates Act 

Under section 202 of ti e Unfunded 

Mandates Reform Act of 1995 

("Unfunded Mandates Act"), signed 

into law on March 22,1995, EPA must 

prepare a budgetary impact statement to 

accompany any proposed or final rule 

that includes a Federal mandate tia t 

may result in expenditure by State, 

local, and tribal governments, in ti e 

aggregate; or by the private sector, of 

$100 million or more. Under Section 

205, EPA must select ti e most costeffective and least burdensome 

alternative that achieves the objectives 

of die rule and is consistent widi 

statutory requirements. Section 203 

requires EPA to establish a plan for 

informing and advising any small 

governments tia t may be significandy 

or uniquely impacted by the rule. 

EPAia s determined tia t die action 

promulgated today does not include a 

federal mandate that may result in 

estimated costs of $100 million or more 

to eitiier State, local, or tribal 

governments in the aggregate," or to ti e 

private sector. This final rule does not 

establish regulatory requirements that 

may significandy or uniquely affect 

small governments. In fact, this final 

rule has die net effect of reducing die 

burden of ti e fuel and fuel additive 

registration program and RFG survey 

program on regulated entities. 

Therefore, die requirements of ti e 

Unfunded.Mandates Act do not.apply to 

this action. 

IX. Submission to Congress and the 

General Accounting Office 

Under 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A) as added 

by the Small Business Regulatory 

Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, EPA 

submitted a report containing this rule 

and other required information to ti e 

U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of 

Representatives and die Comptroller 

General of ti e General Accounting 

Office prior to publication of ti e rule in 

today's Federal Register. This rule is 

not a "major rule" as defined by 5 

U.S.C. 804(2). 

List of Subjects 

40 CFR Part 79 

Environmental protection, Fuel 

additives, Gasoline, Motor vehicle 

pollution, Penalties, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements. 

40 CFR Part 80 

• Environmental protection, Fuel 

additives, Gasoline, Imports, Labeling, 

Motor vehicle pollution, Penalties, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

Dated: March 4,1997. 

Carol M. Browner, 

Administrator. 

For the reasons set out in the 

preamble, parts 79 and 80 of chapter I 

of tide 40 of die Code of Federal 

Regulations are amended as follows: 

PART 7i*—{AMENDED] 

1. The authority citation for Part 79 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7414, 7524, 7545, and 

7601. 

2. Section 79.51 is amended by 

revising paragraph (c)(l)(ii) introductory 

text and by adding paragraphs (c)(l)(vi) 

and (c)(l)(vii), to read as follows: 

§ 79.51 General requirements and 

provisions. 

* # * * * 

(c)° * * 

(1)* * * 

(ii) Except as provided in paragraphs . 

(c)(l)(vi) and (vii) of this section, die 

manufacturer of such products must 

also satisfy the requirements and time 

schedules in either of the following 

paragraphs (c)(l)(ii) (A) or (B) of this 

section: 

« A ft « « 

(vi) In regard to atypical fuels or 

additives in the gasoline and diesel fuel 

families (pursuant to the specifications 

in § 79.56(e)(4)(iii)(A) (1) and (2)): 

(A) All applicable Tier 1 

requirements, pursuant to §§ 79.52 and 

79.59, must be submitted to EPA by May 

27,1997. 

(B) Tier 2 requirements, pursuant to 

§§ 79.53 and 79.59, must be satisfied 

according to ti e deadlines in either of 

the following paragraphs (c)(l)(vi)(B) (1) 

of (2) of this section: 

(1) All applicable Tier 2 requirements 

shall be submitted to EPA by November 

27,1998; or 

(2) Evidence of a contract widi a 

qualified laboratory (or other suitable 

arrangement) for completion of all 

applicable Tier 2 requirements shall be 

submitted to EPA by November 27, 

1998. For this purpose, a qualified 

laboratory is one which can demonstrate 

the capabilities and credentials 

specified in § 79.53(c)(1). In addition, all 

applicable Tier 2 requirements must be 

submitted to EPA by November 27, 

2001. 

(vii) In regard to nonbaseline diesel 

products formulated with mixed alkyl 

esters of plant and/or animal origin (i.e., 

"biodiesel" fuels, pursuant to 

§79.56(e)(4)(ii)(B)(2)): 

11. 
P.14 

1257 6 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 51 / Monday, March 17, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 

(A) All applicable Tier 1 

requirements, pursuant to §§ 79.52 and 

79.59, must be submitted to EPA by 

March 17,1998. 

(B) Tier 2 requirements, pursuant to 

§§ 79.53 and 79.59, must be satisfied 

according to die deadlines in eitiier of 

the following paragraphs (c)(l)(vii)(B) 

(1) or (2) of diis section: 

(1) All applicable Tier 2 requirements 

shall be submitted to EPA by March 17, 

1998; or 

(2) Evidence of a contract with a 

qualified laboratory (or other suitable 

arrangement) for completion of all 

applicable Tier 2 requirements shall be 

submitted to EPA by March 17,1998. 

For this purpose,-a qualified laboratory 

is one which can demonstrate ti e 

capabilities and credentials specified in 

§ 79.53(c)(1). In addition, all applicable 

Tier 2 requirements must be submitted 

to EPA by May 27, 2000. 

3. Section 79.59 is amended by 

revising die last sentence of paragraph 

(c) introductory text to read as follows: 

§79.59 Reporting requirements. 

* - * * * * 

(c) * * * In addition, manufacturers 

complying witi Tier 2 requirements 

according to one of tie time schedules 

specified in § 79.5l(c)(l)(ii)(B), 

§ 79.51(c)(l)(vi)(B)(2), or 

§ 79.51(c)(l)(vii)(B)(2) must submit 

evidence of a suitable arrangement for 

completion of Tier 2 (e.g., a copy of a 

signed contract with a qualified 

laboratory for applicable Tier 2 services) 

by tie date specified in the applicable 

time schedule. 

PART 80—{AMENDED] 

4. 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)). 

5. Section 80.68, paragraph 

(c)(13)(iii)(B) is revised to read as 

follows: 

§80.68 Compliance surveys. 

* * * * . * 

(c)* *.* • 

(13)* * * 

(iii)* * * 

(B) In the case of complex model 

surveys, die average levels of oxygen, 

benzene, RVP, aromatic hydrocarbons, 

olefins, T-50, T-90 and sulfur are 

determined with a 95% confidence 

level, witi error of less tiian 0.1 psi for 

RVP, 0.05% for benzene (by volume), 

0.1% for oxygen (by weight), 0.5% for 

olefins (by volume), 5° F. for T-50 and 

T-90, and 10 ppm for sulfur; or an 

equivalent level of precision for ti e 

complex model-determined emissions 

parameters; and 

[FR Doc. 97-6022 Filed 3-14-97; 8:45 am) 

BILLING CODE 6560-60-P 

/3