12564 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 51 / Monday, March 17, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

coagulate the dissolved polymer.

11.2.8 Centrifuge the sample for 3

minutes at 2000 rpm.

11.2.9 Using the conditions

prescribed (6.6 of this method),

chromatograph 1 μl of the

supernate.

11.2.10 Obtain the peak areas and

calculate the concentration of the

component of interest as described

in the calculations (12.2 of this

method).

12.0 Calculations

12.1 Calibration:

RFx=(Wx × Ais) / (Wis × Ax)

Where:

RFx=the relative response factor for nhexane

Wx=the weight (g) of n-hexane in the

CALIBRATION

SOLUTION

Ais=the area of AMS

Wis=the weight (g) of AMS in the

CALIBRATION SOLUTION

Ax=the area of n-hexane

12.2 Procedure:

12.2.1 Correction Factor for

calculating dry crumb weight.

F=1—(% moisture / 100)

Where:

F=Correction factor for calculating dry

crumb weight

% moisture determined by appropriate

method

12.2.2 Moisture adjustment for

chromatographic determination.

Ws=F × Wc

Where:

Ws=the weight (g) of the dry polymer

corrected for moisture

F=Correction factor for calculating dry

crumb weight

Wc=the weight (g) of the wet crumb in

section 9.6

12.2.3 Concentration (ppm) of

hexane in the wet crumb.

ppmx=(Ax * RFx * Wis * 10000) / (Ais *

Ws)

Where:

ppmx=parts per million of n-hexane in

the polymer

Ax=the area of n-hexane

RFx=the relative response factor for nhexane

Wis=the weight (g) of AMS in the sample

solution

Ais=the area of AMS

Ws=the weight (g) of the dry polymer

corrected for moisture

13.0 Method Performance

13.1 Precision for the method was

determined at the 0.08% level.

The standard deviation was 0.01 and

the percent relative standard deviation

(RSD) was 16.3 % with five degrees of

freedom.

14.0 Waste Generation

14.1 Waste generation should be

minimized where possible.

15.0 Waste Management

15.1 Discard liquid chemical waste

into the chemical waste drum.

15.2 Discard polymer waste into the

polymer waste container.

16.0 References

16.1 This method is based on

Goodyear Chemical Division Test

Method E–964.

[FR Doc. 97–6506 Filed 3–14–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

40 CFR Part 79

[FRL–5707–7]

Registration of Fuels and Fuel

Additives: Changes in Requirements,

and Applicability to Blenders of

Deposit Control Gasoline Additives

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: This action finalizes several

specific changes to existing regulations

which require the registration and

testing of designated motor vehicle fuels

and fuel additives (F/FAs) by their

manufacturers. Included are changes to

the regulatory definitions of ‘‘fuel

manufacturer,’’ ‘‘additive,’’ and ‘‘small

business,’’ as well as modifications to

grouping rules for biodiesel and

synthetic fuels. These changes will

streamline F/FA registration and testing

burdens and reduce the number of

respondents, while maintaining the

informational value of the program and

its contributions to the public health

and environmental goals of the Clean

Air Act.

Another previously proposed change,

to establish a de minimis provision for

F/FAs containing certain ‘‘atypical’’

elements, is not addressed in this

action. However, in a direct final rule

also published elsewhere in this issue of

the Federal Register, certain deadlines

related to testing of atypical F/FAs are

extended while EPA determines the

most appropriate disposition of the de

minimis proposal.

EFFECTIVE DATE: This action will be

effective on May 16, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Documents related to this

final rule have been placed in Public

Docket No. A–90–07 located at the U.S.

EPA, Air Docket Section, Room M–

1500, 401 M Street S.W., Washington,

DC 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.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jim

Caldwell (202–233–9303) or Joseph

Fernandes (202–233–9016), U.S. EPA,

Office of Mobile Sources, Fuels and

Energy Division, Mail Code 6406J, 401

M Street SW, Washington, DC 20460.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Electronic

copies of this 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 gasoline and diesel fuel.

Manufacturers of additives for gasoline and diesel fuel.

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 potentially be regulated by

this action. Other types of entities not

listed in the table could also be

regulated. To determine whether your

entity is regulated by this action, you

should carefully examine this preamble

and the changes to the regulatory text.

You should also carefully examine all

provisions of the registration program at

40 CFR part 79.

II. Introduction

A. Background

The F/FA registration program is

authorized by section 211 of the Clean

Air Act (CAA) and codified in 40 CFR

part 79. In accordance with CAA

sections 211(a) and (b)(1), basic

registration requirements applicable to

gasoline and diesel fuels and their

additives were issued in 1975. These

regulations require manufacturers to

submit information on their F/FA

products, such as the commercial

identity, chemical composition,

purpose-in-use, and range of

concentration, in order to have such

products registered by the EPA.

Additional registration requirements,

implementing sections 211(b)(2) and (e),

were proposed in April 1992 and
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 51 / Monday, March 17, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 12565

1 In addition to the NPRM, a direct final rule,

‘‘Registration of Fuels and Fuel additives: Minor

Changes to the Testing Requirements for

Registration,’’ appeared in the same issue of the

Federal Register (61 FR 36506, July 11, 1996).

Another technical change was promulgated in a

subsequent direct final rule, ‘‘Registration of Fuels

and Fuel Additives: Minor Revisions’’ (61 FR

58744, November 18, 1996).

2 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.

February 1994 (57 FR 13168 and 59 FR

8886, respectively) and were finalized

on June 27, 1994 (59 FR 33042). The

additional regulations require

manufacturers, as part of their F/FA

registration responsibilities, to conduct

tests and submit information on the

health effects of their F/FA products.

These requirements are organized

within three tiers. Tier 1 requires

analysis of the combustion and

evaporative emissions of F/FAs and a

survey of existing scientific information

on the public health and welfare effects

of these emissions. To the extent that

adequate test data are not already

available (as defined in the regulations),

Tier 2 requires manufacturers to

conduct specified toxicology tests to

screen for potential adverse health

effects of the F/FA emissions.

