40202 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 144 /Tuesday, July 28, 1998 / Proposed Rules

Authority: 5 U.S.C. 5542; 7 U.S.C. 1622; 19

U.S.C. 1306; 21 U.S.C. 102–105, 111, 114,

114a, 134a, 134b, 134c, 134d, 134f, 135, 136,

and 136a; 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80, and 371.2(d).

2. In § 130.8, paragraph (a) would be

amended by adding a new entry at the

end of the table to read as follows:

§ 130.8 User fees for other services.

(a) * * *

Service User fee

* * * * * * *

Embryo collection center inspection and approval ................................... $278.50 for all inspections required during the year for facility approval.

* * * * *

§ 130.21 [Amended]

3. In § 130.21, paragraph (a)(6) would

be amended by removing the words

‘‘embryo or’’ and adding the words

‘‘artificial insemination center or a’’ in

their place.

* * * * *

Done in Washington, DC, this 22nd day of

July 1998.

Charles P. Schwalbe,

Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant

Health Inspection Service.

[FR Doc. 98–20157 Filed 7–27–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410–34–P

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

10 CFR Part 490

Office of Energy Efficiency and

Renewable Energy

[Docket No. EE–RM–98–PURE]

RIN 1904–AA99

Alternative Fuel Transportation

Program; P-series fuels

AGENCY: Department of Energy (DOE).

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking

and opportunity for public comment.

SUMMARY: In response to a petition filed

by Pure Energy Corporation, DOE

proposes to amend the rules for the

statutory program requiring certain

alternative fuel providers and State

government fleets to acquire an

annually increasing percentage of

alternative fueled vehicles from among

their purchases of new light duty

vehicles. The proposed regulatory

amendments would add certain blends

of methyltetrahydrofuran, ethanol and

hydrocarbons known as the P-series

fuels to the definition of ‘‘alternative

fuel.’’

DATES: Written comments, eight (8)

copies, must be received by DOE by

September 28, 1998.

ADDRESSES: Written comments should

be addressed to: U.S. Department of

Energy, Office of Transportation

Technologies, EE–34, Docket No. EE–

RM–98–PURE, 1000 Independence

Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20585,

telephone (202) 586–3012.

Copies of the Pure Energy Corporation

petition for rulemaking, analyses of the

petition by national laboratories, written

comments received, technical reference

materials mentioned in this notice, and

any other documents related to this

rulemaking may be read and copied at

the DOE Freedom of Information

Reading Room, Room 1E–190, 1000

Independence Avenue, SW,

Washington, DC 20585, telephone (202)

586–3142, between the hours of 9:00

a.m. and 4:00 p.m., Monday through

Friday, except Federal holidays. The

docket file material will be filed under

EE–RM–98–PURE.

For more information concerning

public participation in this rulemaking

proceeding, see section III of this notice

(Public Comment Procedures).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Kenneth R. Katz, Office of Energy

Efficiency and Renewable Energy, (EE–

34), U.S. Department of Energy, 1000

Independence Avenue, S.W.,

Washington, D.C. 20585, (202) 586–

9171.

For information concerning

submission of written comments and to

obtain copies of materials referenced in

this notice, contact Andi Kasarsky, (202)

586–3012.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Introduction and Background

A. Fuel Characteristics

Pure Energy Corporation has

petitioned DOE for a rulemaking to add

its proprietary fuel products to the

definition of ‘‘alternative fuels’’ under

the Alternative Fuel Transportation

Program (Program) regulations (10 CFR

part 490). Pure Energy Corporation’s Pseries fuels are blends of ethanol,

methyltetrahydrofuran (MTHF), and

pentanes plus, with butane added for

blends that would be used in severe

cold-weather conditions to meet cold

start requirements. It is anticipated that

both the ethanol and the MTHF will be

derived from renewable resources, such

as waste cellulosic biomass that can be

derived from waste paper, agricultural

waste and urban/industrial wood waste.

Pure Energy Corporation plans to use

pentanes plus that are derived from the

processing and production of natural

gas, as opposed to those derived from

refining processes. Pure Energy

Corporation holds the exclusive

worldwide license to manufacture and

distribute the P-series fuels, which were

developed by Dr. Stephen Paul of

Princeton University. The P-series fuels

were awarded Patent number 5,697,987

by the United States Patent and

Trademark Office on December 16,

1997. DOE’s evaluation of Pure Energy

Corporation’s petition is restricted to

those formulations covered under this

patent.

To make the P-series fuels, Pure

Energy Corporation will be producing

ethanol and MTHF through an

integrated production process. Pure

Energy Corporation expects to utilize

commercially proven concentrated acid

hydrolysis processing as its base

technology for this integrated

production process. MTHF is currently

produced in limited quantities from

furfural (derived from both biomass and

petroleum feedstocks) for use as a

specialty chemical in consumer end

products and/or process industries.

Pure Energy Corporation has

developed a thermochemical technology

to produce MTHF from cellulosic

feedstocks through a levulinic acid

pathway, integrating it with an ethanol

production system to achieve technical

and economic efficiencies. In this

process, the lignocellulosic feedstock is

converted into both five-and six-carbon

sugars, which are then bifurcated into

fermentation and thermochemical

pathways to produce ethanol and

MTHF, respectively.

