The refining industry has informed the BRP that it will, in fact, increase use of aromatics in gasoline if the oxygenate provisions of the RFG program are removed. The BRP recommendations further state that, in most instances, oxygenates can be "effectively" replaced by aromatics. This position is directly counter. to the vast weight of evidence on the harmful effects of aromatics and the positive air quality effects of oxygenates. Further, it is in direct conflict with the clear intent of Congress to improve U. S. air quality by restricting use of aromatics.

The BFW has not heard evidence supporting the "safe and effective" use of increased levels of aromatics in gasoline. In fact, according to evidence presented to the BRP on March 1 2, 1999, by William 3. Piel, Technical Director of the CIean Fuels Development Coalition (CFDC), increased use of aromatics will lead diriictly to increases in air toxic emissions, exhaust VOC emissions, combustion chamber deposits, carbon monoxide emissions, and worsen fuel factors contributing to vehicle performance (Le. the driveability index). Use of aromatics will also increase VOC emissions at both stationary and mobile sources.

100 In fact, the BRP majority's apparent willingness to accept higher aromatic levels runs directly counter to Congressional intent. In his October 27, 1990 statement in support of the CAAA Conference report, Senate Environment and Public Works Committee member David Durenberger stated that the performance standard for post 2000 RFG should logically lead to a 25 percent or lower cap on aromatics.

According to Durenberger;

"The so called formula gasoline which contains a cap on benzene at one percent and a cap on aromatics at 25 percent should achieve substantial reductions in the aggregate amounts of the five [toxic] pollutants.. .Afier the year 2000, the situation is different because the Administrator is to choose the performance standard for toxics which reflects the maximum reduction in toxic emissions that is feasible taking cost into account. The formula gasoline may well achieve a reduction in toxics which exceeds 20 percent, and ifso, whatever it does achieve would be afloor for theperformance standards af? er the year 2000 (emphasis added). In this Senator's view, controls on benzene and aromatics more stringent than those in the formula gasoline are certainly feasible.. .The performance standards and the formula stated explicitly in the legislation are only minimum requirements."

As a Nebraska state official and Panel member, I find it troubling that the majority of the BRP members have chosen to ignore such evidence  as well as the clear intent of Congress  in its recommendation to remove the oxygenate standard from RFG. It also concerns me that the BRP recommendation regarding the oxygenate standard will likely lead directly to the increased use of aromatics  compounds universally condemned for their harmful effects on air quality.

Finally, the legislative history clearly shows that Congress specifically required the use of oxygenates in gasoline for other important public policy goals: national energy security through the reduction in oil imports; and, stimulating domestically produced renewabIe fuels made from agricultural products.

As Sen. Harkin stated;

"[ Use of oxygenates] will reduce our health care costs. We can have reduced farm support costs. And reduced oil imports. By lowering reformer severity and aromatics content as a means of achieving octane, and replacing it with high octane oxygenates, you conserve large quantities of oil in two ways  first, savings in gasoline because of the lower severity of the refining operation of the base gasoline; and second, straight physicaI displacement of gasoline by oxygenates. This amendment will save millions of barrels of oil every year."

And in a May 2, 1990 "Dear Colleague" letter, Representatives Bill Richardson (now Energy Secretary) and Ed Madigan urged their colleagues to support the House version of the Daschle Dole RFG provision. They wrote;

"Cleaner gasoline also slashes foreign imports. Today's gasoline relies on imported aromatic compounds. When we replace these compounds with domestically produced alcohols and ethers made fiom corn, wheat, barley and other crops, we shift trade from 101 .i I ,

I OPEC to our farmers. According to the GAO, this new market could save taxpayers over $1.2 billion that is now spent annually on farm price supports."

These and other references make it clear that Congress thoughtfully considered and debated the benefits of reducing aromatics and requiring the use of oxygenates in RFG. Based on the weight of evidence presented to the BRP, I remain convinced that maintenance of the oxygenate standard is necessary to ensure cleaner air and a healthier environment. I am also convinced that water quality must be better protected through significant improvements to gasoline storage tanks and containment facilities. Therefore, because it is directly counter to the weight of the vast majority of scientific and technical evidence and the clear intent of Congress, 'I must respectfully disagree with the BRP recommendation that the oxygenate provisions of the RFG Program be removed. I also request that the final report from the BRP include a recommendation to place a cap on the use of aromatics in gasoline at 25 percent by volume, in keeping with the Panel's commitment to preserve air quality improvements. j.

Todd Sneller serves as Administrator of the Nebraska Ethanol Board, a state agency. He is the past chairman of the Clean Fuels Development Coalition, and current& serves as the Nebraska representative of the 22 state Governors ' Ethanol Coalition. ME Sneller was appointed to the EPA Blue Ribbon Panel in December 1998.

