[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 51 (Monday, March 17, 1997)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 12572-12576]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-6022]


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


ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 79 and 80

[FRL-5701-8]


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 that 
document, EPA proposed changes affecting testing requirements for 
``atypical'' and biodiesel F/FAs. The effect of that proposal has been 
to make the current testing requirements uncertain for potentially 
affected F/FAs, 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 the 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 the 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 adverse comment or a request for a public hearing by April 16, 
1997. If the Agency receives adverse comment or a request for a public 
hearing, EPA will withdraw this action by publishing timely notice in 
the Federal Register.

ADDRESSES: Any persons wishing to submit comments should send them (in 
duplicate, if possible) to the docket 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-90-07 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 Fernandes, 
(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 the Internet (<a href="http://
www.epa.gov/omswww">http://
www.epa.gov/omswww</a>). Parties requiring assistance may call Mr. 
Fernandes at (202) 233-9016.

I. Regulated Entities

    Regulated categories and entities potentially affected by this 
action include:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Category                  Examples of regulated entities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry...............................  Manufacturers of atypical fuels/
                                          fuel additives.               
                                         Manufacturers of biodiesel     
                                          fuels/fuel additives.         
                                         Reformulated gasoline survey   
                                          participants.                 
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 the 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 the 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.<SUP>1 
One proposal was a de minimis provision which, if finalized, would 
delete standard Tier 2 requirements for certain atypical F/FAs.<SUP>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 the additive is mixed in

[[Page 12573]]

fuel at the maximum recommended concentration.<SUP>3
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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 testing 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.
    \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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Significant public comment was submitted about all aspects of this 
proposal, and EPA has not yet completed its analysis and consideration 
of the 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 for completion of Tier 2 by 
May 27, 2000.<SUP>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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Compliance with Tier 1 requirements is also required by May 
27, 1997.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA promulgated the Tier 1 and Tier 2 testing requirements under 
the authority provided by sections 211(b) and 211(e) of the 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 the results of such testing, leaving the 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 the 
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 the date of 
promulgation of the regulations). See 59 FR at 33047, June 27, 1994, 
for a more 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, EPA 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 the scope of the final exemption will be. 
This uncertainty makes it extremely impractical for such manufacturers 
to conduct Tier 2 testing, because the 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, the manufacturer would either 
have to break the contract (adversely affecting the laboratory) or 
incur the cost of conducting testing that it is not required by 
regulation to undertake. For these reasons, EPA is exercising its 
discretion under Sec. 211(b) and Sec. 211(e) to interpret the 
``requisite information'' which manufacturers of atypical additives 
must submit to EPA by May 27, 1997 to include Tier 1 testing only.
    As stated above, EPA adopted the Tier 1 and Tier 2 testing 
requirements under the authority of sections 211(b) and 211(e). While 
the submission deadlines for tests required under Sec. 211(e) are 
governed by the language described above, EPA has discretion under 
Sec. 211(b) to set timing requirements for tests required under 
Sec. 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 Sec. 79.50), the Tier 2 compliance deadlines in 
Secs. 79.51(c)(1)(ii) (A) and (B) are respectively extended from May 
27, 1997 to November 27, 1998 and from May 27, 2000 to November 27, 
2001.<SUP>5 These extensions will permit EPA to consider all issues 
raised in response to the proposal, without any unnecessary adverse 
impact on the affected manufacturers. EPA estimates that the 18-month 
extension will be adequate for the 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 the 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 these extensions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 the testing program.

III. Extension of Tier 1 Deadlines for Biodiesel Manufacturers

    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 ``the 
requisite information'' be provided to EPA within 3 years of 
promulgation of the regulations. EPA has interpreted the 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 the existing regulations 
applying to biodiesel F/FAs, including changes to the grouping 
regulations and to the requirements for selecting the group 
representative for biodiesel F/FA testing.<SUP>6 These proposals raised 
significant uncertainties for manufacturers of biodiesel F/FAs. For 
example, EPA solicited public comment

[[Page 12574]]

on whether the group representative selection criteria should be 
revised from a requirement that the group representative for testing 
purposes contain the highest actual or recommended maximum 
concentration-in-use of the biodiesel product to a requirement that it 
contain a specified amount (anywhere between 20 and 100 percent) of the 
biodiesel product. Because EPA proposed these 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, the 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 a fuel with the highest registered 
concentration of biodiesel product, and EPA promulgated a revision to 
the regulations that changed the criteria for an acceptable group 
representative, the manufacturers would have incurred the costs of 
testing the wrong product.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For these reasons, the date of promulgation of regulations 
requiring testing of biodiesel F/FAs is the effective date of today's 
regulations, rather than the effective date of the pre-existing testing 
regulations (May 27, 1994). The changes EPA proposed were such that the 
manufacturers of such F/FAs could not know the specific product that 
would be required to be tested once EPA took final action on the July 
1996 proposal. While a minor revision or technical amendment to the 
pre-existing testing regulations would not be adequate to conclude that 
the ``date of promulgation'' under 211(e)(2) is affected, a change of 
the 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 the 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 a 
qualified laboratory, or other suitable arrangement to conduct Tier 2 
testing on biodiesel fuels. These deadlines will ensure that the 
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 with 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 for RFG surveys [in Sec. 80.68(c)(13)(iii) (A) and 
(B)] prescribe the width of the largest allowable 95% confidence 
interval when estimating parameter means. Under the simple model, such 
widths are provided for oxygen, benzene, RVP, and aromatic 
hydrocarbons. With the complex model, widths are provided for the 
additional parameters that must be estimated in order to determine 
emission levels for VOC's, NO<INF>X, and toxics, i.e., olefins, T-50, 
T-90, and sulfur. The reason for these 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, the 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 the 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 the regulations were developed and has not been an issue under the 
simple model. The addition of sulfur to the 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 three or more. EPA believes that determining survey 
precision from the complex model's emission level outputs will be 
welcomed by the industry as a cost saving measure and will not result 
in sacrificing the precision needed to make survey pass/fail decisions 
with confidence.
    EPA is thus amending the complex model survey precision 
requirements set forth at Sec. 80.68(c)(13)(iii)(B) to allow a survey 
manager to satisfy the requirements either by conforming to the 
original precision limits on each measured parameter or by providing a 
level of precision for the model-determined emission parameters that is 
equivalent. Use of the latter approach requires that a detailed 
explanation be included in or attached to the annual survey plan 
demonstrating that the proposed sample size provides precision in 
estimating the emissions parameters that is equivalent to that which 
would result from strict adherence to the originally prescribed limits 
for measured parameters. The explanation must be approved by EPA, along 
with 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 the 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 the 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 the deadline for this 
unique category of regulated parties to permit the Agency to consider 
all comments received on the July 11, 1996 Notice of Proposed 
Rulemaking and to issue appropriate final regulations may reasonably 
prevent unnecessary economic hardship and will provide certainty with 
regard to compliance dates. Until issuance of a separate final rule 
published elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register, 
manufacturers of biodiesel F/FAs faced some uncertainties with regard 
to the grouping of their additives and representative concentrations 
for sampling. The relatively short deadline extension granted by this 
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 
the change related to RFG survey satisfaction, EPA expects a 
substantial cost savings for regulated parties or consortia of 
regulated parties who elect to follow the emissions parameters-based 
approach to planning for complex model survey precision included in 
today's direct final rule.