Pure Energy Corporation has

developed several fuel formulations for

the P-series fuels. Pure Energy

Corporation proposes to vary the

components of its P-series fuels to meet

particular market demands. The

formulations described in Table 1 are

those for which Pure Energy

Corporation, in its petition, provided

specific energy and emission data. Pure

Energy Corporation claims that the

volumetric percentages of each of the

components of the P-series fuels can
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 144 /Tuesday, July 28, 1998 / Proposed Rules 40203

range from 10 percent to 50 percent for

pentanes plus; from 15 percent to 55

percent for MTHF; from 25 percent to 55

percent for ethanol; and from zero to 15

percent for normal butane. However,

data was not provided to DOE for fuel

formulations that incorporate the entire

blending range. Data was provided to

DOE only for the three specific

formulations discussed in this notice.

Table 1 provides the compositions, by

volume, of the three P-series fuel

formulations which are the subject of

Pure Energy Corporation’s petition for

rulemaking.

TABLE 1

Volume composition of the P-series fuels

Constituent Regular Premium Cold weather

Pentanes plus ................................................................................................................... 32.5 27.5 16.0

MTHF ................................................................................................................................ 32.5 17.5 26.0

Ethanol ............................................................................................................................. 35.0 55.0 47.0

Normal butane .................................................................................................................. 0 0 11.0

Pure Energy Corporation claims that

its P-series fuels are from 60 to 100

percent non-petroleum, on an energy

basis, depending on the source of the

pentanes plus and n-butane components

of the blends.

Pure Energy Corporation proposes to

market the P-series fuels for flexible fuel

vehicles (FFVs) originally designed to

operate on E–85 (85 percent ethanol/15

percent gasoline), on gasoline, or on any

blend of those two fuels. Flexible fuel

vehicles are currently available from

two major domestic auto manufacturers

as mid-size sedans and minivans. In the

near future, a large number of minivans

and compact pickup trucks will be

produced as flexible-fuel vehicles by

these two domestic manufacturers.

B. Patent

On December 16, 1997, the United

States Patent and Trademark Office

issued U.S. Patent No. 5,697,987, titled

Alternative Fuel, to Princeton

University on a new, non-petroleum

substitute for gasoline called the Pseries. The abstract for this patent reads:

A spark ignition motor fuel composition

consisting essentially of: a hydrocarbon

component containing one or more

hydrocarbons selected from five to eight

carbon atoms straight-chained or branched

alkanes essentially free of olefins, aromatics,

benzene and sulfur, wherein the hydrocarbon

component has a minimum anti-knock index

of 65 as measured by ASTM D–2699 and D–

2700 and a maximum DVPE of 15 psi as

measured by ASTM D–5191; a fuel grade

alcohol; and a co-solvent for the hydrocarbon

component and the fuel grade alcohol;

wherein the hydrocarbon component, the

fuel grade alcohol and the co-solvent are

present in amounts selected to provide a

motor fuel with a minimum anti-knock index

of 87 as measured by ASTM D2699 and D–

2700, and a maximum DVPE of 15 psi as

measured by ASTM D–5191. A method for

lowering the vapor pressure of a

hydrocarbon-alcohol blend by adding a cosolvent for the hydrocarbon and the alcohol

to the blend is also disclosed.

C. Background

10 CFR part 490 sets forth the

regulations that implement title V of the

Energy Policy Act 1992 (EPACT) (Public

Law 102–486) which mandates

alternative fueled vehicle acquisition

requirements for certain alternative fuel

providers and State government fleets.

Part 490 is one of a variety of EPACT

programs to promote alternative and

replacement fuels that reduce reliance

on imported oil, reduce criteria

pollutant and greenhouse gas emissions,

increase energy efficiency, and help

displace 10 percent and 30 percent of

conventional motor fuels by 2000 and

2010, respectively.

Title III of EPACT requires Federal

fleet acquisitions of alternative fueled

vehicles. Title IV includes specific

authority for a financial incentive

program for States, a public information

program, and a program for certifying

alternative fueled vehicle technician

training programs. In addition to the

mandates for the purchase of alternative

fueled vehicles by certain alternative

fuel providers and State government

fleets, title V provides for a possible

similar mandate for certain private and

municipal fleets. Title VI provides for a

program to promote electric motor

vehicles.

The types of vehicles that satisfy the

alternative fuel provider and State

government fleet mandates in title V are

determined in part by the definition of

‘‘alternative fuel’’ in section 301(2). That

definition provides: ‘‘ ‘Alternative fuel’

means methanol, denatured ethanol,

and other alcohols; mixtures containing

85 percent or more (or such other

percentage, but not less than 70 percent,

as determined by the Secretary, by rule,

to provide for requirements relating to

cold start, safety, or vehicle functions)

by volume of methanol, denatured

ethanol , and other alcohols with

gasoline or other fuels; natural gas;

liquefied petroleum gas; hydrogen; coalderived liquid fuels; fuels (other than

alcohol) derived from biological

materials; electricity (including

electricity from solar energy); and any

other fuel the Secretary determines, by

rule, is substantially not petroleum, and

would yield substantial energy security

benefits and substantial environmental

benefits.’’ [Emphasis added.] 42 U.S.C.

