Regulation of Fuels and Fuel Additives: Proposed Minor Revisions to Selected Recordkeeping and Enforcement Provisions Under the Regulation of Deposit Control Gasoline Additives

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 80

[AMS-FRL-5917-8]

Regulation of Fuels and Fuel Additives: Proposed Minor Revisions

to Selected Recordkeeping and Enforcement Provisions Under the

Regulation of Deposit Control Gasoline Additives

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to revise certain requirements in its program

for the use of detergent additives in gasoline. Under the current

regulations, information on the oxygenate content of the gasoline must

always be included in the required product transfer documents. To avoid

unnecessary disruption to the gasoline distribution system, EPA is

proposing to remove this requirement. A party who wants to use a

detergent additive that is restricted in use with respect to oxygenates

would be responsible for determining the oxygenate content of the

gasoline involved. This proposal would continue to ensure that

detergents with oxygenate restrictions are used in compliance with such

restrictions, and would avoid the unnecessary disruption to the

gasoline distribution system which would occur under the current

regulations. For certain transfers of base gasoline, EPA is also

proposing to allow the use of product codes in lieu of regulatory

warning language concerning applicable

limitations on the sale and use of such gasolines.

These proposals are expected to provide industry additional

flexibility, while ensuring the proper use of use-restricted detergents

and base gasoline. There are no new information collection requirements

accompanying these proposed changes. These proposals will not affect

the air quality benefits from EPA's detergent additive program

licable

limitations on the sale and use of such gasolines.

These proposals are expected to provide industry additional

flexibility, while ensuring the proper use of use-restricted detergents

and base gasoline. There are no new information collection requirements

accompanying these proposed changes. These proposals will not affect

the air quality benefits from EPA's detergent additive program.

In the final rules section of this Federal Register, EPA is also

promulgating a direct final rule without prior proposal, which will

remove the requirement addressed in this NPRM, that mandates that

information on the oxygenate content of transferred gasoline must be

included in the required product transfer documents. It is not expected

that the deletion of this requirement through the direct final rule

will be controversial or that it will elicit negative comments. No

detergents are presently certified with restricted oxygenate-use that

would require the knowledge of gasoline oxygenate content for proper

use. Further, the issue of the best means of acquiring oxygenate

information to ensure proper additization is being addressed with

notice and an opportunity to comment within the context of this NPRM.

However, if EPA does receive adverse comments or a request for a public

hearing on the direct final rule, it will be withdrawn and all comments

received on it will be addressed in the subsequent final rule to be

based on this NPRM. EPA will not institute a second comment period on

this NPRM if the direct final rule is withdrawn. Any parties interested

in commenting on this issue should do so at this time.

DATES: Comments on this NPRM will be accepted until December 8, 1997.

Additional information on the comments procedure can be found under

``Public Participation'' in the Supplementary Information Section of

this document.

will not institute a second comment period on

this NPRM if the direct final rule is withdrawn. Any parties interested

in commenting on this issue should do so at this time.

DATES: Comments on this NPRM will be accepted until December 8, 1997.

Additional information on the comments procedure can be found under

``Public Participation'' in the Supplementary Information Section of

this document.

ADDRESSES: Interested parties may submit written comments (in duplicate

if possible) to Public Docket No. A-91-77, at the following address:

Air Docket Section (LE-131), room M-1500, 401 M Street SW, Washington,

DC 20460; phone (202) 260-7548; fax (202) 260-4000. The Agency also

requests that a separate copy be sent to the contact person listed

below. The docket is open for public inspection from 8:00 a.m. until

5:30 p.m. Monday through Friday, except on government holidays. As

provided in 40 CFR Part 2, a reasonable fee may be charged for copying

docket materials.

This NPRM is also available electronically on the day of

publication from the Office of the Federal Register internet Web site

listed below. A prepublication electronic copy of this notice is also

available from the EPA Office of Mobile Sources Web site listed below.

This service is free of charge, except for any cost that you already

incur for internet connectivity.

Federal Register Web Site:

http://www.epa.gov/docs/fedrgstr/EPA-AIR/

(Either select desired date or use Search feature.)

Office of Mobile Sources Web Site:

http://www.epa.gov/OMSWWW/

(Look in ``What's New'' or under the specific rulemaking topic.)