Additional testing may be required

under Tier 3 at EPA’s discretion.

The rule also includes several

provisions to reduce the information

collection and testing burdens. Among

these provisions is a voluntary grouping

and cost sharing program which allows

manufacturers of similar F/FAs to pool

their resources and efforts in complying

with the requirements. Special

provisions for small manufacturers are

also included.

On July 11, 1996, EPA published a

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM,

61 FR 36535), proposing several specific

changes to the F/FA registration

regulations.1 The proposed

modifications were designed to reduce

the number of respondents and

streamline the requirements of the

program. For example, EPA proposed to

change the definition of a fuel

manufacturer so that the addition of a

small volume of an additive to fuel

would not by itself cause a party to be

considered a fuel manufacturer. EPA

also proposed to change the definition

of an additive to exclude substances

composed solely of carbon and/or

hydrogen. Together, these two proposals

were expected to relieve hundreds of

businesses from existing regulatory

responsibilities to register and test F/

FAs. Other proposals potentially

affected small businesses, biodiesel and

synthetic fuel manufacturers, and

manufacturers of atypical F/FAs (i.e.,

those containing elements other than

carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen, and

sulfur). In response to the NPRM, EPA

received 43 written comments, which

are available in the docket for public

review.

B. Today’s Actions

This final rule promulgates most of

the revisions proposed in the NPRM of

July 11, 1996. The specific regulatory

revisions are discussed in Sections III

through VII of this preamble, including

analyses of the public comments related

to each issue.

One of the provisions which EPA

proposed in the NPRM was a de

minimis provision, which would delete

standard Tier 2 requirements for certain

atypical F/FAs when the atypical

elements are present at very low

concentrations. Additives qualifying for

this de minimis 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

fuel at the maximum recommended

concentration.

The proposed de minimis provision is

not finalized in today’s action, but is

still under consideration. EPA received

significant public comment about all

aspects of the proposal, and has not yet

fully analyzed the suggestions therein.

Nevertheless, EPA is aware that this

delay in resolving the de minimis issue

might result 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 might

be, but who nonetheless face regulatory

deadlines in the near future. In

particular, all F/FA manufacturers

(except some small businesses and

others qualifying for specific

exemptions or alternative deadlines) are

required by May 27, 1997 to either (1)

submit the results of completed Tier 2

testing to EPA, or (2) demonstrate the

existence of suitable arrangements for

Tier 2 test completion by May 27, 2000.

However, if EPA does adopt a de

minimis provision in a future

rulemaking action, some atypical

manufacturers would not be subject to

these Tier 2 requirements.

To permit EPA to consider all issues

raised in response to the proposed

provision, without any unnecessary

adverse impact on the manufacturers,

EPA is publishing elsewhere in this

issue of the Federal Register a direct

final rule, extending each of the two

deadlines related to Tier 2 testing by 18

months, for all atypical F/FAs.2 Thus,

during the time needed by EPA to

complete its determination of the most

appropriate disposition of the de

minimis proposal, potentially-affected

manufacturers will be relieved of

compliance deadlines which might no

longer apply to them. EPA estimates

that the 18-month extension will be

adequate for the Agency to complete its

analysis and publish a final rule (or

other notification as appropriate), while

still leaving sufficient time for

manufacturers of atypical F/FAs to

comply with any applicable

requirements to secure contractual

arrangements for timely completion of

Tier 2 testing.

III. Fuel Manufacturer and Additive

Definitions

A. Background

In the NPRM of July 11, 1996, EPA

proposed several changes affecting the

definition of a fuel additive and the

definition of a fuel manufacturer. These

changes were intended to ease

regulatory burdens by reducing the

number of entities subject to F/FA

registration responsibilities and by

streamlining certain registration

requirements.

First, EPA proposed to revise the

definition of an additive (at § 79.2(e)) to

exclude substances composed solely of

carbon and/or hydrogen. The proposed

change would reinstate the definition

that was in effect prior to the final rule

of May 27, 1994, and would provide

regulatory relief to perhaps hundreds of

companies considered to be ‘‘fuel

manufacturers’’ only because they add

common hydrocarbon stocks to finished

fuels.

Similarly, EPA proposed to revise the

definition of a fuel manufacturer (at

79.2(d)) to exclude those parties whose

‘‘manufacturing’’ activity consists only

of adding small amounts of detergent

and/or other performance additives to

fuel. Specifically, EPA proposed that

parties which merely add additives in

amounts accounting for less than 1

percent by volume of the resulting

additive/fuel mixture would not be

considered fuel manufacturers by

virture of this activity. In such cases, the

registration and testing requirements for

the additives themselves are already

being met by the responsible additive

manufacturers. Thus, including as fuel

manufacturers those entities whose only

relevant activity is the blending of such

additives into fuel has the effect of
12566 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 51 / Monday, March 17, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

3As specified in § 79.56(e)(3), non-baseline F/FAs

contain (among other criteria) no elements in

addition to carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen, and

sulfur, and, in the case of gasoline F/FAs, contain

1.5 percent or more oxygen by weight, and, in the

case of diesel F/FAs, contain 1.0 percent or more

oxygen by weight.

increasing the number of F/FA

registration respondents while yielding

little incremental information to EPA.

The proposed ‘‘one-percent solution’’

described above would not change the

registration responsibilities of parties

who add oxygenates in amounts

sufficient to produce mixtures

categorized as non-baseline.3 EPA

judged that it is generally appropriate

for manufacturers of oxygenated fuels to

share (along with oxygenate

manufacturers) the responsibility for

registering and testing these mixtures.

The blending of oxygenates in relatively

large volumes can cause substantive

changes in the basic properties,

emission composition, and toxic

potential of the fuel. Furthermore, in the

case of most oxygenates, the blending is

accomplished ‘‘upstream’’ by fuel

refiners and importers. Thus, other

manufacturing activities besides the

addition of oxygenate generally define

these blenders as fuel manufacturers

and make them responsible for F/FA

registration and testing requirements.

