Registration of Fuels and Fuel Additives: Extension of Specified
Deadlines for Atypical Additives and Biodiesel Fuels; and, Reformulated
Gasoline Complex Model: Modification of Survey Precision Requirements
Related Material
[Federal Register: March 17, 1997 (Volume 62, Number 51)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 12572-12576]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr17mr97-19]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 79 and 80
[FRL-5701-8]
Registration of Fuels and Fuel Additives: Extension of Specified
Deadlines for Atypical Additives and Biodiesel Fuels; and, Reformulated
Gasoline Complex Model: Modification of Survey Precision Requirements
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.
ACTION: Direct final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In a document published July 11, 1996, EPA proposed to modify
specific provisions of the fuels and fuel additives (F/FA) registration
and testing program which, if finalized, would change the applicability
of certain requirements to specified F/FAs. In the case of that
document, EPA proposed changes affecting testing requirements for
``atypical'' and biodiesel F/FAs. The effect of that proposal has been
to make the current testing requirements uncertain for potentially
affected F/FAs, and to make the current compliance schedules
unreasonable for such F/FAs. Therefore, related deadline adjustments
are appropriate. Accordingly, this direct final rule extends Tier 1
deadlines for biodiesel fuels and Tier 2 deadlines for atypical F/FAs.
These short delays are not expected to have a substantial impact on the
benefits of the F/FA testing program, and may prevent certain
manufacturers from making unnecessary expenditures.
In this direct final rule, EPA is also modifying the survey
precision requirements under the reformulated gasoline (RFG) complex
model. This action will permit survey managers to submit a proposed
sample size based upon the precision with which means of emission
parameters can be estimated, subject to EPA approval. This approach is
expected to provide significant cost savings to respondents, without
adverse environmental impact.
DATES: This action will be effective on May 16, 1997, unless EPA
receives adverse comment or a request for a public hearing by April 16,
1997. If the Agency receives adverse comment or a request for a public
hearing, EPA will withdraw this action by publishing timely notice in
the Federal Register.
ADDRESSES: Any persons wishing to submit comments should send them (in
duplicate, if possible) to the docket address listed below and to Jim
Caldwell, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Fuels and Energy
Division, 401 M Street, S.W. (6406-J), Washington, D.C. 20460.
Materials relevant to this direct final rule have been placed in Public
Docket A-90-07 located at U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Air
Docket Section, Room M-1500, 401 M Street, S.W., Washington, D.C.
20460. The docket is open for public inspection from 8:00 a.m. until
5:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except on Federal holidays. A
reasonable fee may be charged for photocopying services.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information, or to notify
EPA of an intent to submit an adverse comment or public hearing
request, contact Jim Caldwell, (202) 233-9303, or Joseph Fernandes,
(202) 233-9016.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Electronic copies of this direct final rule,
the regulatory text of this direct final rule, and earlier rulemaking
documents related to the F/FA registration program are available free
of charge on EPA's Technology Transfer Network Bulletin Board System
(TTNBBS, phone access 919-541-5742) and on the Internet (http://
www.epa.gov/omswww). Parties requiring assistance may call Mr.
Fernandes at (202) 233-9016.
I. Regulated Entities
Regulated categories and entities potentially affected by this
action include:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Category Examples of regulated entities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry............................... Manufacturers of atypical fuels/
fuel additives.
Manufacturers of biodiesel
fuels/fuel additives.
Reformulated gasoline survey
participants.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a
guide for readers regarding entities likely to be regulated by this
action. This table lists the types of entities that EPA is now aware
could be potentially regulated by this action. Other types of entities
not listed in the table could also be regulated. To determine whether
your entity would be regulated by this action, you should carefully
examine this preamble and the proposed changes to the regulatory text.
You should also carefully examine all provisions of the F/FAs
registration program at 40 CFR part 79 and the RFG program requirements
at 40 CFR part 80.