13211(2). The P-series fuels do not fit

within the classes of eligible fuels

specifically named in section 301(2).

The emphasized phrase in the definition

of ‘‘alternative fuel’’ states the minimum

procedural and substantive

requirements for adding a new fuel

blend to the list of fuels enumerated or

implicitly covered by the provisions of

section 301(2).

In the rulemaking to establish 10 CFR

part 490, DOE concluded that Congress

deliberately omitted reformulated

gasoline (RFG) from the definition of

‘‘alternative fuel’’ in section 301(2) of

the Act. The basis for this conclusion

was explained in a final rule at 61 FR

10622 (March 14, 1996). The relatively

small percentage of non-petroleum

content in RFG was an important

consideration in that explanation.

For reasons set forth in detail below,

DOE proposes to determine that the Pseries fuels, as described by United

States Patent number 5,697,987, which

contain at least 60 percent nonpetroleum energy content derived from

MTHF (manufactured solely from

biomass feedstocks) and ethanol, are

substantially not petroleum and would

yield substantial energy security and

substantial environmental benefits, and

thus should be added to the definition

of ‘‘alternative fuel’’ in 10 CFR 490.2.

II. Statutory Criteria for Designating

Additional Alternative Fuels

Neither section 301(2) nor any other

provision of EPACT states specifically

or indicates how to measure whether a

new fuel: (1) is ‘‘substantially not

petroleum’’ and (2) would yield

‘‘substantial energy security benefits;’’

and (3) would yield ‘‘substantial
40204 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 144 /Tuesday, July 28, 1998 / Proposed Rules

environmental benefits.’’ Moreover,

these criteria do not purport to be

exclusive, and in appropriate

circumstances, DOE could consider

other criteria related to achievement of

the purposes of the Program.

Legislative committee report language

likewise does not identify specifically

what numbers and measures Congress

viewed as defining the minimum that

would qualify as substantially not

petroleum, substantial energy security,

and substantial environmental benefits.

However, the report of the House

Committee on Energy and Commerce

described the pertinent language in

section 301(2) as providing ‘‘. . . the

Secretary with the opportunity to add

alternative and replacement fuels that

are not now being marketed to those

specifically identified in the

legislation.’’ [Emphasis added.] H.R.

Rep. No. 474(1), 102nd Cong., 2nd Sess.,

182, reprinted in 1992 U.S. Code Cong.

& Admin. News 2005. The word

‘‘opportunity’’ suggests that the

authority to add fuels to the definition

of ‘‘alternative fuel’’ is largely

discretionary.

A. Substantially Not Petroleum

Any standard dictionary or thesaurus

indicates that ‘‘substantially’’ is an

adverb that can be used to convey a

variety of subtly different meanings.

‘‘Substantially’’ is sometimes used as a

synonym for the word ‘‘mainly.’’ At

other times, it is used as a synonym for

the words ‘‘considerably’’ or

‘‘importantly.’’ See, e.g., Webster’s New

World Thesaurus 725 (Simon &

Schuster, 1985). The former is a more

narrow usage because the word

‘‘mainly’’ means the principal and

predominant portion of a whole.

(Obviously, a fuel that is more than 50

percent non-petroleum in energy

equivalent terms is ‘‘mainly’’ and

therefore ‘‘substantially not

petroleum.’’) The latter usage is broader

because a less than principal or

predominant portion of the whole could

still be large enough to be regarded as

‘‘considerable’’ or ‘‘important.’’ Whether

to construe ‘‘substantially’’ narrowly or

broadly is a policy question. Since the

petition does not involve fuels that are

less than 50 percent non-petroleum, in

terms of energy content, it is

unnecessary to address this policy

question in this rulemaking.

Section 502(b) of the Act establishes

goals for replacing the projected

consumption of motor fuel in the U.S.

on an energy equivalent basis. The goals

provided by this section are that 10% of

the motor fuel consumed by 2000 and

30% of the motor fuel consumed by

2010 will be replacement fuels. These

goals are the driving force for all the

alternative and replacement fuel

provisions in the Act. Because the

achievement of these goals is to be

measured on an energy equivalent basis,

DOE believes that when evaluating a

fuel, the determination of whether it is

‘‘substantially not petroleum’’ should be

based on an analysis of the fuel’s nonpetroleum energy content, rather than a

volumetric analysis of the fuel’s nonpetroleum content.

Pure Energy Corporation claims that,

on an energy basis, its P-series fuels will

be at least 60 percent derived, and may

be 100 percent derived, from nonpetroleum sources, depending on the

source of the light hydrocarbons in the

blends. In its petition, the Pure Energy

Corporation provided DOE with

information and analysis to substantiate

these claims, and DOE had the National

Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL)

review those data. NREL confirmed the

accuracy of Pure Energy Corporation’s

claim regarding the energy-based, nonpetroleum content of the P-series fuels.

Table 2 summarizes the worst-case

(lowest non-petroleum) makeup of the

three P-series fuel formulations, based

on the net (lower) heating value of all

constituents.