Please note that due to differences between the software used to

develop the document and the software into which the document may be

downloaded, changes in format, page length, etc. may occur.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Judith Lubow, U.S. EPA, Office of

Enforcement and Compliance Assurance, Western Field Office, 12345 West

Alameda Parkway, Suite 214, Lakewood, CO 80228; Telephone: (303) 969-

6483, FAX (303) 969-6490.

ces between the software used to

develop the document and the software into which the document may be

downloaded, changes in format, page length, etc. may occur.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Judith Lubow, U.S. EPA, Office of

Enforcement and Compliance Assurance, Western Field Office, 12345 West

Alameda Parkway, Suite 214, Lakewood, CO 80228; Telephone: (303) 969-

6483, FAX (303) 969-6490.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Regulated Entities

II. Introduction

III. Identification of Specific Oxygenate Content on Gasoline

Product Transfer Documents (PTDs)

A. Background

B. Proposal

IV. Product Codes as Substitutes for Warning Language on Certain

Base Gasoline PTDs

A. Background

B. Proposal

V. Public Participation

VI. Environmental and Economic Impacts

VII. Administrative Requirements

A. Administrative Designation

B. Impact on Small Entities

C. Paperwork Reduction Act

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

VIII. Statutory Authority

I. Regulated Entities

Entities potentially regulated by this action are those involved

with the production, distribution, and sale of gasoline and gasoline

detergent additives. Regulated categories and entities include:

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

Examples of regulated

Category entities

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

Industry.................................. Gasoline refiners and

importers, Gasoline

terminals, Detergent

blenders, Gasoline

truckers, Gasoline

retailers and wholesale

purchaser-consumers, and

Detergent manufacturers.

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

Category entities

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

Industry.................................. Gasoline refiners and

importers, Gasoline

terminals, Detergent

blenders, Gasoline

truckers, Gasoline

retailers and wholesale

purchaser-consumers, and

Detergent manufacturers.

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

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 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

organization is regulated by this action, you should carefully examine

the applicability requirements in Sec. 80.161(a), the detergent

certification requirements in Sec. 80.161(b), the program controls and

prohibitions in Sec. 80.168, and other related program requirements in

Subpart G, title 40, of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). If you

have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a

particular entity, consult the person listed in the preceding FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

II. Introduction

Section 211(l) of the Clean Air Act (``CAA'') requires that, by

January 1, 1995, all gasoline must contain detergent additives to

prevent the accumulation of deposits in motor vehicle engines and fuel

supply systems. This CAA section also requires EPA to promulgate

specifications for the detergent additives. Detergent additives prevent

the accumulation of engine and fuel supply system deposits that have

adverse effects on vehicle emissions as well as on fuel economy and

driveabilty.

In response to section 211(l)'s requirements, EPA published a

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (``NPRM'') on December 6, 1993 (59 FR

64213) proposing a detergent additives regulatory program. The

detergent program was finalized in two parts

event

the accumulation of engine and fuel supply system deposits that have

adverse effects on vehicle emissions as well as on fuel economy and

driveabilty.

In response to section 211(l)'s requirements, EPA published a

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (``NPRM'') on December 6, 1993 (59 FR

64213) proposing a detergent additives regulatory program. The

detergent program was finalized in two parts. Regulations for the

interim detergent program, requiring the use of detergent additives in

gasoline but not mandating specific detergent efficiency testing, were

published on October 14, 1994 (59 FR 54678). Regulations for the

detergent certification program, mandating the use of certified

detergents with specified detergent efficiency testing, were published

on July 5, 1996 (61 FR 35310).

One important implementation issue that has arisen since the

publication of the detergent certification rule concerns

the requirement that the product transfer documents (PTDs) for gasoline

transfers must identify all oxygenates found in the gasoline. Members

of the gasoline refining and distribution industry informed EPA that

this requirement's implementation would, as an unintended consequence,

significantly disrupt gasoline distribution.1

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

\1\ Letter to Judith Lubow, Office of Enforcement and Compliance

Assurance (OECA), EPA, from C.J. Krambuhl, Director, Manufacturing,

Distribution, and Marketing, American Petroleum Institute (API),

August 14, 1996, Docket item VII-D-01.

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

tion.1

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

\1\ Letter to Judith Lubow, Office of Enforcement and Compliance

Assurance (OECA), EPA, from C.J. Krambuhl, Director, Manufacturing,

Distribution, and Marketing, American Petroleum Institute (API),

August 14, 1996, Docket item VII-D-01.

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

For the reasons described below, EPA exercised its enforcement

discretion and announced by letter to the American Petroleum Institute

(``API'') that it would temporarily not enforce the PTD oxygenate

identification requirement pending resolution of the issue through a

rulemaking or until September 3, 1997, whichever occurrence came

first.2 The Agency reserved the right to rescind the

exercise of this enforcement discretion if it determined that

restricted-use detergents were actually being certified or that the PTD

oxygenate identification requirements otherwise became appropriate. The

Agency further advised that if violations involving the improper use of

oxygenate-restricted detergents occurred, parties wishing to

successfully assert an affirmative defense to liability for such

violations might need to provide information establishing the

appropriate oxygenate content of the gasoline in question.