II. Extension of Tier 2 Deadline for Atypical F/FAs
On July 11, 1996, EPA published a Federal Register notice proposing
several changes to the F/FA registration and testing regulations.1
One proposal was a de minimis provision which, if finalized, would
delete standard Tier 2 requirements for certain atypical F/FAs.2
This proposal was based on certain conservative judgments and
considering available data which indicated that some F/FAs may be
reasonably anticipated to have no adverse effects on public health or
the environment when they are present at very low concentrations in
fuel. F/FAs qualifying for this special provision were proposed to be
those containing no atypical elements other than aluminum, boron,
calcium, sodium, zinc, magnesium, phosphorus, potassium, and/or iron,
where the total of these elements would not exceed 25 parts per million
when the additive is mixed in
[[Page 12573]]
fuel at the maximum recommended concentration.3
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The F/FA testing requirements are located in 40 CFR Part 79-
Subpart F. A detailed discussion of the program, including Tiers 1,
2, and 3 test requirements, may be found in the preamble to the
final rule that promulgated these testing requirements (59 FR 33042,
June 27, 1994).
\2\ Under the grouping provisions of the F/FA health effects
testing program, atypical F/FAs are those which contain chemical
elements other than carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen, and sulfur.
\3\ For further information on the de minimis proposal, see
``Registration of Fuels and Fuel Additives: Changes in Requirements,
and Applicability to Blenders of Deposit Control Additives,'' Notice
of Proposed Rulemaking, 61 FR 36535, July 11, 1996.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Significant public comment was submitted about all aspects of this
proposal, and EPA has not yet completed its analysis and consideration
of the suggestions therein. Nevertheless, EPA is aware that further
delay in resolving the de minimis issue might leave some manufacturers
of atypical additives in an awkward position with respect to upcoming
regulatory deadlines. In particular, by May 27, 1997, all F/FA
manufacturers (except some small businesses and others qualifying for
specific exemptions or alternative deadlines), are required to either
complete Tier 2 testing or to demonstrate the existence of suitable
contractual arrangements with a laboratory for completion of Tier 2 by
May 27, 2000.4 However, depending on the final construct of the de
minimis provision, some atypical manufacturers may eventually be
excused from these Tier 2 responsibilities altogether.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Compliance with Tier 1 requirements is also required by May
27, 1997.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA promulgated the Tier 1 and Tier 2 testing requirements under
the authority provided by sections 211(b) and 211(e) of the CAA.
Section 211(b) gives EPA broad authority ``for the purpose of
registration of fuels and fuel additives'' to require manufacturers
``to conduct tests to determine potential public health effects of such
fuel or fuel additive.'' Section 211(b) does not specify deadlines for
submission of the results of such testing, leaving the timing
requirements to EPA's discretion. However, the timing for submission of
test results is affected by section 211(e). This subsection directs EPA
to issue regulations to implement section 211(b)(2), and states that
such regulations shall require that ``the requisite information'' be
provided to EPA within 3 years from the date of promulgation of the
regulations. The term ``requisite information'' is not defined in the
Act; EPA has interpreted the term to mean either data required by Tiers
1 and 2, or data required by Tier 1 and a contract to complete Tier 2
testing. This interpretation was based, in part, on EPA's conclusion
that, as a practical matter, Tier 2 tests for all F/FAs could not be
completed by May 27, 1997 (i.e., within 3 years of the date of
promulgation of the regulations). See 59 FR at 33047, June 27, 1994,
for a more detailed analysis of EPA's interpretation of ``requisite
information.''
Since the time EPA adopted this interpretation of ``requisite
information'' for all fuels and fuel additives, EPA proposed to exempt
some atypical additives from Tier 2 testing. As stated above, EPA is
not at this time able to take final action on that proposal. EPA's
proposal has resulted in significant uncertainty for manufacturers of
atypical additives, who do not know whether EPA will finalize the
proposed exemption, or what the scope of the final exemption will be.
This uncertainty makes it extremely impractical for such manufacturers
to conduct Tier 2 testing, because the costs of conducting such testing
would not have to be incurred if EPA finalizes an exemption that
encompasses their additive. Moreover, the uncertainty caused by EPA's
proposal also makes it impractical for such manufacturers to enter into
contracts with laboratories to conduct Tier 2 testing; if EPA finalizes
an exemption that covers their additive, the manufacturer would either
have to break the contract (adversely affecting the laboratory) or
incur the cost of conducting testing that it is not required by
regulation to undertake. For these reasons, EPA is exercising its
discretion under Sec. 211(b) and Sec. 211(e) to interpret the
``requisite information'' which manufacturers of atypical additives
must submit to EPA by May 27, 1997 to include Tier 1 testing only.