TABLE 2

Verified non-petroleum energy content of the P-series fuels

Constituent Regular

(percent)

Premium

(percent)

Cold weather

(percent)

Pentanes plus ............................................................................................................................... 36.2 33.3 19.1

MTHF ............................................................................................................................................ 37.7 22.1 32.3

Ethanol ......................................................................................................................................... 26.1 44.6 37.5

Normal butane .............................................................................................................................. 0.0 0.0 11.2

Non-petroleum .............................................................................................................................. 63.8 66.7 69.8

It is evident to DOE that the MTHF

(manufactured from biomass feedstock)

and the ethanol in the P-series fuels are

non-petroleum. However, it is less clear

as to whether the pentanes plus

component is non-petroleum. The

Department of Energy’s Energy

Information Administration (EIA), in its

publication Annual Energy Review

1996, 386 ((DOE/EIA–0384(96)) defines

‘‘pentanes plus’’ as ‘‘a mixture of

hydrocarbons, mostly pentanes and

heavier, extracted from natural gas.

[This] includes isopentane, natural

gasoline, and plant condensate.’’ This

same publication also defines petroleum

products as including ‘‘unfinished oils,

liquefied petroleum gases, pentanes

plus, aviation gasoline, motor gasoline,

naphtha-type jet fuel, kerosene-type jet

fuel, kerosene, distillate fuel oil,

residual fuel oil, petrochemical

feedstocks, special naphthas, lubricants,

waxes, petroleum coke, asphalt, road

oil, still gas, and miscellaneous

products.’’ Ibid. However, it is

unnecessary to determine whether to

restrict pentanes plus on the basis of

source because the MTHF

(manufactured from biomass feedstock)

and ethanol, which are present in all

three fuel blends, result in a nonpetroleum energy content for the Pseries formulations of at least 63.8

percent. That percentage is the main or

predominant portion of the fuel, and

even under the narrow definition of

‘‘substantially,’’ the three fuel blends are

‘‘substantially not petroleum.’’

Because U.S. Patent number 5,697,987

does not specifically define the

composition of the P-series fuels, DOE

has determined that the fuels need to be

more specifically described before they

can be added to the regulatory

definition of ‘‘alternative fuel.’’ Given

that the petition shows that the P-series

fuels will be at least 60 percent derived

from non-petroleum sources, DOE will

be using that percentage as a way of

more narrowly defining the P-series

fuels, yet allowing some variability in

the blend components and blend levels.

DOE also believes that the amount of

MTHF and ethanol in the fuels will

result in a non-petroleum content of at

least 60 percent for the P-series fuels,

absent any other non-petroleum

component, if the MTHF is

manufactured solely from biomass

feedstock. Since 60 percent represents

the main or predominant portion of the

P-series fuels covered by the petition for
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 144 /Tuesday, July 28, 1998 / Proposed Rules 40205

rulemaking, DOE proposes to determine

that they are ‘‘substantially not

petroleum’’ under section 301(2) of the

Act.

B. Substantial Energy Security Benefits

Pure Energy Corporation claims in its

petition that the P-series fuels are 100

percent domestic and capable of

displacing gasoline on essentially a

gallon-for-gallon basis. Pure Energy

Corporation notes that each gallon of the

P-series fuel directly displaces 0.88

gallons of RFG in vehicle use. Pure

Energy Corporation also states that the

energy required to produce a one gallon

equivalent of the fuel is approximately

13,800 BTUs less than that required to

produce one gallon of RFG.

The petition provides information to

support a claim that the production of

the P-series fuels results in a positive

energy balance. The process efficiency

(BTUs produced per BTU of input) of

the P-series fuels is approximately 2.25

when the ethanol is produced from

renewable resources, such as biomass.

If, however, the ethanol is produced

from corn, the process efficiency is

slightly lower, with a value between

1.75 and 1.88. Although the process

efficiency is slightly lower when the

ethanol is derived from corn,

production of ethanol from either

feedstock represents a significant energy

savings for the life cycle of the fuel.

DOE has had NREL and Argonne

National Laboratory (ANL) examine

these claims. The analyses, ‘‘Review of

Pure Energy Petition for Alternative

Fuel Status’’ (NREL) and ‘‘Assessment

of Fuel-Cycle Energy Use and

Greenhouse Gas Emissions of Pure

Energy’s Proprietary Motor Fuel’’ (ANL)

can be reviewed at DOE’s Freedom of

Information Reading Room under

Docket Number EE–RM–98–PURE.

These analyses support Pure Energy

Corporation’s claim of significant

petroleum displacement, although

NREL found Pure Energy Corporation’s

claim of 100 percent domestic content

to be slightly high.

NREL estimated that the P-series fuels

(regular grade) with pentanes plus

derived from natural gas would be 96

percent derived from domestic

resources. NREL believes that the

feedstock for ethanol and MTHF

production will almost certainly be

wholly domestic. NREL asserts that the

feedstock for the pentanes plus and the

butane will be either natural gas or

petroleum. Because a portion of these

feedstocks is currently and will

continue to be imported, it is debatable

whether the P-series fuels will ever be

wholly derived from domestic

resources. However, if coal gas were

used as the feedstock, the pentanes plus

would be wholly derived from domestic

resources. If the pentanes plus were

derived from refining at oil import

levels projected for 2015 (as estimated

by EIA), the regular grade of the P-series

fuel would still be 80 percent derived

from domestic resources.