[[Page 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 the agency certifies 
that the 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, 1993]), 
the Agency must determine whether the regulatory action is 
``significant'' and therefore subject to OMB review and the 
requirements of the Executive Order. The Order defines ``significant'' 
regulatory actions as one 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 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 the Paperwork Reduction Act 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., and 
implementing regulations, 5 CFR Part 1320, the F/FA-related portion of 
this action, does not involve the collection of information as defined 
therein. An Information Collection Request (ICR No. 1591) was prepared 
for the reformulated gasoline program and addresses aspects of that 
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 the 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 that may result in 
expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate; 
or by the private sector, of $100 million or more. Under Section 205, 
EPA must select the most cost-effective and least burdensome 
alternative that achieves the objectives of the rule and is consistent 
with statutory requirements. Section 203 requires EPA to establish a 
plan for informing and advising any small governments that may be 
significantly or uniquely impacted by the rule.
    EPA has determined that the action promulgated today does not 
include a federal mandate that may result in estimated costs of $100 
million or more to either State, local, or tribal governments in the 
aggregate, or to the private sector. This final rule does not establish 
regulatory requirements that may significantly or uniquely affect small 
governments. In fact, this final rule has the net effect of reducing 
the burden of the fuel and fuel additive registration program and RFG 
survey program on regulated entities. Therefore, the requirements of 
the 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 the U.S. Senate, 
the U.S. House of Representatives and the Comptroller General of the 
General Accounting Office prior to publication of the 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 title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations are amended as 
follows:

PART 79--[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)(1)(ii) 
introductory text and by adding paragraphs (c)(1)(vi) and (c)(1)(vii), 
to read as follows:


Sec. 79.51  General requirements and provisions.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (ii) Except as provided in paragraphs (c)(1)(vi) and (vii) of this 
section, the manufacturer of such products must also satisfy the 
requirements and time schedules in either of the following paragraphs 
(c)(1)(ii) (A) or (B) of this section:
* * * * *
    (vi) In regard to atypical fuels or additives in the gasoline and 
diesel fuel families (pursuant to the specifications in 
Sec. 79.56(e)(4)(iii)(A) (1) and (2)):
    (A) All applicable Tier 1 requirements, pursuant to Secs. 79.52 and 
79.59, must be submitted to EPA by May 27, 1997.
    (B) Tier 2 requirements, pursuant to Secs. 79.53 and 79.59, must be 
satisfied according to the deadlines in either of the following 
paragraphs (c)(1)(vi)(B) (1) or (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 with 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 Sec. 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 Sec. 79.56(e)(4)(ii)(B)(2)):

[[Page 12576]]

    (A) All applicable Tier 1 requirements, pursuant to Secs. 79.52 and 
79.59, must be submitted to EPA by March 17, 1998.
    (B) Tier 2 requirements, pursuant to Secs. 79.53 and 79.59, must be 
satisfied according to the deadlines in either of the following 
paragraphs (c)(1)(vii)(B) (1) or (2) of this 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 the 
capabilities and credentials specified in Sec. 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 the last sentence of 
paragraph (c) introductory text to read as follows:


Sec. 79.59  Reporting requirements.

* * * * *
    (c) * * * In addition, manufacturers complying with Tier 2 
requirements according to one of the time schedules specified in 
Sec. 79.51(c)(1)(ii)(B), Sec. 79.51(c)(1)(vi)(B)(2), or 
Sec. 79.51(c)(1)(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 the 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:


Sec. 80.68  Compliance surveys.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (13) * * *
    (iii) * * *
    (B) In the case of complex model surveys, the average levels of 
oxygen, benzene, RVP, aromatic hydrocarbons, olefins, T-50, T-90 and 
sulfur are determined with a 95% confidence level, with error of less 
than 0.1 psi for RVP, 0.05% for benzene (by volume), 0.1% for oxygen 
(by weight), 0.5% for olefins (by volume), 5 deg. F. for T-50 and T-90, 
and 10 ppm for sulfur; or an equivalent level of precision for the 
complex model-determined emissions parameters; and
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 97-6022 Filed 3-14-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P