As stated above, EPA adopted the Tier 1 and Tier 2 testing
requirements under the authority of sections 211(b) and 211(e). While
the submission deadlines for tests required under Sec. 211(e) are
governed by the language described above, EPA has discretion under
Sec. 211(b) to set timing requirements for tests required under
Sec. 211(b). Pursuant to this discretion, EPA is establishing a
deadline of November 27, 1998, for manufacturers of atypical additives
to submit Tier 2 requirements (i.e., either data required by Tier 2, or
a contract to complete Tier 2 testing by November 27, 2001.
Specifically, for all F/FAs containing ``atypical elements'' (as
defined in Sec. 79.50), the Tier 2 compliance deadlines in
Secs. 79.51(c)(1)(ii) (A) and (B) are respectively extended from May
27, 1997 to November 27, 1998 and from May 27, 2000 to November 27,
2001.5 These extensions will permit EPA to consider all issues
raised in response to the proposal, without any unnecessary adverse
impact on the affected manufacturers. EPA estimates that the 18-month
extension will be adequate for the Agency to complete its analysis and
publish a final rule (or other action as appropriate), while still
leaving sufficient time for manufacturers of atypical F/FAs to comply
with the requirement (if applicable) to secure contractual arrangements
for timely completion of Tier 2 testing. Deadlines for requirements not
proposed to be affected by the de minimis provision (i.e., Tier 1 and
potential Alternative Tier 2 and/or Tier 3 requirements) are not
affected by these extensions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Generally, F/FA manufacturers must either comply with all
Tier 2 requirements under 40 CFR 79.51(c)(ii)(A) or submit evidence
to EPA of a contract with a qualified laboratory, or other suitable
arrangement to complete Tier 2 testing, by May 27, 1997 under
paragraph (c)(ii)(B). Manufacturers who proceed under paragraph
(c)(ii)(B) are required to comply with all Tier 2 requirements by
May 27, 2000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This action is expected to prevent some manufacturers from making
unnecessary expenditures while EPA completes its determination of the
most appropriate disposition of the de minimis proposal. The limited
extension in the Tier 2 compliance deadlines for this relatively small
category of F/FAs amounts to a very short and reasonable delay that is
not expected to have a substantial adverse impact on the public health
or environmental benefits of the testing program.
III. Extension of Tier 1 Deadlines for Biodiesel Manufacturers
As described above, section 211(b) does not specify deadlines for
the submission of test results required under this provision; however,
section 211(e) directs EPA to issue regulations to implement section
211(b)(2), and states that such regulations shall require that ``the
requisite information'' be provided to EPA within 3 years of
promulgation of the regulations. EPA has interpreted the term
``requisite information'' to mean either data required by Tiers 1 and
2, or data required by Tier 1 and a contract to complete Tier 2
testing.
In July 1996, EPA proposed to revise the existing regulations
applying to biodiesel F/FAs, including changes to the grouping
regulations and to the requirements for selecting the group
representative for biodiesel F/FA testing.6 These proposals raised
significant uncertainties for manufacturers of biodiesel F/FAs. For
example, EPA solicited public comment
[[Page 12574]]
on whether the group representative selection criteria should be
revised from a requirement that the group representative for testing
purposes contain the highest actual or recommended maximum
concentration-in-use of the biodiesel product to a requirement that it
contain a specified amount (anywhere between 20 and 100 percent) of the
biodiesel product. Because EPA proposed these revisions in July 1996,
less than one year before the current deadline for submission of Tier 1
test results and, at a minimum, a contract for completion of Tier 2
testing, the manufacturers of biodiesel F/FAs did not know what group
representative they should be testing in light of EPA's proposal. If
they conducted testing of a fuel with the highest registered
concentration of biodiesel product, and EPA promulgated a revision to
the regulations that changed the criteria for an acceptable group
representative, the manufacturers would have incurred the costs of
testing the wrong product.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Biodiesel F/FAs are mixed alkyl esters of plant and/or
animal origin. See discussion of biodiesel provisions in
``Registration of Fuels and Fuel Additives: Changes in Requirements
and Applicability,'' which appears elsewhere in this issue of the
Federal Register.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For these reasons, the date of promulgation of regulations
requiring testing of biodiesel F/FAs is the effective date of today's
regulations, rather than the effective date of the pre-existing testing
regulations (May 27, 1994). The changes EPA proposed were such that the
manufacturers of such F/FAs could not know the specific product that
would be required to be tested once EPA took final action on the July
1996 proposal. While a minor revision or technical amendment to the
pre-existing testing regulations would not be adequate to conclude that
the ``date of promulgation'' under 211(e)(2) is affected, a change of
the nature that EPA proposed for biodiesel F/FAs would have altered the
basic testing requirement that manufacturers must meet, and is
therefore an appropriate basis for adjusting the date of promulgation
for purposes of determining when manufacturers must comply with the
testing requirements.