ANL estimated that the P-series fuels

could reduce fossil energy use by 49 to

57 percent, relative to RFG. ANL also

estimates the P-series fuels could reduce

petroleum use by 79 to 81 percent,

relative to RFG. These estimates are

affected by some key assumptions that

ANL used in its analysis. One

assumption is that Pure Energy

Corporation’s fuel production yield per

dry ton of biomass is accurate. Another

one is that Pure Energy Corporation’s

assumption that the amount of steam

and electricity required in MTHF/

ethanol plants is provided by

combustion of the lignin cake produced

within the plants and that no net energy

input is required.

On the basis of the foregoing, DOE

proposes that the P-series fuels, as

described by United States Patent

number 5,697,987, which contain at

least 60 percent non-petroleum energy

content derived from MTHF

(manufactured solely from biomass

feedstock) and ethanol, would yield

‘‘substantial energy security benefits’’ as

that phrase is used in section 301(2) of

the Act.

C. Substantial Environmental Benefits

Pure Energy Corporation had vehicle

tailpipe and evaporative emissions tests

conducted by an Environmental

Protection Agency (EPA) certified

automotive test laboratory using both

the current Federal testing procedure

(FTP) and the US06 test. 40 CFR part 86.

The US06 is a high acceleration,

aggressive driving schedule developed

by the EPA that is often identified as a

‘‘Supplemental FTP’’ driving schedule.

The US06 driving cycle is ten minutes

in duration and has a maximum speed

of 80.3 miles per hour. This cycle was

developed by EPA in conjunction with

the California Air Resources Board and

vehicle manufacturers. The cycle is

used by EPA to set emission standards

and control emissions associated with

aggressive, high-speed driving

conditions not represented by the FTP.

Pure Energy Corporation’s test

vehicles, two 1997 Ford Taurus E–85

flexible-fuel vehicles, were operated on

seven fuels: three P-series fuels (regular,

premium and cold weather), E–85,

Federal Certification gasoline, California

Phase 2 RFG and two commercial

‘‘street’’ gasolines (a summer and a

winter blend). The results were

submitted to DOE as part of Pure Energy

Corporation’s petition. Pure Energy

Corporation also provided an analysis of

the greenhouse gas emissions associated

with the production, distribution and

use of the P-series fuels and compared

them to those of gasoline and E–85.

Both the criteria pollutant emissions

test results and the greenhouse gas

analysis tend to support Pure Energy

Corporation’s claim of substantial

environmental benefits arising from the

use of the P-series fuels. Criteria

emissions from the P-series fuels were

consistently among the lowest of all test

fuels, met Federal Tier 1 standards and

statutorily provided Federal Tier 2

standards in every case, and compared

favorably with those from E–85. The

premium P-series fuel had better

emission characteristics than the regular

P-series fuel. NREL surmised that this

may be due to the increased volume of

ethanol in the premium fuel. With

regard to non-methane hydrocarbons

(NMHC) and total hydrocarbons, the Pseries fuels reduced emissions by almost

a third compared to Phase 2 RFG. It is

worth noting that all of the fuels tested

had evaporative emissions well below

the evaporative emissions standard for

Federal Tier 1. Table 3 summarizes the

results of the Federal Test Procedure

emissions results (all results in grams

per mile). The numbers are averages

over both cars tested and all FTP tests

performed, as presented in Pure Energy

Corporation’s petition.

TABLE 3

Comparison of Federal test procedure emission results (gram/mile)

NMHC Carbon

monoxide Nitrogen oxides

Pure Regular .......................................................................................................................... 0.074 1.081 0.064

Pure Premium ........................................................................................................................ .064 1.062 .059

Phase II RFG ......................................................................................................................... .115 1.247 .039
40206 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 144 /Tuesday, July 28, 1998 / Proposed Rules

TABLE 3—Continued

Comparison of Federal test procedure emission results (gram/mile)

NMHC Carbon

monoxide Nitrogen oxides

Tier 1 standards ..................................................................................................................... .250 3.4 .4

Tier 2 standards ..................................................................................................................... .125 1.7 .2

The Tier 2 standards that are

referenced in Table 3 are the pending

standards identified by Congress in

section 202(i) of the Clean Air Act

(CAA). Section 202(i) of the CAA

outlines a process for assessing whether

more stringent exhaust emission

reductions from light duty vehicles and

light duty trucks should be required.

Congress required EPA to report the

results of this assessment. Congress

identified specific standards that EPA

must consider in making this

assessment, but stated that the study

should also consider other possible

standards. These standards, referred to

as ‘‘Tier 2 standards’’, would be more

stringent than the standards required for

light duty vehicles and light duty trucks

in the CAA beginning in model year

1994, but could not be implemented

prior to the 2004 model year.

EPA recently released a Draft Tier 2

Study and published a Notice of

Document Availability regarding this

document. 63 FR 23255. This study

assesses the air quality need, technical

feasibility and cost effectiveness of more

stringent standards. It is DOE’s

understanding that EPA will issue the

Tier 2 Report to Congress by July 31,

1998. Following submission of this

Report to Congress, EPA will, through

the rulemaking process, determine

whether: there is an air quality need for

further emission reductions; the

technology for meeting more stringent

emissions standards will be available;

and whether obtaining further

reductions in emissions from light duty

vehicles and light duty trucks is

necessary and cost effective.

