Regulation of Fuels and Fuel Additives: Proposed Minor Revisions
to Selected Recordkeeping and Enforcement Provisions Under the
Regulation of Deposit Control Gasoline Additives
[Federal Register: November 6, 1997 (Volume 62, Number 215)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 60052-60058]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr06no97-20]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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
[[Page 60053]]
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.
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/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.
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.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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. 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
[[Page 60054]]
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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. 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. 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.
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.
[[Page 60055]]
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
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. 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.
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
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
[[Page 60056]]
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
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
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.
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,
(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).
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
[[Page 60057]]
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.
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. (mail code 2136);
Washington, DC 20460 or by calling (202) 260-2740. Include the ICR and/
or OMB number in any correspondence.
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public
Law 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the
effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal
governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, EPA
generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-benefit
analysis, for proposed and final rules with ``Federal mandates'' that
may result in expenditures to state, local, and tribal governments, in
the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100 million or more for
any one year.
Before promulgating an EPA rule for which a written statement is
needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires EPA to identify and
consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt the
least costly, most cost effective, or least burdensome alternative that
achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of section 205 do
not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover,
section 205 allows EPA to adopt an alternative other than the least
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
(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.
[[Page 60058]]
(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.
* * * * *
(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
(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
![[logo] US EPA](https://webarchive.library.unt.edu/eot2008/20090510205406im_/http://www.epa.gov/epafiles/images/logo_epaseal.gif){kind=logo}