However, certain physical properties

prevent transport of ethanol-containing

fuel through the pipeline distribution

system, so that ethanol must be added

to fuel downstream rather than at the

refinery. In addition to refiners and

importers, therefore, many ethanol

blenders are terminal operators and

truckers who are considered ‘‘fuel

manufacturers’’ only because of their

oxygenate-blending activity. Some of

these entities qualify for the small

business exemption at 79.58(d)(2),

which exempts them from Tier 1 and

Tier 2 testing responsibilities. As fuel

manufacturers, however, they must still

comply with the reporting requirements

of the F/FA registration program. As

pointed out in the NPRM, these

requirements may constitute a

significant paperwork burden for such

respondents, while adding little

information to EPA in regard to

oxygenated fuels beyond that which is

available through other program

reporting mechanisms.

Recognizing the unique market

structure for ethanol blending activities,

EPA proposed to revise the fuel

manufacturer definition to exclude

oxygenate blenders who meet the

regulatory definition of a small

business. For convenient reference, it

was also proposed that the definition of

‘‘oxygenate compound’’ at 40 CFR 79.50

also be incorporated at 40 CFR 79.2(k).

B. Summary of Comments and Final

Actions

Comments about the proposed

definition changes were

overwhelmingly supportive and, with

some modification, EPA is finalizing

them in today’s action. The

modifications are discussed below.

Several commenters said that the

proposed new definition of a fuel

manufacturer could be misinterpreted as

excluding or changing the requirements

of fuel refiners and importers, in

addition to entities whose fuel

‘‘manufacturing’’ activity is limited to

the blending of additives or oxygenates

into fuel. EPA did not intend the

proposed changes to affect any of the

existing registration and testing

responsibilities of refiners and

importers for any of the fuel

formulations they produce or blend.

Accordingly, the regulatory language for

the revised definitions has been

modified to eliminate the potential

ambiguity.

Some commenters said that all

oxygenate blenders other than refiners

and importers should be excluded from

the definition of a fuel manufacturer,

not just those oxygenate blenders which

are small businesses (docket items VII–

D–06, VII–D–12, VII–D–14). They stated

that this broad exemption would level

the playing field among blenders

without impeding the development of

health effects data, since oxygenate

manufacturers and major fuel refiners

and importers would retain this

responsibility.

EPA has carefully considered the

commenters’ arguments in relation to

other provisions of the F/FA registration

and testing program. The program is

structured around the concept that

business entities which profit from the

sale of a F/FA product should generally

share responsibility for its potential

effects on the public health and welfare.

Such businesses have thus been

required to share in the burdens

associated with determining these

potential effects. However, this general

principle is tempered by various

provisions which recognize that other

factors, such as characteristics of the F/

FA marketplace and distribution

system, must also be taken into account

when assigning the regulatory burdens.

For example, the special provision for

relabeled additives (§ 79.58(a)) provides

an exemption based on the position of

a business entity in the product

marketing and distribution chain. The

special provisions for small businesses

(§ 79.58(d)) also grant exemptions based

upon financial and marketplace factors.

Moreover, provisions finalized in

today’s action permit this exemption to

‘‘pass through’’ to customers of small

businesses, regardless of the size of the

customers, to prevent disruption of

marketplace relationships (see section

IV.B, below).

EPA’s proposal to exclude as fuel

manufacturers those oxygenate blenders

who meet small business criteria would

certainly provide additional regulatory

relief to this financial segment of the

industry. However, as pointed out by

the commenters, the proposed change

would not fully resolve the underlying

problem it was intended to address: The

regulation’s unequal impact on different

segments of the oxygenate marketplace.

EPA identified this in the NPRM as

the basic problem which was proposed

to be addressed through regulatory

revision. Specifically, in the background

discussion provided in the NPRM, EPA

described the oxygenate marketplace

characteristics which created the need

for the proposed change as follows: ‘‘In

the case of oxygenates other than

ethanol, the oxygenate is generally

added to gasoline at the fuel refinery,

before the gasoline is distributed

through the pipeline. These ‘upstream’

blenders tend to be relatively limited in

number, and often are large fuel

manufacturing businesses. Ethanol, on

the other hand, is generally prohibited

from transport through the pipeline

* * *, and must be added to the fuel

downstream. Thus, rather than being

blended by relatively few fuel refiners,

ethanol is added to fuel by large

numbers of terminal operators, fuel

halers, and some fuel retailers * * *’’

(61 FR 36537).

EPA thus recognized in the NPRM

that, among the various fuel oxygenates,

only ethanol blending involved

numerous entities other than importers

and refiners. Logically, the inclusion of

oxygenate blenders as fuel

manufacturers when they are not

otherwise fuel importers or refiners has

a potentially greater disruptive impact

on the ethanol marketplace than on the

market for other oxygenates. To alleviate

some of this imbalance, EPA proposed

in the NPRM to exempt small oxygenate

blenders from the fuel manufacturer

definition, noting that many of the

entities involved in ethanol blending

already qualify for small business

exemptions and thus have requirements

limited only to paperwork submittal.

However, upon reconsideration, EPA

agrees with the commenters that a more

equitable outcome can be attained by

exempting all entities whose only

‘‘manufacturing’’ activity is the blending

of oxygenate. This would restrict the
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 51 / Monday, March 17, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 12567

regulatory responsibility for registration

and testing of ethanol and ethanol

blends to the same types of business

entities that are subject to these

requirements with respect to other

oxygenates and oxygenate blends, i.e.,

oxygenate manufacturers, fuel refiners,

and importers.

Thus, for the reasons discussed above,

this final rule revises the definition of

a fuel manufacturer to specifically

exclude oxygenate blenders, regardless

of their size, if they are not also fuel

refiners or importers.