As seen in Table 4, the P-series fuels

had reduced emissions for ozoneforming potential (OFP), carbon

monoxide and for air toxics. With regard

to NOX emissions, indolene and Phase

2 RFG outperformed the P-series fuels

by a small margin. However, the EPA

certified test laboratory pointed out that

the Taurus’ engine could be adjusted to

significantly reduce NOx emissions,

while only slightly increasing CO and

hydrocarbon emissions to levels well

below the standard.

The OFP is a measure of the

performance of the fuel-vehicle

combination, and is calculated by

multiplying the fraction of each

compound in the emissions mixture by

its reactivity. The specific reactivity is

calculated by dividing the OFP by the

mass of the non-methane organic

gaseous emissions, and is considered a

better gauge of the reactivity of the fuels’

emissions profile. Table 4 compares the

emission results of the P-series fuels,

indolene, Phase 2 RFG and commercial

‘‘street’’ gasoline to EPA’s National

Ambient Air Quality Standards

(NAAQS). 40 CFR part 63. The numbers

are averages over both cars tested and

all FTP and US06 tests performed, as

presented in Pure Energy Corporation’s

petition.

TABLE 4

Comparison of emission results related to NAAQS (gram/mile)

CO NOX OFP Spec. React.

FTP USO6 FTP USO6 FTP USO6 FTP USO6

Indo. ................................... 1.421 11.99 0.056 0.040 0.488 0.470 3.248 3.092

RFG II ................................ 1.247 10.56 .039 .049 .469 .379 3.640 3.059

Street ................................. 1.427 12.07 .095 .077 .522 .501 3.334 3.070

E85 .................................... 1.218 5.15 .056 .079 .494 .087 2.410 3.633

Pure 1 ................................ 1.081 6.15 .064 .057 .305 .161 3.360 3.460

Pure 2 ................................ 1.062 6.23 .059 .081 .282 .158 2.849 3.568

The petition stated that the total

emissions resulting from the production

of the P-series fuels are 71 percent lower

than those associated with the

production of one gallon of Phase 2

RFG. Of note are the claims that

emissions are reduced, relative to Phase

2 RFG, by more than 99 percent for

methane, by 85 percent for SOx, by 71

percent for carbon dioxide and by 68

percent for nitrogen oxides.

The petition claims that the P-series

fuels perform better than Phase 2 RFG

or indolene in terms of direct carbon

dioxide emissions and that the P-series

fuels will result in significant

reductions in carbon dioxide emissions

when considered on a life-cycle basis. If

the P-series fuels are produced from

biomass, as is the desire of Pure Energy

Corporation, it is claimed that a

significant percent of the carbon

emissions associated with the gasoline

life-cycle will be avoided. Specifically,

it is claimed that the P-series fuels are

estimated, on a life-cycle basis, to

reduce carbon dioxide emissions by at

least 63 percent.

Regarding toxicity, Pure Energy

Corporation claims that its P-series fuels

appear to be less hazardous to human

health than conventional gasoline.

Based on the results of recently

conducted animal studies, the P-series

fuels are claimed to have lower

inhalation toxicity than gasoline. It is

also claimed that the P-series fuels are

not skin sensitizers and are nonmutagenic/genotoxic in bacterial assays.

DOE had NREL assess the emissions

test results and had ANL perform an

analysis of the full fuel cycle

greenhouse gas emissions of the P-series

fuels. NREL confirmed that regular and

premium formulations of the P-series

fuels displayed carbon monoxide,

nitrogen oxides and non-methane

hydrocarbon equivalent emissions that

met the Tier 1 and statutorily provided

Tier 2 standards, and that their
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 144 /Tuesday, July 28, 1998 / Proposed Rules 40207

evaporative emissions were well below

the Tier 1 standards.

The FTP and US06 testing included

measurements of the four toxics

associated with vehicle emissions:

benzene, 1,3-butadiene, formaldehyde,

and acetaldehyde. The total toxic

emissions were presented, along with

the potency weighted toxics (PWT)

emissions. The PWT weighs each

individual component by a factor that

represents its relative toxicity. NREL

noted that the emissions of air toxics

from the P-series fuels were lower than

those from all other test fuels, both in

terms of total mass emissions and in

terms of their PWT. As a result, the

NREL analysis indicates that the Pseries fuels hold the promise of reduced

toxics emissions.

ANL’s evaluation of the full fuel cycle

greenhouse gas emissions of the P-series

fuels confirmed that, over their entire

production, distribution and end-use

cycle, the P-series fuels will result in

greenhouse gas emissions 45 to 50

percent below those of reformulated

gasoline. These reductions in

greenhouse gas emissions are possible if

the ethanol component of the P-series

fuels is made from biomass, as is Pure

Energy Corporation’s intention.

On the basis of the foregoing, DOE

proposes that the P-series fuels, as

described by United States Patent

number 5,697,987, which contain at

least 60 percent non-petroleum energy

content derived from MTHF

(manufactured solely from biomass

feedstock) and ethanol, would yield

‘‘substantial environmental’’ benefits as

that phrase is used in section 301(2) of

the Act.