Subsequently, EPA extended this exercise of enforcement discretion

until implementation of the direct final rule removing the PTD

oxygenate requirement (which is associated with this NPRM), or until

December 31, 1997, whichever occurrence came first.3

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

\2\ Letter to C.J. Krambuhl, API, from Steven A. Herman,

Assistant Administrator, OECA, EPA, August 28, 1996, Docket item

VII-C-01.

\3\ Letter to C.J. Krambuhl, API, from Steven A. Herman,

Assistant Administrator, OECA, EPA, September 4, 1997, Docket item

VII-C-02.

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

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

\2\ Letter to C.J. Krambuhl, API, from Steven A. Herman,

Assistant Administrator, OECA, EPA, August 28, 1996, Docket item

VII-C-01.

\3\ Letter to C.J. Krambuhl, API, from Steven A. Herman,

Assistant Administrator, OECA, EPA, September 4, 1997, Docket item

VII-C-02.

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

A second issue about the detergent program's PTD requirements,

concerning the use of product codes, also arose since publication of

the certification rule. The detergent program's two PTD implementation

issues, plus the Agency's proposed regulatory solutions to these

issues, will be discussed below.

III. Identification of Specific Oxygenate Content on Gasoline Product

Transfer Documents (PTDs)

A. Background

The gasoline detergent additive program requires all regulated

parties transferring products controlled under the program to provide

to the transferee PTDs giving pertinent information about the products

transferred. (40 CFR 80.158 and 80.171) The products subject to the

detergent program PTD requirements are gasoline, detergent additives,

and additized components, such as ethanol, which are blended into

gasoline after the refinery process (additized post-refinery

components, or ``PRC''). For transfers of these regulated products, the

PTDs must identify the parties to the transfer, the product being

transferred, and appropriate warning information about regulatory

requirements.

One requirement is that PTDs for transferred gasoline must identify

all oxygenates and PRCs contained in the gasoline. Further, if the

gasoline is comprised of commingled fuels, all oxygenates and PRCs in

the fuels comprising the commingled product must be identified. (40 CFR

80.158(a)(5) and 80.171(a)(5)) The purpose of this identification

requirement is to alert the parties receiving the gasoline about the

oxygenates and PRCs in the received product

entify

all oxygenates and PRCs contained in the gasoline. Further, if the

gasoline is comprised of commingled fuels, all oxygenates and PRCs in

the fuels comprising the commingled product must be identified. (40 CFR

80.158(a)(5) and 80.171(a)(5)) The purpose of this identification

requirement is to alert the parties receiving the gasoline about the

oxygenates and PRCs in the received product. This information would be

useful to the recipient because, under the detergent certification

program, parties may choose to additize gasoline with a detergent whose

certification is restricted for use only with a specific oxygenate or

no oxygenate, or, in the case of fuel-specific certified detergents,

for use in gasoline without PRCs. Thus, parties choosing to use such

restricted-use detergents must know the oxygenate or PRC

(``oxygenate'') content of the gasoline they intend to additize with

these detergents. The PTD oxygenate identification requirement was

intended to provide such information for the transferred gasoline.

In creating this identification requirement, the Agency was not

aware that many parties did not know the specific oxygenate content of

the gasoline they were transferring. EPA has since learned that, under

typical industry practice prior to this requirement, parties could and

did commingle gasolines without knowledge of what (if any) specific

ethers (a type of oxygenate) were present. Under the interim detergent

rule's PTD requirements, no information about the oxygenate content of

base gasoline was required. Parties were thus typically unaware of the

specific ether content (in type(s) and concentration) of commingled

gasoline they received or possessed themselves

did commingle gasolines without knowledge of what (if any) specific

ethers (a type of oxygenate) were present. Under the interim detergent

rule's PTD requirements, no information about the oxygenate content of

base gasoline was required. Parties were thus typically unaware of the

specific ether content (in type(s) and concentration) of commingled

gasoline they received or possessed themselves. To comply with this new

oxygenate identification requirement and to become knowledgeable about

the ether status of their gasoline, parties would have to ascertain the

ether content of received gasoline (which would be the imposition of a

new practice), stop commingling gasolines with different ether

contents, or start testing all batches to determine such content. In

any of these scenarios, gasoline distribution as presently practiced

would be significantly disrupted.

It was never EPA's intention to disrupt gasoline distribution

practices through the imposition of this PTD oxygenate identification

requirement. Consequently, the Agency temporarily suspended enforcement

of this PTD requirement.

