12572 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 51 / Monday, March 17, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

1The 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).

2Under 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.

(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 the requirements of

Tier 2 with respect to such additive or

additive blend.

* * * * *

§ 79.59 [Amended]

6. Section 79.59 is amended by

removing paragraph (c)(4)(iii) and by

removing and reserving paragraph

(c)(7)(iii).

[FR Doc. 97–6023 Filed 3–14–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

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

(http://www.epa.gov/omswww). 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.1 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 the additive is mixed in
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 51 / Monday, March 17, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 12573

3For 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.

4Compliance with Tier 1 requirements is also

required by May 27, 1997.

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.

6Biodiesel 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.

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 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, 2000.4 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 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 § 211(b) and § 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 § 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)(1)(ii) (A) and (B) are

respectively extended from May 27,

1997 to November 27, 1998 and from

May 27, 2000 to November 27, 2001.5

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.

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.6 These proposals raised

significant uncertainties for

manufacturers of biodiesel F/FAs. For

example, EPA solicited public comment
12574 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 51 / Monday, March 17, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

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 concentrationin-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.

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 preexisting 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

§ 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, NOX, 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 § 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 modeldetermined 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.
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 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/FArelated 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 costeffective 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:

§ 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 § 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 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 § 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)):
12576 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 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

§ 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:

§ 79.59 Reporting requirements.

* * * * *

(c) * * * In addition, manufacturers

complying with Tier 2 requirements

according to one of the time schedules

specified in § 79.51(c)(1)(ii)(B),

§ 79.51(c)(1)(vi)(B)(2), or

§ 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:

§ 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° 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