Therefore, EPA is revising the F/FA regulations to allow the
deadline for biodiesel manufacturers until March 17, 1998 to comply
with Tier 1 and to submit information showing a contract with a
qualified laboratory, or other suitable arrangement to conduct Tier 2
testing on biodiesel fuels. These deadlines will ensure that the
requisite information under section 211(e) is submitted within three
years of promulgation of today's rule. All other deadlines for
compliance, including the deadline for compliance with Tier 2 testing,
remain unaffected by this action. EPA believes that this limited
extension, which is short in duration, will not have any substantial
impact on the public health or environmental goals of the F/FAs testing
program.
IV. Satisfaction of Survey Precision Requirements Under the Complex
Model for Reformulated Gasoline (RFG)
The regulations for RFG surveys [in Sec. 80.68(c)(13)(iii) (A) and
(B)] prescribe the width of the largest allowable 95% confidence
interval when estimating parameter means. Under the simple model, such
widths are provided for oxygen, benzene, RVP, and aromatic
hydrocarbons. With the complex model, widths are provided for the
additional parameters that must be estimated in order to determine
emission levels for VOC's, NOX, and toxics, i.e., olefins, T-50,
T-90, and sulfur. The reason for these prescribed precision limits for
survey estimates was to ensure that organizations conducting surveys
provided large enough samples to make erroneous pass/fail decisions on
survey results very unlikely.
The specification of precision limits for individual chemical
parameters was appropriate under the simple model, since pass/fail
decisions mostly involved such individual parameters. With the complex
model, though, the pass/fail decisions are made on emission parameters
that are functions of several chemical parameters. EPA believes survey
managers should be afforded the flexibility to determine sample sizes
based upon the precision with which the means of emission parameters
can be estimated, so long as the final result is at least as precise as
would have resulted from the originally prescribed limits on individual
chemical parameters.
Such an approach may be particularly appropriate where sulfur is
concerned. The large variability of sulfur was not fully appreciated
when the regulations were developed and has not been an issue under the
simple model. The addition of sulfur to the parameters subject to
survey precision limits under the complex model would result in a
substantial increase in sample sizes, possibly increasing survey costs
by a factor of three or more. EPA believes that determining survey
precision from the complex model's emission level outputs will be
welcomed by the industry as a cost saving measure and will not result
in sacrificing the precision needed to make survey pass/fail decisions
with confidence.
EPA is thus amending the complex model survey precision
requirements set forth at Sec. 80.68(c)(13)(iii)(B) to allow a survey
manager to satisfy the requirements either by conforming to the
original precision limits on each measured parameter or by providing a
level of precision for the model-determined emission parameters that is
equivalent. Use of the latter approach requires that a detailed
explanation be included in or attached to the annual survey plan
demonstrating that the proposed sample size provides precision in
estimating the emissions parameters that is equivalent to that which
would result from strict adherence to the originally prescribed limits
for measured parameters. The explanation must be approved by EPA, along
with the remainder of the survey plan, before survey operations can
proceed.
V. Environmental and Economic Impacts
The relatively short extensions granted to manufacturers of
atypical F/FAs and manufacturers of biodiesel F/FAs are not
expected to have a substantial impact on the public health and
environmental benefits of the F/FAs testing program. No adverse
environmental impact is expected as a result of today's action related
to RFG surveys as the emission reduction standards are unchanged.
Today's direct final action will have a positive economic impact.