B. Proposal

EPA does not believe that the benefits from the PTD requirement of

providing oxygenate information to those parties who might choose to

use oxygenate-restricted certified detergents warrants the resulting

disruption to the gasoline distribution system. Therefore, the Agency

is now proposing a regulatory change in the detergent program which

would eliminate the requirement that PTDs for gasoline must identify

the oxygenates found in the transferred product. Instead, a new

requirement would take its place, that those detergent-blending parties

wishing to use oxygenate-restricted detergents must maintain

documentation fully identifying the oxygenate content of the fuel into

which the detergent was blended, as evidence that the fuel complied

with the detergent's oxygenate use restriction

st identify

the oxygenates found in the transferred product. Instead, a new

requirement would take its place, that those detergent-blending parties

wishing to use oxygenate-restricted detergents must maintain

documentation fully identifying the oxygenate content of the fuel into

which the detergent was blended, as evidence that the fuel complied

with the detergent's oxygenate use restriction.

Under this proposal, a detergent blender could use different types

of documentation to comply with this new requirement. Examples of such

documentation would be PTDs or other written statements from suppliers

fully identifying the oxygenate content of the received fuel; test

results of oxygenate content, either of its own or from suppliers; or

contractual agreements with suppliers establishing the oxygenate

content of the received fuel.

The proposed modification of the PTD requirement would not change

the existing requirement that detergent blenders use oxygenate-

restricted detergents only in fuel which complies with the restriction.

The new requirement would merely substitute a range of alternative

documentation for the formerly required PTD information provided by the

supplier, that could be used to help a party establish proper usage of

oxygenate-restricted detergent. Therefore, adoption of this proposal

would not impose an additional information collection requirement, but

rather would refocus the existing requirement only on those parties who

have need of information on gasoline oxygenate content.

or the formerly required PTD information provided by the

supplier, that could be used to help a party establish proper usage of

oxygenate-restricted detergent. Therefore, adoption of this proposal

would not impose an additional information collection requirement, but

rather would refocus the existing requirement only on those parties who

have need of information on gasoline oxygenate content.

EPA was advised by the Independent Fuel Terminal Operators

Association (IFTOA) of a concern about this proposed

amendment.4 According to IFTOA, if suppliers will no longer

be required to identify on PTDs the oxygenate content of transferred

gasoline, then detergent blenders wishing to use potentially less

expensive oxygenate-restricted detergents might be forced to test each

batch of gasoline. IFTOA believed that such testing would be necessary

to establish compliance with the detergent's oxygenate restriction.

According to this commenter, these tests might be prohibitively

expensive for small detergent blenders. This party asserted it was

inequitable to place the entire burden of establishing oxygenate

content on the fuel's end-user.

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

\4\ Memorandum to the Air Docket from Judith Lubow, OECA,

entitled, ``8/28/1996 EPA Phone Conversation with Andrea Grant of

the Independent Fuel Terminal Operators Association'', Docket Item

VII-E-01.

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

oxygenate

content on the fuel's end-user.

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

\4\ Memorandum to the Air Docket from Judith Lubow, OECA,

entitled, ``8/28/1996 EPA Phone Conversation with Andrea Grant of

the Independent Fuel Terminal Operators Association'', Docket Item

VII-E-01.

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

The Agency believes that its proposal, as stated, is the most

appropriate and equitable means of ensuring proper oxygenate content of

product blended with oxygenate-restricted detergents, while limiting

disruption to the gasoline distribution system. The Agency's proposal

places the burden of procuring oxygenate information only on those

parties, self-selected, who will choose to use these restricted

detergents, not on the entire industry. In addition, although existing

data indicates that oxygenates increase gasoline deposit forming

tendency (severity) and that different oxygenates types might differ in

the magnitude of their impact on fuel severity, EPA has no specific

information on whether this will result in the use of oxygenate

restricted detergents. Since there are many generic detergents

available that are not oxygenate use-restricted, parties not wishing to

meet the documentation burden by performing oxygenate testing could

also choose to use non-oxygenate restricted detergents.

In addition, self-performed oxygenate testing is only one of

several ways that a detergent blender could use to comply with the

proposed oxygenate identification requirement. Other means specifically

approved by the proposed regulation include obtaining full information

about oxygenate content from the gasoline supplier, and having a

contract with the supplier which establishes the oxygenate content of

the supplied gasoline. Use of these alternative methods would generally

preclude the need for oxygenate testing by the detergent blender

itself

cation requirement. Other means specifically

approved by the proposed regulation include obtaining full information

about oxygenate content from the gasoline supplier, and having a

contract with the supplier which establishes the oxygenate content of

the supplied gasoline. Use of these alternative methods would generally

preclude the need for oxygenate testing by the detergent blender

itself.