102 Lvondell Chemical Companv` s Dissentinv ReDort Summarv While the Panel is to be commended on a number of good recommendations to improve the current underground storage tank regulations and reduce the improper use of gasoline, the Panel's recornmendations to limit the use of MTBE are not justified.

Unfortunately, there appears to be an emotional rush to judgement regarding the use of MTBE. The recommendation to reduce the use of MTBE substantially is unwarranted for the following four reasons:

Firstly, the Panel was charged to review public health effects posed by the use of oxygenates, particularly with respect to water contamination. The Panel did not identi@ any increased public health risk associated with MTBE use in gasoline.

Secondly, no quantifiable evidence was provided to show the environmental risk to drinking water from leaking underground storage tanks (LUST) will not be reduced to manageable levels once the 1998 LUST regulations are fully implemented and enforced, The water contamination data relied upon by the Panel i s largely misleading because it predates the implementation of the LUST regulations.

Thirdly, the recommendations will not preserve the air quality benefits achieved with oxygenate use in the existing RFG program. The air quality benefits achieved by the RFG program will be degraded because they fall outside the control of EPA's Complex Model used for RFG regulations and because the alternatives do not match all of MTBE` s emission and gasoline quality improvements.

Lastly, the Panel's recommendation options depend upon the use of alternatives that have not been adequately studied for air quality and health risk impacts. These alternatives will also impose an unnecessary additional cost of I to 3 billion dollars per year (3  7 c/ gal. RFG) on consumers and society without quantifiable offsetting social benefits or avoided costs with respect to water quality in the future.

Discussion of Issues No increase in public health risk associated with the use of MTBE has been identified.

Based on the Panel's review of the available health studies, the Panel did not identify any increased health risk associated with MTBE` s normal use in gasoline and the Panel's review is best summarized by the foliowing paragraph from the Issue Summary E, "Comparing the Fuel Additives."

"In terms of neurotoxicity and reproductive effects, inhalation toxicity testing to date generaIly has not shown MTBE to be any more toxic than other components of gasoline. At very high doses, MTBE has caused tumors in two species of rat and one species of mouse at a variety of sites; it is uncertain, however, whether these effects can be extrapolated to humans. The International Agency for Research On Cancer (IARC) and the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) have indicated that at this time there are not adequate data to consider MTBE a probable or known human carcinogen."

103 No quantifiable evidence has been provided to show that full compliance with the 1998 LUST reguiations will not achieve its purpose of substantially reducing the release of gasoline, and thereby MTBE, from UST systems today and in the future.

The Panel states that enhanced UST programs will not give adequate assurance that water supplies will be protected, However, this statement is made without any quantifiable analysis or support. The facts are that most MTBE detects are very low level concentrations and have occurred prior to UST systems being upgraded to meet the 1998 deadlines. The MTBE detection data presented to the Panel by the USGS was collected between 1988 and 1998 when most UST systems were still out of compliance. In addition, data summarized by the Association of State and Territorial Solid Waste Management Officials (ASTSWMO) shows that less than 50 percent of all UST's were in compliance prior to 1998 and that as recent as 1996 only 30 percent were in ~ornpliance.~~ Therefore, the detection data reflects a time period before most of the underground tanks were upgraded.

In addition, the risk of drinking water contamination by MTBE and other gasoline constituents has been greatly reduced with the onset of LUST regulation compliance. The UC Davis studyJ6 which was presented to the PANEL estimates that tank failure rates (leak occurrences) decrease by over 95 percent (from 2.6 percent failures per year for non upgraded tanks to 0.07 percent per year for upgraded tanks) once UST systems are upgraded to meet the current LUST regulations. Also, with the required installation of early leak detection monitoring, the time between when a leak occurs and when it is detected will now be significantly reduced. As a result, the amount of gasoline released from a new leaking site before it has been remediated is substantially minimized. Both of these effects combined should lead to substantial reductions (orders of magnitude) in the amount of gasoline and MTBE that escapes undetected from the UST population which therefore makes it a much more manageable situation for protecting drinking water supplies.

The recommendations fail to recognize the full emission benefits from using MTBE and oxygenates in RFG, and that the alternatives do not equal the emission reductions and combustion enhancing bIending properties of MTBE in gasoline. Therefore, a reduction in MTBE use will result in a net loss in air quality.