IV. Small Business Provisions

A. Tax-Based Revenue

Under § 79.58(d), qualification for the

F/FA program’s small business

provisions is based in part on a

manufacturer’s total annual sales

revenue: a $50 million limit for

manufacturers of baseline and nonbaseline F/FAs, and a $10 million limit

for manufacturers of atypical F/FAs.

After these criteria were promulgated,

communications from trade

organizations (docket item VI–D–05)

suggested that the total sales limits

should be revised to take tax effects into

account. These organizations pointed

out that sales and excise taxes

accumulate as the fuel passes along the

refining-distribution-marketing chain,

but are generally not included in the

price paid for the fuel (nor in the gross

sales revenue of the seller) until the fuel

is marketed at the retail level. The

accumulated sales and excise taxes may

represent a considerable portion of a

small retailer’s fuel-related sales

revenues. Thus, the commenters said,

small marketers would be

disadvantaged in comparison with small

refiners and other upstream businesses

unless these tax effects were reflected in

the small business definition.

EPA found these arguments

persuasive, and proposed to change

§ 79.58(d) to allow revenue representing

the collection of taxes to be excluded

from a manufacturer’s total annual sales

for the purpose of qualifying as a small

business. EPA also proposed to revise

§ 79.59(b)(5)(ii) to require the submittal,

at EPA’s request, of documentation

showing the validity of sales amounts

excluded as taxes. All comments

received about these proposals (docket

items VII–D–02, VII–D–06, and VII–D–

21) were supportive, and the proposed

regulatory changes are finalized in

today’s final rule.

B. Extension of Applicability of Tier 2

Exemption

Under the existing regulations, it is

possible for the manufacturer of an

additive to be exempt from Tier 2

testing requirements under the special

provisions for small businesses, while

larger fuel manufacturers who buy and

blend this additive into fuel do not

qualify for the exemption and must still

test the additive/fuel mixture. As

described in the NPRM, this

combination of circumstances has led to

awkward and unintended outcomes.

EPA thus proposed to revise § 79.58(d)

to exempt fuel manufacturers from Tier

2 requirements arising from the use of

an additive which is itself exempt from

Tier 2 under the small business

provisions.

The one comment received on this

issue (docket item VII–D–27) was

supportive. However, the commenter

suggested that the ‘‘pass through’’ of the

Tier 2 exemption should apply not only

to parties who blend an exempted

additive into fuel, but also to other

additive manufacturers who buy and

blend the exempted additive with other

additives and then bring the resulting

multifunctional additive to the

marketplace. The commenter was

concerned that non-exempt customers

who are secondary additive

manufacturers, just like those who are

fuel manufacturers, might stop

purchasing the additive in lieu of

having to conduct their own Tier 2

testing.

EPA agrees that this situation falls

within the intent of the proposal. That

is, passing the Tier 2 exemption through

to secondary additive manufacturers as

well as fuel manufacturers will help

preserve the business base of small

additive manufacturers by shielding

their customers from Tier 2

requirements. The new regulatory

language at § 79.58(d)(6) extends the

applicability of the small business

exemption accordingly. However, the

‘‘pass through’’ of the Tier 2 exemption

to secondary additive manufacturers

only applies if the secondary

manufacturer blends the exempted

additive with one or more other

registered additives and/or substances

containing only carbon and/or

hydrogen. This approach is consistent

with the conditions qualifying for

exemption from periodic additive

reporting requirements, under § 79.5(b).

C. Small Business Definition Basis

While supportive of the tax-related

changes discussed above, one

commenter also said that the small

business definition should be further

changed, such that only fuel-related

revenue would be included in

determining whether a business is

considered ‘‘small’’ for the purpose of

this program (docket item VII–D–02).

The revenue amounts specified in the

small business definition adopted in

May 1994 were selected to strike a

reasonable balance between EPA’s

scientific (and statutorily-mandated)

need for information and the financial

ability of responsible business entities

to provide that information. Thus, the

revenue cut-off points were selected on

the basis of the total sales revenue of the

ultimate parent companies of registered

F/FA manufacturers. EPA did not

propose to change this basic aspect of

the small business definition, and is not

addressing this issue in this rulemaking.

V. Biodiesel Provisions

A. Background

Biodiesel fuels and most blends of

bio-and conventional diesel fuel contain

more than 1.0 weight percent oxygen

and thus, according to

§ 79.56(e)(3)(ii)(B), fall into the nonbaseline diesel category. Under

§ 79.56(e)(4)(ii)(B)(2), as adopted in May

1994, biodiesel fuels derived from

vegetable oil (‘‘mixed alkyl esters of

plant origin’’) are grouped separately

from biodiesel fuels derived from

animal fat (‘‘mixed alkyl esters of

animal origin’’). For each group, the

representative to be used in health

effects testing is required to be that

member product with the highest

maximum recommended concentration

reported in its registration data. During

testing, the selected product is to be

used at this maximum concentration.

In the rule promulgated in May, 1994,

EPA established the two separate

biodiesel groups because of concern that

the composition of animal-derived and

vegetable-derived fuels might differ

considerably, and thus might

demonstrate different toxicological

properties. Both vegetable oil and

animal fat are composed of triglycerides,

and the process used to convert the

triglycerides to fuel (i.e., an

esterification process in which an

alcohol is reacted with fat or oil) is the

same for both. As discussed in the

preamble to the May 1994 rule, EPA

understood that up to 3.0 percent of the

resulting chemical mixture may be

composed of non-esterified reactants,

other reaction products, and possible

contaminants, and EPA was concerned

that these components could vary

significantly between the different

feedstocks.

In subsequent communications with

EPA (see docket item VI–E–01),

representatives of the industry asserted

that biodiesel produced from different

lipid sources are substantially the same.

As a result of its evaluation of these

arguments, EPA proposed to revise the
12568 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 51 / Monday, March 17, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

4 Van Gerpen, J. Comparison of the Engine

Performance and Emission Characteristics of

Vegetable Oil-Based and Animal Fat-Based

BIodiesel. Iowa State University, August 1996.