Manufacturers of atypical F/FAs may face special compliance burdens
because they have limited opportunity to conduct joint testing or cost
sharing with other manufacturers. Extending the deadline for this
unique category of regulated parties to permit the Agency to consider
all comments received on the July 11, 1996 Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking and to issue appropriate final regulations may reasonably
prevent unnecessary economic hardship and will provide certainty with
regard to compliance dates. Until issuance of a separate final rule
published elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register,
manufacturers of biodiesel F/FAs faced some uncertainties with regard
to the grouping of their additives and representative concentrations
for sampling. The relatively short deadline extension granted by this
action will provide affected manufacturers with reasonable time to
comply with Tier 1 testing requirements and to make arrangements for
the timely completion of Tier 2 testing requirements. With regard to
the change related to RFG survey satisfaction, EPA expects a
substantial cost savings for regulated parties or consortia of
regulated parties who elect to follow the emissions parameters-based
approach to planning for complex model survey precision included in
today's direct final rule.
[[Page 12575]]
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency
to conduct a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to
notice and comment rulemaking requirements unless the agency certifies
that the rule will not have a significant impact on a substantial
number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses,
small not-for-profit enterprises, and small governmental jurisdictions.
This rule will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of
small entities because it will provide greater flexibility to affected
industries, including small businesses.
VI. Executive Order 12866
Pursuant to Executive Order 12866(58 FR 51735 [October 4, 1993]),
the Agency must determine whether the regulatory action is
``significant'' and therefore subject to OMB review and the
requirements of the Executive Order. The Order defines ``significant''
regulatory actions as one that is likely to result in a rule that may:
(1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more
or adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the
economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public
health or safety, or State, local or tribal governments or
communities;
(2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with
an action taken or planned by another agency;
(3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlement,
grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of
recipients thereof; or
(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in
the Executive Order.
Pursuant to the terms of Executive Order 12866, it has been
determined that this rulemaking is not a ``significant regulatory
action''. Today's action is expected to reduce compliance costs
associated with certain F/FA and RFG survey requirements and will not
result in any additional regulatory burden for affected parties.
VII. Paperwork Reduction Act
Per the Paperwork Reduction Act 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., and
implementing regulations, 5 CFR Part 1320, the F/FA-related portion of
this action, does not involve the collection of information as defined
therein. An Information Collection Request (ICR No. 1591) was prepared
for the reformulated gasoline program and addresses aspects of that
program, including surveys. A copy may be obtained from Sandy Farmer,
Regulatory Information Division; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(2137); 401 M St., S.W. Washington, DC 20640 or by calling (202) 260-
2740. Today's direct final rule related to survey design does not
create any new information collection requirements.
VIII. Unfunded Mandates Act
Under section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
(``Unfunded Mandates Act''), signed into law on March 22, 1995, EPA
must prepare a budgetary impact statement to accompany any proposed or
final rule that includes a Federal mandate that may result in
expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate;
or by the private sector, of $100 million or more. Under Section 205,
EPA must select the most cost-effective and least burdensome
alternative that achieves the objectives of the rule and is consistent
with statutory requirements. Section 203 requires EPA to establish a
plan for informing and advising any small governments that may be
significantly or uniquely impacted by the rule.
EPA has determined that the action promulgated today does not
include a federal mandate that may result in estimated costs of $100
million or more to either State, local, or tribal governments in the
aggregate, or to the private sector. This final rule does not establish
regulatory requirements that may significantly or uniquely affect small
governments. In fact, this final rule has the net effect of reducing
the burden of the fuel and fuel additive registration program and RFG
survey program on regulated entities. Therefore, the requirements of
the Unfunded Mandates Act do not apply to this action.
IX. Submission to Congress and the General Accounting Office
Under 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A) as added by the Small Business
Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, EPA submitted a report
containing this rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate,
the U.S. House of Representatives and the Comptroller General of the
General Accounting Office prior to publication of the rule in today's
Federal Register. This rule is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5
U.S.C. 804(2).
List of Subjects
40 CFR Part 79
Environmental protection, Fuel additives, Gasoline, Motor vehicle
pollution, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
40 CFR Part 80
Environmental protection, Fuel additives, Gasoline, Imports,
Labeling, Motor vehicle pollution, Penalties, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
Dated: March 4, 1997.
Carol M. Browner,
Administrator.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, parts 79 and 80 of chapter
I of title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations are amended as
follows:
PART 79--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for Part 79 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7414, 7524, 7545, and 7601.