For these reasons, the Agency does not believe that the proposed

removal of the PTD oxygenate identification requirement puts an unfair

burden on end-users of oxygenate-restricted detergents. On the

contrary, the proposed oxygenate documentation requirement regarding

the volumetric accounting reconciliation records (VAR) maintained by

detergent blenders, which would only be triggered when an oxygenate-

restricted detergent is being used by the blender, seems the most

equitable means of identifying oxygenates while ensuring proper

additization with oxygenate-restricted detergents. However, the Agency

is interested in receiving comments from interested parties on any

other reasonable procedure that would equitably ensure proper oxygenate

identification and resultant additization compliance for oxygenate-

restricted detergents, while limiting disruption to the gasoline

distribution system.

IV. Product Codes as Substitutes for Warning Language on Certain Base

Gasoline PTDs

A. Background

It is common practice in the petroleum industry to use product

codes on commercially prepared transfer documents to provide

information about the product being transferred. Industry uses these

product codes to save space on the transfer documents, which typically

provide a great deal of information. The interim detergent rule did not

address the use of product codes or other non-regulatory language as

substitutes for required regulatory language in fulfilling PTD

requirements

repared transfer documents to provide

information about the product being transferred. Industry uses these

product codes to save space on the transfer documents, which typically

provide a great deal of information. The interim detergent rule did not

address the use of product codes or other non-regulatory language as

substitutes for required regulatory language in fulfilling PTD

requirements. In response to industry comments, the interim program was

amended to include a provision similar to one in the certification

program which addresses this issue. In most instances, the requirements

under both the certification and interim programs permit the use of

product codes or other non-regulatory language to be substituted for

required product identification information, provided certain accuracy

safeguards are met, such as that the codes are clear, standardized, and

have been explained to downstream parties. (40 CFR 80.158(c) and

80.171(b))

The requirements under interim and certification programs do not,

however, permit the use of product codes or other non-regulatory

language to be used in place of required warning language about non-

additized, base gasoline. The required warning language, found in 40

CFR 80.158(a)(6) and 80.171(a)(6), informs the transferee in specified

language that the base gasoline either is not for sale to the ultimate

consumer, or is for research and development purposes only. At the time

the certification rule was published, the Agency believed that these

warnings were too important to be the subject of coded language

substitutions

red warning language, found in 40

CFR 80.158(a)(6) and 80.171(a)(6), informs the transferee in specified

language that the base gasoline either is not for sale to the ultimate

consumer, or is for research and development purposes only. At the time

the certification rule was published, the Agency believed that these

warnings were too important to be the subject of coded language

substitutions.

After the issuance of the final certification rule, the Agency was

notified by Colonial Pipeline that the regulatory prohibition against

using product codes to substitute for the base gasoline language

warning against the sale of the product to the ultimate consumer was

burdensome and was not necessary for transfers between upstream

parties.5 This commenter stated that its upstream customers

were familiar with product code usage and would not be confused by the

substitution of product codes for the base gasoline warning language.

This commenter believed that providing the warning language in addition

to providing the base gasoline product code was redundant and

unnecessarily wasteful of needed PTD space.

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

\5\ Memorandum to the Air Docket from Judith Lubow, OECA,

entitled, ``10/24/1996 and 12/2/1996 Phone Conversations with J.E.

Brown of Colonial Pipeline'', Docket Item VII-E-02.

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

B. Proposal

ndant and

unnecessarily wasteful of needed PTD space.

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

\5\ Memorandum to the Air Docket from Judith Lubow, OECA,

entitled, ``10/24/1996 and 12/2/1996 Phone Conversations with J.E.

Brown of Colonial Pipeline'', Docket Item VII-E-02.

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

B. Proposal

Upon consideration of this comment, the Agency now agrees that the

prohibition against substituting a product code for the required base

gasoline warning language is not necessary for upstream bulk transfers

of ordinary base gasoline which is not subject to the research and

development exemption. The Agency agrees that upstream parties, long

accustomed to the use of product codes to identify product information,

should find such codes satisfactory conveyors of the needed base

gasoline information. This is especially true since gasoline is almost

always unadditized before it reaches the truck rack terminal, so

confusion about its status is unlikely.

However, the Agency is still concerned that the lack of such clear

warning language on PTDs for downstream custody transfers of

unadditized product to truck carriers, retail outlets, or wholesale

purchaser-consumer facilities (WPCs), might cause confusion about

product transfers and might result in mis-use of the unadditized

product. Agency enforcement experience has also shown that such

downstream parties are not always knowledgeable about the meaning of

product codes on received PTDs. Further, the Agency continues to

believe that base gasoline being used for

l outlets, or wholesale

purchaser-consumer facilities (WPCs), might cause confusion about

product transfers and might result in mis-use of the unadditized

product. Agency enforcement experience has also shown that such

downstream parties are not always knowledgeable about the meaning of

product codes on received PTDs. Further, the Agency continues to

believe that base gasoline being used for

research and development purposes, being a special category of product

exempt from the ordinary requirements of the detergent program, must

continue to be identified as such in clear language.