(Docket item VII–D–19).

grouping rules in § 79.56(e)(4)(ii)(B)(2)

to permit animal-and vegetable-derived

biodiesels to be grouped together. EPA

requested comment on this proposed

change, as well as data comparing the

composition and emissions of biodiesel

fuels derived from different feedstocks.

In the NPRM, EPA also requested

comment on a possible change to the

rule governing the biodiesel blend

selected to serve as the group

representative, such that a particular

percent blend would be specified (e.g.,

100 percent or 20 percent) rather than

requiring the highest concentration

registered for a biodiesel product to be

used. Comments were also requested on

the practicality of different blend

options with respect to their

compatibility with test vehicles or

engines.

B. Summary of Comments

Comments submitted by the National

Biodiesel Board (NBB) and the Fats and

Proteins Research Foundation, Inc.

(FPRF) supported the proposal to permit

biodiesel F/FAs derived from animal

fats, vegetable fats, used/recycled

vegetable oils, fats and greases to be

consolidated into one group (Docket

items VII–D–17 and VII–D–19). NBB

and FPRF commented that biodiesel F/

FAs from these various sources have

similar composition. They stated that

the primary difference is a shift in the

composition of saturated fatty esters,

e.g., soybean oil is typically 12–15

percent saturated while tallow is

typically 50 percent saturated. NBB

stated that this difference appears to

have little effect on biodiesel emission

characteristics, and submitted a recent

study demonstrating that these fuels

respond in a similar manner when

burned in a diesel engine.4 The FPRF

commented that it would be

inconsistent with the treatment of

petroleum-based fuels and economically

detrimental to biodiesel manufacturers

to require duplicate testing for different

biofuels.

In regard to EPA’s concerns about the

non-esterified portion of biodiesel, NBB

noted that the American Society for

Testing and Materials (ASTM) Biodiesel

Task force (within Committee D2,

Section E2 on diesel fuels) has been

working actively to develop and

promulgate a standard for biodiesel.

According to NBB, the ASTM standard

will minimize any source-related

differences which might exist in the

non-ester fraction. The standard is

expected to set a minimum conversion

of the starting fats and oils to 97.9%

ester product, based on the free and

total glycerine specification. NBB said

that the remaining 2.1% of non-ester

materials is nearly all composed of

partially reacted lipids, primarily

monoglycerides and diglycerides. Under

the ASTM standard, trace byproducts

would be limited in composition and

amount by ash, flashpoint, free

glycerine, acid value, carbon residue,

and sediment specifications. The NBB

suggested that, once the ASTM standard

for biodiesel is finalized, the Agency

should incorporate it into the

specifications for the biodiesel group

representative.

In response to EPA’s request for

comment about the most appropriate

biodiesel blend for use in health effects

testing, one commenter (docket item

VII–D–28) felt that testing should be

done on a formulation which reflects

the levels at which biodiesel would

actually be expected to be blended, i.e.,

20 percent or less. On the other hand,

the NBB supported the choice of 100

percent biodiesel as the group

representative. NBB said that valid

approximations of the potential health

effects of biodiesel blends may be

determined from utilizing data resulting

from the testing of base diesel fuel and

100 percent biodiesel, extrapolating the

data based on scientific observations of

the linear trends of emissions. NBB

stated that the use of 100 percent

biodiesel in health effects testing need

not be precluded by concerns about

engine compatibility, so long as

recognized problems (i.e., accelerated

deterioration of fuel hoses and fuel

pump seals) are addressed in the testing

protocol. However, NBB also noted that

the potential market applications for

biodiesel range from less than 5 percent

for low blend/premium diesel to 100

percent applications in marine and

underground mining markets. Vehicles

subject to urban bus and/or clean fuel

fleet regulatory programs are likely to

operate on 20 percent blends due to

operating performance features such as

increased lubricity and economic

competitiveness vis-a-vis other

alternative fuels. Off-road markets such

as underground mining and marine will

likely use blends approaching 100

percent in order to comply with

environmental and safety regulations.

C. Analysis and Conclusions

While the available data are not

comprehensive, EPA agrees with

industry commenters that plant- and

animal-derived biodiesel fuels appear to

have generally similar chemical

composition. It is EPA’s understanding

that, whether the feedstock is plant or

animal, the nonesterified fraction of

biofuel is mostly composed of partially

reacted lipids of different chain lengths,

primarily monoglycerides and

diglycerides. EPA is encouraged to learn

that ASTM is developing compositional

standards designed to ensure biodiesel

quality. For the reasons discussed in the

previous section, the ASTM standards,

when finalized, should serve to further

limit both the amount and chemical

variability of non-ester components and

any other differences that may exist

between biodiesel fuels derived from

plant and animal feedstocks. Thus, the

Agency’s earlier concern about the

possible variation in non-ester

components depending on plant or

animal lipid source is largely allayed.

For these reasons, grouping of

biodiesel F/FAs based upon their plant

vs. animal feedstock origin does not

appear to be warranted at this time.

Accordingly, as proposed, the Agency is

today revising the grouping rule for

biodiesel F/FAs to permit plant and

animal biodiesel F/FAs to group

together and be represented by one

group representative for compliance

with Tier 1 and Tier 2 testing

requirements.

Nevertheless, EPA wishes to

emphasize that the data currently

available do not demonstrate equivalent

composition and emission

characteristics across all biodiesel

formulations. In fact, significant

variations may exist even within the

same feedstock. For example, soybeans

grown under different climatological

conditions may have different chemical

compositions and, therefore, could have

different emission profiles. The

potential use of waste cooking oils and

recycled grease as biodiesel feedstocks

may also present cause for concern. In

addition to lipid source, the identity of

the alcohol used in the biodiesel

production process may also have

significant effects on both regulated and

unregulated emissions. Furthermore, if

the proposed ASTM standards for

biodiesel fuels are not finalized, or if the

final standards do not provide the

expected level of biodiesel quality

control, then additional variability

concerns are likely to arise.