2. Section 79.51 is amended by revising paragraph (c)(1)(ii)
introductory text and by adding paragraphs (c)(1)(vi) and (c)(1)(vii),
to read as follows:
Sec. 79.51 General requirements and provisions.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(1) * * *
(ii) Except as provided in paragraphs (c)(1)(vi) and (vii) of this
section, the manufacturer of such products must also satisfy the
requirements and time schedules in either of the following paragraphs
(c)(1)(ii) (A) or (B) of this section:
* * * * *
(vi) In regard to atypical fuels or additives in the gasoline and
diesel fuel families (pursuant to the specifications in
Sec. 79.56(e)(4)(iii)(A) (1) and (2)):
(A) All applicable Tier 1 requirements, pursuant to Secs. 79.52 and
79.59, must be submitted to EPA by May 27, 1997.
(B) Tier 2 requirements, pursuant to Secs. 79.53 and 79.59, must be
satisfied according to the deadlines in either of the following
paragraphs (c)(1)(vi)(B) (1) or (2) of this section:
(1) All applicable Tier 2 requirements shall be submitted to EPA by
November 27, 1998; or
(2) Evidence of a contract with a qualified laboratory (or other
suitable arrangement) for completion of all applicable Tier 2
requirements shall be submitted to EPA by November 27, 1998. For this
purpose, a qualified laboratory is one which can demonstrate the
capabilities and credentials specified in Sec. 79.53(c)(1). In
addition, all applicable Tier 2 requirements must be submitted to EPA
by November 27, 2001.
(vii) In regard to nonbaseline diesel products formulated with
mixed alkyl esters of plant and/or animal origin (i.e., ``biodiesel''
fuels, pursuant to Sec. 79.56(e)(4)(ii)(B)(2)):
[[Page 12576]]
(A) All applicable Tier 1 requirements, pursuant to Secs. 79.52 and
79.59, must be submitted to EPA by March 17, 1998.
(B) Tier 2 requirements, pursuant to Secs. 79.53 and 79.59, must be
satisfied according to the deadlines in either of the following
paragraphs (c)(1)(vii)(B) (1) or (2) of this section:
(1) All applicable Tier 2 requirements shall be submitted to EPA by
March 17, 1998; or
(2) Evidence of a contract with a qualified laboratory (or other
suitable arrangement) for completion of all applicable Tier 2
requirements shall be submitted to EPA by March 17, 1998. For this
purpose, a qualified laboratory is one which can demonstrate the
capabilities and credentials specified in Sec. 79.53(c)(1). In
addition, all applicable Tier 2 requirements must be submitted to EPA
by May 27, 2000.
* * * * *
3. Section 79.59 is amended by revising the last sentence of
paragraph (c) introductory text to read as follows:
Sec. 79.59 Reporting requirements.
* * * * *
(c) * * * In addition, manufacturers complying with Tier 2
requirements according to one of the time schedules specified in
Sec. 79.51(c)(1)(ii)(B), Sec. 79.51(c)(1)(vi)(B)(2), or
Sec. 79.51(c)(1)(vii)(B)(2) must submit evidence of a suitable
arrangement for completion of Tier 2 (e.g., a copy of a signed contract
with a qualified laboratory for applicable Tier 2 services) by the date
specified in the applicable time schedule.
* * * * *
PART 80--[AMENDED]
4. The authority citation for Part 80 continues to read as follows:
Authority: Sections 114, 211 and 301(a) of the Clean Air Act, as
amended (42 U.S.C. 7414, 7545 and 7601(a)).
5. Section 80.68, paragraph (c)(13)(iii)(B) is revised to read as
follows:
Sec. 80.68 Compliance surveys.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(13) * * *
(iii) * * *
(B) In the case of complex model surveys, the average levels of
oxygen, benzene, RVP, aromatic hydrocarbons, olefins, T-50, T-90 and
sulfur are determined with a 95% confidence level, with error of less
than 0.1 psi for RVP, 0.05% for benzene (by volume), 0.1% for oxygen
(by weight), 0.5% for olefins (by volume), 5 deg. F. for T-50 and T-90,
and 10 ppm for sulfur; or an equivalent level of precision for the
complex model-determined emissions parameters; and
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 97-6022 Filed 3-14-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
![[logo] US EPA](https://webarchive.library.unt.edu/eot2008/20090510204957im_/http://www.epa.gov/epafiles/images/logo_epaseal.gif){kind=logo}