Therefore, the Agency is today proposing that product codes and

other non-regulatory language may be used to substitute on PTDs for the

required base gasoline warning language, with two exceptions: (1)

transferors must continue to provide the regulatory warning language

against sale to the ultimate consumer on PTDs for product custody

transfers to truck carriers, retail outlets, or WPCs; and (2) the

warning language as to exclusive research use must continue to be

provided on PTDs for all transfers of research base gasoline. The

Agency believes that this proposal will lessen paperwork burdens on the

upstream parties who would not be confused by the product codes, and

will maintain the specific warning language requirement for downstream

parties most in need of seeing the exact language, and for all

transfers of base gasoline for research purposes.

V. Public Participation

all transfers of research base gasoline. The

Agency believes that this proposal will lessen paperwork burdens on the

upstream parties who would not be confused by the product codes, and

will maintain the specific warning language requirement for downstream

parties most in need of seeing the exact language, and for all

transfers of base gasoline for research purposes.

V. Public Participation

EPA seeks full public participation in arriving at its final

decisions, and strongly encourages comments on all aspects of this

proposal from all interested parties, including small businesses.

Whenever applicable, full supporting data and detailed analysis should

be submitted to allow EPA to make maximum use of the comments. All

comments should be directed to the EPA Air Docket, Docket No. A-91-77

(see ADDRESSES). Comments on this notice will be accepted until the

date specified in DATES. EPA has not planned a public hearing to

discuss the issues raised in this proposal.

Commenters wishing to submit proprietary information for

consideration should clearly distinguish such information from other

comments, and clearly label it ``Confidential Business Information''.

Submissions containing such proprietary information should be sent

directly to the contact person listed above, and not to the public

docket, to ensure that proprietary information is not inadvertently

placed in the docket. Information covered by such a claim of

confidentiality will be disclosed by EPA only to the extent allowed and

by the procedures set forth in 40 CFR Part 2. If no claim of

confidentiality accompanies the submission when it is received by EPA,

it may be made available to the public without further notice to the

commenter.

VI. Environmental and Economic Impacts

vertently

placed in the docket. Information covered by such a claim of

confidentiality will be disclosed by EPA only to the extent allowed and

by the procedures set forth in 40 CFR Part 2. If no claim of

confidentiality accompanies the submission when it is received by EPA,

it may be made available to the public without further notice to the

commenter.

VI. Environmental and Economic Impacts

The proposed revisions to the product transfer document (PTD)

requirements would provide an equal degree of assurance to the current

requirements that specially-certified detergent additives would only be

used in gasoline stocks for which these detergents are certified for

use. Therefore, the proposed requirements are not expected to impact

the environmental benefits of the detergent program.

Under the first proposal, documentation on the specific oxygenate

content of gasolines is only required to be maintained by those parties

who have a direct interest in such information to support their

voluntary use of specially-certified oxygenate-restricted detergents in

that gasoline. It would no longer be required that all regulated

parties transferring gasoline must indicate gasoline oxygenate content

on the PTD for the product. Adoption of this proposal would avoid the

potentially significant disruption of the current gasoline distribution

system which might result from the current regulatory requirement of

PTD oxygenate identification for all transfers of gasoline.

Establishing the oxygenate information as proposed is not expected

to result in significant economic hardship to downstream parties who

wish to voluntarily use oxygenate-restricted detergents. Placing the

responsibility of establishing information on the specific oxygenate

content of gasoline only on such detergent blending parties will

eliminate unnecessary costs that would otherwise be incurred by others

in the distribution system

proposed is not expected

to result in significant economic hardship to downstream parties who

wish to voluntarily use oxygenate-restricted detergents. Placing the

responsibility of establishing information on the specific oxygenate

content of gasoline only on such detergent blending parties will

eliminate unnecessary costs that would otherwise be incurred by others

in the distribution system.

The second proposed change to the PTD requirements would provide

industry additional flexibility by permitting the use of product codes

rather than the currently-required regulatory warning language on PTDs

for certain transfers of base gasoline. EPA expects that adoption of

this proposal would decrease the cost of producing and maintaining

PTDs. Based on the above discussion, EPA expects that adoption of the

proposed requirements would result in an overall reduction in the

economic burden of the regulation.