III. Opportunity for Public Comment

A. Participation in Rulemaking

Interested persons are invited to

participate in this proposed rulemaking

by submitting written data, views, or

comments with respect to the subject set

forth in this notice. Whenever

applicable, full supporting rationale,

data, and detailed analyses should also

be submitted.

B. Written Comment Procedures

Written comments (8 copies) should

be identified on the outside of the

envelope, and on the comments

themselves, with the designation: ‘‘Pseries Fuel Rulemaking (Docket Number

EE–RM–98–PURE)’’ and must be

received by the date specified at the

beginning of this notice. In the event

any person wishing to submit a written

comment cannot provide eight copies,

alternative arrangements may be made

in advance by calling Ms. Andi

Kasarsky at (202) 586–3012.

All comments received on or before

the date specified at the beginning of

this notice and other relevant

information will be considered by DOE

before final action is taken on the

proposed rule. All comments submitted

will be available for examination in the

Rulemaking Docket File in DOE’s

Freedom of Information Reading Room.

Pursuant to the provisions of 10 CFR

1004.11, any person submitting

information or data that is believed to be

confidential, and which may be exempt

by law from public disclosure, should

submit one complete copy, as well as

two copies from which the information

claimed to be confidential has been

deleted. The DOE will make its own

determination of any such claim.

C. Public Hearing

In DOE’s view, today’s proposed

rulemaking does not involve any

significant issues of law or fact that

would warrant holding a public hearing.

Moreover, Pure Energy Corporation has

not requested such a hearing, and the

opportunity to file written comments

should suffice for other members of the

public who want DOE to considers their

views. For these reasons, DOE has not

provided for a public hearing in this

notice. Nevertheless, if members of the

public request the opportunity to make

oral comments and can identify issues

that would justify scheduling a public

hearing, DOE will reconsider its

position on holding such a hearing

IV. Regulatory and Procedural

Requirements

A. Review Under Executive Order 12866

Today’s regulatory action has been

determined not to be a ‘‘significant

regulatory action’’ under Executive

Order 12866, ‘‘Regulatory Planning and

Review,’’ 58 FR 51735 (October 4, 1993).

Accordingly, this rulemaking has not

been reviewed by the Office of

Information and Regulatory Affairs of

the Office of Management and Budget

(OMB).

B. Review Under Executive Order 12612

Executive Order 12612, ‘‘Federalism,’’

52 FR 41685 (October 30, 1987) requires

that regulations, rules, legislation and

other policy actions be reviewed for any

substantial direct effect on States, on the

relationship between the National

Government and the States, or in the

distribution of power and

responsibilities among various levels of

government. If there are substantial

effects, the Executive Order requires the

preparation of a federalism assessment

to be used in all decisions involved in

promulgating and implementing policy

action. DOE has analyzed this

rulemaking in accordance with the

principles and criteria contained in

Executive Order 12612, and has

determined there are no federalism

implications that would warrant the

preparation of a federalism assessment.

The rule proposed today would simply

allow an additional fuel to qualify as an

alternative fuel for the purposes of the

Energy Policy Act of 1992. The

proposed rule would not have a

substantial direct effect on States, the

relationship between the States and

Federal Government, or the distribution

of power and responsibilities among

various levels of government.

C. Review Under the Regulatory

Flexibility Act

The Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5

U.S.C. 601 et seq., requires preparation

of an initial regulatory flexibility

analysis for every rule which by law

must be proposed for public comment,

unless the agency certifies that the rule,

if promulgated, will not have a

significant economic impact on a

substantial number of small entities.

Today’s proposed rule would provide

an additional fuel choice for

organizations which must comply with

the requirements of the Alternative Fuel

Transportation Fuel Program (10 CFR

part 490). There is no reason to

anticipate any adverse impact. DOE

certifies that the proposed rule, if

promulgated, will not have a significant

economic impact on a substantial

number of small entities.

D. Review Under the National

Environmental Policy Act

The proposed rule would identify the

P-series fuels as ‘‘alternative fuel’’ as

that term is defined in the Alternative

Transportation Fuels Program

regulations (10 CFR 490.2) and section

301(2) of the Energy Policy Act (42

U.S.C. 13211(2)). The proposed rule

interprets statutory and regulatory

definitions and would not change the

environmental effect of the Alternative

Fuel Transportation Program

regulations. DOE, therefore, has

determined that this proposed rule is

covered under the Categorical Exclusion

in paragraph A5 to Subpart D, 10 CFR

part 1021. Accordingly, neither an

environmental assessment nor an

environmental impact statement is

required.

E. Review Under the Paperwork

Reduction Act

No new collection of information is

proposed to be imposed by this
40208 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 144 /Tuesday, July 28, 1998 / Proposed Rules

rulemaking. Accordingly, no clearance

by the Office of Management and

Budget is required under the Paperwork

Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).