It is important to recall, therefore, that

Tiers 1 and 2 are largely intended to

provide screening-level information.

Under the Tier 3 testing authority

specified in 79.54, EPA may require not

only follow-up testing on the group

representative which underwent Tier 1

and Tier 2 testing, but also may require

testing of one or more other members of

a group. Thus, even though this final

rule will allow all biodiesel F/FAs to
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 51 / Monday, March 17, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 12569

5See memorandum of December 6, 1996 from

Joseph Sopata to Docket A–90–07, entitled, ‘‘Phone

Conversations with Leroy Watson of the National

Biodiesel Board (NBB).’’

6 ‘‘Iowa DOT to Use 5% blends of Biodiesel in

State Fleet,’’ Oxyfuel News, Vol VIII, No. 45, Page

6, November 18, 1996.

group together and be represented in

Tier 1 and Tier 2 testing by one test

substance, EPA is not precluded from

requiring any other vegetable-derived,

animal-derived, or other biodiesel F/

FAs to undergo separate testing in the

future under the Tier 3 authority.

In regard to selecting the biodiesel

group representative, EPA has decided

that 100 percent biofuel is most

appropriate for the screening purposes

of Tiers 1 and 2. EPA has received

industry assurances, both in written

comments (docket item VII–D–19) and

in follow-up communications,5 that the

use of 100 percent biofuel does not

require significant engine modifications.

Furthermore, while 20 percent biodiesel

formulations are expected to

predominate in the commercial

marketplace during the short term, both

lower and higher percent blends may

see greater market penetration in the

future. For example, the state of Iowa

has announced plans for a one-year trial

of five percent biodiesel fuel in its

vehicle fleet.6 At the other extreme,

some biodiesel manufacturers have

registered blends of up to 50 percent,

and 100 percent biofuels are anticipated

for certain nonroad applications.

In view of the diversity of biodiesel

fuel blend percentages and the

uncertainty about future usage patterns,

EPA believes that Tier 1 and Tier 2

testing on 100 percent biofuel will

provide the most useful and widely

applicable screening information. These

tests will furnish a detailed profile of

the emissions produced during the

combustion of biofuel itself as well as

screening information on the potential

toxicity of these emissions. Such data

can be expected to help inform EPA’s

initial evaluation, not only of 100

percent biofuel, but also of various

percentage biodiesel fuels. It must be

noted, however, that EPA does not

accept the biodiesel industry’s

suggestion that such data can just be

extrapolated to give valid

approximations of the effects of various

biodiesel blends. This suggestion

implicitly assumes that the emissions

generated by any given biodiesel

percentage blend are simply the

weighted sum of the emissions

generated separately by baseline diesel

fuel and 100 percent biofuel, without

regard to possible interactions between

them. To strengthen the credibility of

this assumption, detailed

characterization of the combustion

emissions from biodiesel blends would

be required. EPA therefore encourages

the biodiesel industry group to consider

conducting, on a voluntary basis,

emission characterization tests on one

or more biodiesel percentage blends,

parallel to the Tier 1 testing required to

be run on the 100 percent biofuel group

representative. If submitted to EPA

along with the required Tier 1 submittal,

such information could help to allay

EPA’s concerns about the possible

variability of different biodiesel blends.

A direct final rule published

elsewhere in this issue of the Federal

Register (see discussion in section II.B

of this preamble) includes a change

extending the Tier 1 deadline for

biodiesel F/FAs to one year from today’s

date. Interested readers should consult

that notice for additional information.

VI. Synthetic Fuel Provisions

A. Background

Under §§ 79.56(e)(3) (i)(B) and (ii)(B),

a fuel derived from any source other

than conventional petroleum is assigned

to a non-baseline category. Further,

under § 79.56(e)(4)(ii) (A)(3) and (B)(3),

separate non-baseline groups are

defined for formulations derived in

whole or in part from each nonconventional source or process,

including coal, tar or oil sands, shale,

and recycled chemical or petrochemical

products. The objective of these

grouping provisions was to assure

separate testing for fuels which EPA

expected would differ from

conventional fuels in composition or

other properties, and which therefore

might have different public health

impacts.

Following promulgation of the

regulations in May 1994, EPA received

communications from some affected

industries (e.g., see docket items VI–D–

02 and VI–D–03), indicating that fuels

derived from ‘‘synthetic’’ feedstocks

(‘‘synfuels’’) do not necessarily differ

from fuels derived from conventional

petroleum sources. Based on this

information, EPA solicited substantive

comment and supporting data relevant

to possible revision of the rules for

grouping these fuels. Several

alternatives were discussed in the

proposal, including (1) case-by-case

assignment of a synfuel to a baseline or

non-baseline group, determined by

comparative compositional analysis, (2)

baseline or non-baseline assignment

determined by the proportion of the

final fuel derived from a nonconventional source, and (3) elimination

of the distinction between conventional

petroleum and some or all nonconventional crude sources as a

criterion for group assignment. Changes

to the rules for selecting group

representatives were also proposed. In

addition, EPA proposed to eliminate the

phrase ‘‘non-conventional process’’ as a

grouping criterion [in §§ 79.56(e)(4)

(ii)(A)(3) and (ii)(B)(3)], because the

phrase was open to misinterpretation

and confusion.

B. Summary of Comments

EPA received over twenty written

comments on these issues, all strongly

in favor of removing the general

distinction between synthetic and

conventional sources as a criterion for

group assignment. Some commenters

provided analytic data and other

information showing that properties of

crude oil derived from tar (or oil) sands

are well within the range for

conventional crude and that, after

processing, these fuels are frequently

lower in sulfur, olefins, and metal

content than conventional fuels (see, for

example, docket items VII–D–03, VII–D–

04, VII–D–15, VII–D–25, VII–D–29, VII–

D–34, VII–D–42). Commenters pointed

out that commercialized synfuels are

subject to the same EPA regulations and

industry specifications (e.g., ASTM and

pipeline requirements) as conventional

fuels, and are totally commingled and

fungible with them. They felt that

grouping based on the proportion of

synthetically-derived component would

therefore not only be arbitrary, but

would create unjustifiable market

restrictions.