VII. Administrative Requirements

A. Administrative Designation

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,

y, 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 the proposed modifications to the regulation of deposit control

additives contained in today's notice do not meet any of the criteria

listed above, and therefore do not constitute a ``significant

regulatory action''.

B. Impact on Small Entities

EPA has determined that the proposed modifications to the

regulation of deposit control additives contained in today's notice

would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of

small entities, and that it is therefore not necessary to prepare a

regulatory flexibility analysis in conjunction with this proposal.

Under the proposed requirements in today's notice, rather than

requiring all parties in the gasoline distribution system to report the

specific oxygenate content of gasoline on product transfer documents as

under the current requirements (which would typically require testing

for oxygenates and would disrupt current gasoline commingling

practices), only those parties who wish to voluntarily take advantage

of the potential cost savings from the use of specially-certified

oxygenate-restricted detergents would be required to produce such

information. A detergent blender who does not wish to incur this

requirement could use any generic-certified detergent (i.e., detergents

that do not have use restrictions)

gasoline commingling

practices), only those parties who wish to voluntarily take advantage

of the potential cost savings from the use of specially-certified

oxygenate-restricted detergents would be required to produce such

information. A detergent blender who does not wish to incur this

requirement could use any generic-certified detergent (i.e., detergents

that do not have use restrictions).

Other proposed changes to the product transfer document (PTD)

requirements would provide industry more flexibility by allowing the

use of product codes rather than regulatory

warning language for certain upstream transfers of base gasoline not

used for research purposes. This added flexibility is expected to

decrease the cost of producing and maintaining PTDs for most regulated

parties who transfer base gasoline. Based on the above discussion, EPA

expects that adoption of the proposed requirements in today's notice

would result in a reduction of the economic burden of the regulation

for many parties and would not significantly increase the economic

burden of compliance for any regulated party, including small entities.

C. Paperwork Reduction Act

The proposed actions in today's notice do not impose any new

information collection burden. The first proposal would eliminate the

existing requirement that product transfer documents (PTDs) for

gasoline must identify the oxygenates present. Under the proposal, a

range of alternative documentation could be used by the detergent

blender to help establish the specific oxygenate content of gasoline in

order to allow the optional use of oxygenate-restricted detergents

rather than generic detergents (which do not have oxygenate

restrictions). No new information collection requirements would result

from implementation of this proposal. To the contrary, the proposed

change would eliminate a compliance burden from the majority of

regulated parties, while continuing to allow blenders to choose to use

oxygenate-restricted detergents

genate-restricted detergents

rather than generic detergents (which do not have oxygenate

restrictions). No new information collection requirements would result

from implementation of this proposal. To the contrary, the proposed

change would eliminate a compliance burden from the majority of

regulated parties, while continuing to allow blenders to choose to use

oxygenate-restricted detergents.

The second proposal would allow greater flexibility to industry by

allowing the use of product codes on certain non-research base gasoline

PTDs rather than the currently required warning language. The

information collection requirements associated with this provision

would not change. The increased flexibility is expected to result in a

reduced compliance burden.

The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has previously approved

the information collection requirements of the Regulation of Deposit

Control Additives contained in 40 CFR Part 80 under the provisions of

the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. and has assigned

OMB control number 2060-0275(EPA ICR Numbers 1655-01, 1655-02, and

1655-03).

Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources

expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or

provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time

needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize

technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and

verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and

disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to

comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements;

train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information;

search data sources; complete and review the collection of information;

and transmit or otherwise disclose the information.

Copies of the ICR documents may be obtained from Sandy Farmer,

Information Policy Branch; EPA; 401 M St., SW

costly, most cost effective, or least burdensome alternative if the

Administrator publishes with the final rule an explanation of why that

alternative was not adopted.

Before EPA establishes any regulatory requirements that may

significantly or uniquely affect small governments, including tribal

governments, it must have developed under section 203 of the UMRA a

small government agency plan. The plan must provide for notifying

potentially affected small governments, enabling officials of affected

small governments to have meaningful and timely input in the

development of EPA regulatory proposals with significant Federal

intergovernmental mandates, and informing, educating, and advising

small governments on compliance with the regulatory requirements.

Today's proposed revisions to the Regulation of Gasoline Deposit

Control Additives contains no Federal mandates (under the regulatory

provisions of Title II of the UMRA) for State, local, or tribal

governments. The proposed revisions impose no enforceable duties on any

of these governmental entities. Nothing in the proposal would

significantly or uniquely affect small governments. EPA has determined

that the provisions in today's proposal do not contain Federal mandates

that will result in expenditures of $100 million or more in any one

year for the private sector. To the contrary, EPA expects the proposed

changes would result in reduced compliance costs. EPA believes that the

proposed regulatory changes represent the least costly, most cost-

effective approach to addressing implementation concerns expressed by

industry, while achieving the air quality goals of the gasoline

detergent program.