F. Review Under Executive Order 12988

With respect to the review of existing

regulations and the promulgation of

new regulations, section 3(a) of

Executive Order 12988, ‘‘Civil Justice

Reform,’’ 61 FR 4729 (February 7, 1996),

imposes on Executive agencies the

general duty to adhere to the following

requirements: (1) Eliminate drafting

errors and ambiguity; (2) write

regulations to minimize litigation; and

(3) provide a clear legal standard for

affected conduct rather than a general

standard and promote simplification

and burden reduction. Section 3(b) of

Executive Order 12988 specifically

requires that Executive agencies make

every reasonable effort to ensure that the

regulation: (1) clearly specifies the

preemptive effect, if any; (2) clearly

specifies any effect on existing Federal

law or regulation; (3) provides a clear

legal standard for affected conduct

while promoting simplification and

burden reduction; (4) specifies the

retroactive effect, if any; (5) adequately

defines key terms; and (6) addresses

other important issues affecting clarity

and general draftsmanship under any

guidelines issued by the Attorney

General. Section 3(c) of Executive Order

12988 requires Executive agencies to

review regulations in light of applicable

standards in section 3(a) and section

3(b) to determine whether they are met

or it is unreasonable to meet one or

more of them. DOE has completed the

required review and determined that, to

the extent permitted by law, the

proposed rule meets the relevant

standards of Executive Order 12988.

List of Subjects in 10 CFR Part 490

Administrative practice and

procedure, Energy conservation, Fuel,

Motor vehicles.

Issued in Washington, DC, on July 13,

1998.

Dan W. Reicher,

Assistant Secretary, Energy Efficiency and

Renewable Energy.

For the reasons set forth in the

Preamble, Title 10, Chapter II,

Subchapter D, of the Code of Federal

Regulations is proposed to be amended

as set forth below:

PART 490—ALTERNATIVE FUEL

TRANSPORTATION PROGRAM

1. The authority cite for Part 490

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7191, 13211, 13235,

13251, 13257, 13258, 13260–3.

§ 490.2 [AMENDED]

2. Section 490.2, Definitions, is

amended by adding in the definition of

‘‘Alternative Fuel,’’ the phrase, ‘‘P-series

fuels as described by United States

Patent number 5,697,987, dated

December 16, 1997, and containing at

least 60 percent non-petroleum energy

content derived from

methyltetrahydrofuran (manufactured

solely from biomass feedstock) and

ethanol,’’ before ‘‘and electricity

(including electricity from solar

energy).’’

[FR Doc. 98–20129 Filed 7–27–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 98–ANE–38–AD]

RIN 2120–AA64

Airworthiness Directives; CFM

International (CFMI) CFM56–2, –2A,

–2B, –3, –3B, and –3C Series Turbofan

Engines

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking

(NPRM).

SUMMARY: This proposal would require

revisions to the Engine Time Limits

section in the Engine Shop Manual

(ESM) for CFM International (CFMI)

CFM56–2, –2A, –2B, –3, –3B, and –3C

series turbofan engines to include

required enhanced inspection of

selected critical life-limited parts at

each piece-part exposure. This proposal

would also require an air carrier’s

approved continuous airworthiness

maintenance program to incorporate

these inspection procedures. Air carriers

with an approved continuous

airworthiness maintenance program

would be allowed to either maintain the

records showing the current status of

the inspections using the record keeping

system specified in the air carrier’s

maintenance manual, or establish an

acceptable alternate method of record

keeping. This proposal is prompted by

an FAA study of in-service events

involving uncontained failures of

critical rotating engine parts which

indicated the need for improved

inspections. The improved inspections

are needed to identify those critical

rotating parts with conditions, that if

allowed to continue in service, could

result in uncontained failures. The

actions specified by this proposed AD

are intended to prevent critical lifelimited rotating engine part failure,

which could result in an uncontained

engine failure and damage to the

airplane.

DATES: Comments must be received by

October 26, 1998.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments in

triplicate to the Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA), New England

Region, Office of the Regional Counsel,

Attention: Rules Docket No. 98–ANE–

38–AD, 12 New England Executive Park,

Burlington, MA 01803–5299. Comments

may also be sent via the Internet using

the following address: ‘‘9-adengineprop@faa.dot.gov’’. Comments

sent via the Internet must contain the

docket number in the subject line.

Comments may be inspected at this

location between 8:00 a.m. and 4:30

p.m., Monday through Friday, except

Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Glorianne Messemer, Aerospace

Engineer, Engine Certification Office,

FAA, Engine and Propeller Directorate,

12 New England Executive Park,

Burlington, MA 01803–5299; telephone

(781) 238–7132, fax (781) 238–7199.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

Interested persons are invited to

participate in the making of the

proposed rule by submitting such

written data, views, or arguments as

they may desire. Communications

should identify the Rules Docket

number and be submitted in triplicate to

the address specified above. All

communications received on or before

the closing date for comments, specified

above, will be considered before taking

action on the proposed rule. The

proposals contained in this notice may

be changed in light of the comments

received.

Comments are specifically invited on

the overall regulatory, economic,

environmental, and energy aspects of

the proposed rule. All comments

submitted will be available, both before

and after the closing date for comments,

in the Rules Docket for examination by

interested persons. A report

summarizing each FAA-public contact

concerned with the substance of this

proposal will be filed in the Rules

Docket.

Commenters wishing the FAA to

acknowledge receipt of their comments

submitted in response to this notice

must submit a self-addressed, stamped

postcard on which the following

statement is made: ‘‘Comments to

Docket Number 98–ANE–38–AD.’’ The