Information submitted in regard to

coal-derived fuels similarly supported

their categorization as baseline fuels,

without respect to blend ratio. One

commenter, reporting the results of a

recent analysis of fuels derived from

coal liquefaction processes, stated that

these distillates are similar to petroleum

in terms of hydrocarbon composition

and are of adequate quality to be

blended directly into refinery streams

(docket item VII–D–41). The U.S.

Department of Energy’s Pittsburgh

Energy Technology Center submitted

data (docket item VII–D–43) showing

that coal-derived Fischer-Tropsch diesel

fuels were superior to petroleumderived fuels in terms of performance

(higher cetane number and lower

aromatic content) and ‘‘cleanliness’’

(heteroatom composition and paraffin

distribution).

C. Conclusions

EPA has reviewed the qualitative and

quantitative information submitted by

the commenters and agrees that motor

vehicle fuels derived from oil or tar

sands or synthesized from coal appear
12570 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 51 / Monday, March 17, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

to fall within the broad range of

properties and components of

other F/FAs that are categorized as

baseline. Today’s final rule deletes fuels

derived from these sources from the list

of synthetically-derived fuels

considered to be non-baseline, thus

allowing them to join the baseline F/FA

groups. As noted in section V.C. of this

preamble, however, EPA retains the

authority in § 79.54 to require additional

testing at the Tier 3 level, including

testing of different representative(s) of a

group than those tested at the Tier 1

and/or Tier 2 level. For example, under

Tier 3, EPA could require special

analyses of the composition or

emissions of members of the baseline F/

FA group that are derived from nonconventional sources. Separate

toxicology testing of these or other

group members could also be required

under Tier 3.

In addition to the change described

above, today’s final rule deletes ‘‘nonconventional process’’ from the nonbaseline grouping criteria. No comments

were received regarding the grouping of

motor vehicle fuels which might be

synthesized from shale or from recycled

or other petrochemical sources (e.g.,

used motor oils, recovered chemical

spills, recycled plastics, industrial waste

streams), and EPA has not changed the

grouping rules or group representative

specifications for these fuels.

VII. Tier I Exposure Analysis

In the NPRM, EPA proposed to delete

the Tier 1 requirement [at § 79.52(c)] to

provide a qualitative discussion of

potential public exposure to F/FA

emission products. Since it was to be

based on data already required to be

submitted for registration (e.g., annual

and projected production volume,

marketing, and distribution data

for F/FA products), EPA concluded

upon review that the required

discussion would add little or no

incremental value to other data

requirements. Public commenters

agreed that this requirement was

redundant and should be deleted.

In this final rule, therefore, EPA has

deleted § 79.52(c) and modified the

introductory paragraph in § 79.52(a)

accordingly. Deletion of this Tier 1

requirement does not in any way imply

that EPA considers population exposure

data to be unimportant. On the contrary,

information on exposures is necessary

for quantitative risk assessment.

However, rigorous population exposure

studies that would be useful to risk

assessment are complex, expensive, and

beyond the intended scope of the Tier

1 and Tier 2 screening requirements. As

described above and in the proposed

rule, the information that was to be

submitted under the original Tier 1

requirement would generally be based

on production and sales data. The

resulting qualitative analysis would be

only inferentially related to actual

population exposure and, in any case, is

already available to EPA in

manufacturers’ basic registration data

submittals (see §§ 79.59(b) (2) and (3)).

As such, it would be duplicative and of

little incremental value in assessing

risk.

VIII. Administrative Requirements

A. Administrative Designation and

Regulatory Analysis

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR

51735, Oct. 4, 1993), the Agency must

determine whether this regulatory

action is ‘‘significant’’ and therefore

subject to OMB review and the

requirements of the Executive Order.

The order defines ‘‘significant

regulatory action’’ as any regulatory

action that is likely to result in a rule

that may:

(1) Have an annual effect on the economy

of $100 million or more or adversely affect

in a material way the economy, a sector of

the economy, productivity, competition, jobs,

the environment, public health or safety, or

State, local, or tribal governments or

communities;

(2) Create a serious inconsistency or

otherwise interfere with an action taken or

planned by another agency;

(3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of

entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan

programs or the rights and obligations of

recipients thereof; or,

(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues

arising out of legal mandates, the President’s

priorities, or the principles set forth in the

Executive Order.

Pursuant to the terms of Executive

Order 12866, EPA has determined that

this direct final rule is not a ‘‘significant

regulatory action’’. In fact, the

provisions finalized by this action will

decrease the number of parties to which

these regulations apply and will reduce

the requirements and costs of other

parties subject to the regulations.

B. Regulatory Flexibility

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 reduce or eliminate the

reporting and testing requirements for

many small businesses, and will

simplify compliance and reduce

potential testing requirements for all

affected parties.

C. Paperwork Reduction Act

Per the Paperwork Reduction Act 44

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

regulations, 5 CFR part 1320, this action

does not involve the addition of any

collection of information as defined

therein.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform 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 on regulated

entities. Therefore, the requirements of

the Unfunded Mandates Act do not

apply.

E. 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 in 40 CFR Part 79

Environmental protection, Fuel

additives, Gasoline, Motor vehicle
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 51 / Monday, March 17, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 12571

pollution, Penalties, Reporting and

recordkeeping requirements.

Dated: March 4, 1997.

Carol M. Browner,

Administrator.

For the reasons set out in the

preamble, part 79 of chapter I of title 40

of the Code of Federal Regulations is

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 79.2 is amended by revising

paragraphs (d) and (e) and by adding

paragraph (k), to read as follows:

§ 79.2 Definitions.