VIII. Statutory Authority

The statutory authority for the proposed actions in this notice is

granted to EPA by sections 114, 211(a), (b), (c), and (l), and 301 of

the Clean Air Act as amended: 42 U.S.C. 7414, 7545 (a), (b), (c) and

t cost-

effective approach to addressing implementation concerns expressed by

industry, while achieving the air quality goals of the gasoline

detergent program.

VIII. Statutory Authority

The statutory authority for the proposed actions in this notice is

granted to EPA by sections 114, 211(a), (b), (c), and (l), and 301 of

the Clean Air Act as amended: 42 U.S.C. 7414, 7545 (a), (b), (c) and

(l), and 7601.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 80

Environmental protection, Fuel additives, Gasoline detergent

additives, Gasoline, Motor vehicle pollution, Penalties, Reporting and

recordkeeping requirements.

Dated: October 30, 1997.

Carol M. Browner,

Administrator.

For the reasons set forth in the preamble, part 80 of title 40 of

the Code of Federal Regulations is proposed to be amended as follows:

PART 80--[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for part 80 continues to read as follows:

Authority: Sections 114, 211 and 301(a) of the Clean Air Act as

amended (42 U.S.C. 7414, 7545, and 7601(a)).

2. Section 80.158 is amended as follows:

a. Paragraph (a)(5) is removed.

b. Paragraphs (a)(6) through (a)(10) are redesignated as paragraphs

(a)(5) through (a)(9).

c. Paragraph (c)(1) is revised to read as follows:

Sec. 80.158 Product Transfer Documents (PTDs)

* * * * *

(c) Use of product codes and other non-regulatory language.

(1) Product codes and other non-regulatory language may not be used

as a substitute for the specified PTD warning language specified in

paragraph (a)(6) of this section for custody transfers of base gasoline

to truck carriers, retail outlets, and wholesale purchaser-consumer

facilities or for transfers of exempt base gasoline to be used for

research, development, or test purposes.

* * * * *

3. Section 80.170 is amended by adding a new paragraph (f)(7) to

read as follows:

Sec. 80.170 Volumetric additive reconciliation (VAR), equipment

calibration, and recordkeeping requirements.

* * * * *

oline

to truck carriers, retail outlets, and wholesale purchaser-consumer

facilities or for transfers of exempt base gasoline to be used for

research, development, or test purposes.

* * * * *

3. Section 80.170 is amended by adding a new paragraph (f)(7) to

read as follows:

Sec. 80.170 Volumetric additive reconciliation (VAR), equipment

calibration, and recordkeeping requirements.

* * * * *

(f) * * *

(7) If a detergent blender uses an oxygenate -or PRC-restricted

certified detergent to additize fuel, documentation must be maintained

by that blender fully identifying the oxygenate and/or PRC (as

applicable) content of the fuel into which the oxygenate or PRC-

restricted detergent was blended, so as to confirm or to substantially

confirm that the fuel into which the restricted detergent was blended

complied with the use restriction. Documentation which may be used to

fulfill this requirement includes, but is not limited to: PTD(s) from

the fuel supplier identifying all the oxygenates or PRC (as

appropriate) in the fuel; test results identifying all the oxygenates

or PRC (as appropriate) in the fuel; written contract language between

the supplier and the blender establishing the complete oxygenate and/or

PRC (as appropriate) content of the supplied fuel.

* * * * *

4. Section 80.171 is amended as follows:

a. Paragraph (a)(5) is removed.

b. Paragraphs (a)(6) through (12) are redesignated as paragraphs

(a)(5) through (a)(11).

c. Paragraph(b)(1) is revised to read as follows:

Sec. 80.171 Product Transfer Documents (PTDs)

* * * * *

(b) Use of product codes and other non-regulatory language.

(1) Product codes and other non-regulatory language may not be used

as a substitute for the PTD warning language specified in paragraph

b. Paragraphs (a)(6) through (12) are redesignated as paragraphs

(a)(5) through (a)(11).

c. Paragraph(b)(1) is revised to read as follows:

Sec. 80.171 Product Transfer Documents (PTDs)

* * * * *

(b) Use of product codes and other non-regulatory language.

(1) Product codes and other non-regulatory language may not be used

as a substitute for the PTD warning language specified in paragraph

(a)(6) of this section for custody transfers of base gasoline to truck

carriers, retail outlets, and wholesale purchaser-consumer facilities,

or for transfers of exempt base gasoline to be used for research,

development, or test purposes.

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 97-29390 Filed 11-5-97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P