* * * * *

(d) Fuel manufacturer means any

person who, for sale or introduction into

commerce, produces, manufactures, or

imports a fuel or causes or directs the

alteration of the chemical composition

of a bulk fuel, or the mixture of

chemical compounds in a bulk fuel, by

adding to it an additive, except:

(1) A party (other than a fuel refiner

or importer) who adds a quantity of

additive(s) amounting to less than 1.0

percent by volume of the resultant

additive(s)/fuel mixture is not thereby

considered a fuel manufacturer.

(2) A party (other than a fuel refiner

or importer) who adds an oxygenate

compound to fuel in any otherwise

allowable amount is not thereby

considered a fuel manufacturer.

(e) Additive means any substance,

other than one composed solely of

carbon and/or hydrogen, that is

intentionally added to a fuel named in

the designation (including any added to

a motor vehicle’s fuel system) and that

is not intentionally removed prior to

sale or use.

* * * * *

(k) Oxygenate compound means an

oxygen-containing, ashless organic

compound, such as an alcohol or ether,

which may be used as a fuel or fuel

additive.

3. Section 79.52 is amended by

revising the first sentence in paragraph

(a) and removing and reserving

paragraph (c), to read as follows:

§ 79.52 Tier 1.

(a) General Specifications. Tier 1

requires manufacturers of designated

fuels or fuel additives (or groups of

manufacturers pursuant to § 79.56) to

supply to the Administrator the identity

and concentration of certain emission

products of such fuels or additives and

any available information regarding the

health and welfare effects of the whole

and speciated emissions of such fuels or

additives. * * *

* * * * *

4. Section 79.56 is amended by

revising paragraphs (e)(3)(i)(A)(5),

(e)(3)(i)(B), (e)(3)(ii)(A)(5), (e)(3)(ii)(B),

(e)(4)(ii)(A)(3) introductory text,

(e)(4)(ii)(A)(3)(i), (e)(4)(ii)(B)(1),

(e)(4)(ii)(B)(1), (e)(4)(ii)(B)(2)

introductory text, (e)(4)(ii)(B)(2)(ii),

(e)(4)(ii)(B)(3) introductory text, and

(e)(4)(ii)(B)(3)(i); and by adding

paragraph (e)(4)(ii)(B)(2)(iv) to read as

follows:

§ 79.56 Fuel and fuel additive grouping

system.

* * * * *

(e) * * *

(3) * * *

(i) * * *

(A) * * *

(5) Derived only from conventional

petroleum, heavy oil deposits, coal, tar

sands, and/or oil sands.

(B) The Non-Baseline Gasoline

category is comprised of gasoline fuels

and associated additives which conform

to the specifications in paragraph

(e)(3)(i)(A) of this section for the

Baseline Gasoline category except that

they contain 1.5 percent or more oxygen

by weight and/or may be derived from

sources other than those listed in

paragraph (e)(3)(i)(A)(5) of this section.

* * * * *

(ii) * * *

(A) * * *

(5) Derived only from conventional

petroleum, heavy oil deposits, coal, tar

sands, and/or oil sands.

(B) The Non-Baseline Diesel category

is comprised of diesel fuels and

associated additives which conform to

the specifications in paragraph

(e)(3)(ii)(A) of this section for the

Baseline Diesel category except that

they contain 1.0 percent or more oxygen

by weight and/or may be derived from

sources other than those listed in

paragraph (e)(3)(ii)(A)(5) of this section.

* * * * *

(4) * * *

(ii) * * *

(A) * * *

(3) Separate non-baseline gasoline

groups shall also be defined for gasoline

formulations derived from each

particular petroleum source not listed in

paragraph (e)(3)(i)(A)(5) of this section.

(i) Such groups may include, but are

not limited to, those derived from shale,

used oil, waste plastics, and other

recycled chemical/petrochemical

products.

* * * * *

(B) * * *

(1) For diesel fuel and additive

products which contain 1.0 percent or

more oxygen by weight in the form of

alcohol(s) and/or ether(s):

(i) A separate non-baseline diesel

group shall be defined by each

individual alcohol or ether listed as a

component in the registration

application or basic registration data of

any such fuel or additive.

(ii) For each such group, the

representative to be used in testing shall

be a formulation consisting of the diesel

base fuel blended with the relevant

alcohol or ether in an amount

equivalent to the highest actual or

recommended concentration-in-use of

the alcohol or ether recorded in the

basic registration data of any member

fuel or additive product.

(2) A separate non-baseline diesel

group is also defined for each of the

following classes of oxygenating

compounds: mixed nitroso-compounds;

mixed nitro-compounds; mixed alkyl

nitrates; mixed alkyl nitrites; peroxides;

furans; mixed alkyl esters of plant and/

or animal origin (biodiesel). For each

such group, the representative to be

used in testing shall be formulated as

follows:

* * * * *

(ii) The selected compound shall be

the one recorded in any member

product’s registration application with

the highest actual or recommended

maximum concentration-in-use.

* * * * *

(iv) The compound thus selected shall

be the group representative, and shall be

used in testing at the following

concentration:

(A) For biodiesel groups, the

representative shall be 100 percent

biodiesel fuel.

(B) Otherwise, the group

representative shall be the selected

compound mixed into diesel base fuel at

the maximum recommended

concentration-in-use.

(3) Separate non-baseline diesel

groups shall also be defined for diesel

formulations derived from each

particular petroleum source not listed in

paragraph (e)(3)(i)(A)(5) of this section.

(i) Such groups may include, but are

not limited to, those derived from shale,

used oil, waste plastics, and other

recycled chemical/petrochemical

products.

* * * * *

5. Section 79.58 is amended by

revising the last sentence of paragraph

(d)(1) and adding paragraph (d)6), to

read as follows:

§ 79.58 Special provisions.

* * * * *
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