Although the Panel was charged with "examining the role of oxygenates in meeting the nation's goal of clean air" and "evaluating each product's efficiency in providing clean air benefits and the existence of alternatives," the Panel did not identify and quantify all the emission benefits realized when oxygenates are used to make cleaner burning and low polluting gasolines. Neither was the Panel able to identify combinations of alternatives that could match both the emission reductions and the combustion enhancing blending properties of MTBE in gasoline. The Panel did not recognize the fact that the simple use of oxygenates along with a vapor pressure reduction were the only requirements used to achieve the ozone precursor reduction goals in the first three years of a very successful .WG pr~ gram.~ ' Since all other alternatives have one or more inferior properties as compared to MTBE in gasoline, it would be 3s Sausville, Paul, Dale Marx and Steve Crimaudo: A Preliminarv State Survev with Estimates based on a SuGev of 17 State databases of earlv 1999. ASTSWMO UST Task Force, 1 Ith Annual EPA USTLUST National Conference, March 15 1 7, 1999. Daytona Beach, Florida.

36 Keller, Arturo, et. al. Health & Environmental Assessment of MTJ3E. ReDOrt to the Governor and hislamre of the State of California as SDonsored bv SB 521. November 1998.

37 "Overview of Fuel Oxygenate Development", WilIiam J. Pie1 For Lyondell Chemical Co., Presentation to the EPA's Blue Ribbon Panel, January 22, Arlington, VA.

I04 difficult if not nearly impossible to achieve the same real air quality eficiency provided by MTBE. And since sulfur reductions are also expected to occur under other fuel regulations, it would be a double accounting of emissions benefits if sulfur reductions in RFG are to be used to compensate or make up for any increase of emissions resulting from reduced oxygenate use in RFG.

Beyond reducing VOC's, NO, and toxics, improving gasoline properties through the use of oxygenates reduce many other vehicles pollutants such as CO (carbon monoxide), PM (particulate matter) and C02 (carbon dioxide) as well as the ozone reactivity of VOC's. Also, gasoline property changes associated with oxygenate use in RFG provide additional emission reductions of VOC, NO,, toxics and CO (an ozone precursor) over the life of the vehicle by lowering combustion chamber deposits and therefore the vehicle's emissions deterioration rates over time. Since none of these additional emission reductions are reflected or controlled in EPA's Complex Emissions Model used for RFG, reducing MTBE in RFG wi11 result in a loss of these extra emission benefits?*

Unfortunately, the Panel recommendations limit themselves to only meeting the regulatory requirements established in EPA's existing RFG rules and did not focus on capturing all the real world emission benefits associated with MTBE's use in RFG. Though the Panel recommends reducing the use of oxygenates in RFG, they failed to explain how equivalent air quality is to be maintained when the only identifiable fuel alternatives cannot match all of MTBE's emission reductions and combustion enhancing blending properties in gasoline. Therefore, replacing MTBE with the alternatives under the current recommendations will contribute to a net loss in air quality with regards to Peak Ozone levels, PM, toxics and C02 (greenhouse gas) in addition to higher costs.

Alternatives have not been adequately studied for their health risk impacts, availability or their cost effectiveness in FWG From a scientific, policy, and political perspective, no one should rush to judgement on MTBE without a thorough evaluation of the alternatives. The Panel cannot afford to be wrong about MTBE's benefits or deficiencies. As a matter of sound public policy, any alternative needs to be held up to the same rigorous examination as MTBE, while adhering to the following criteria.

To assure the public that any alternative will produce the same real air quality benefits as MTBE.

That any alternative will be abundantly and economically available.

That any alternative will not be a probable or known human carcinogen nor increase the risks to human health.

These criteria are consistent .with the Panel's recommendation to investigate more fully any major new additives to gasoline prior to its introduction and therefore should equally apply to the alternatives already identified by the Panel, namely Ethanol, Alkylates, and Aromatics. The expanded use of these alternatives should not occur without a more rigorous analysis of the impacts on health, air quality, and water quality as well as their availability and costs.

38 "Staff Report: Proposed Amendments to the California Regulation Requiring Deposit Control Additives in the Motor Vehicle Gasoline" Calif. Environ. Protection Agency, Air Resources Board, Aug 7, 1998; "Benefits of the Federal RFG Program And Clean Burning Fuels with Oxygenates", William J: Pie1 of Lyondell Chemical CO., hesentation to EPA Blue Ribbon Panel, March 1, 1999, Boston.

105 I LIST OF PANEL MIEMBERS AND PARTICIPANTS Members of the Blue Ribbon Panel Dan Greenbaum, Health Effects Institute, Chair President Health Effects Institute 955 Massachusetts Ave. Cambridge, MA 02139 (617) 876 6700 F~ x: (617) 876 6709 dgreenbaum 8 healtheffects . org Mark Beuhler, Metropolitan Water District, So. California Director of Water Quality Metropolitan Water District of Southern California P. O. Box 54153 Los Angeles, CA 90071 (213) 217 6647 Fax: (213) 217 6951 mbeuhler @mwd. dst. ca. us Robert Campbeil, Sunoco, Inc. Chairman and CEO Sunoco, Inc. 1801 Market Street Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19 103

Fax: (215) 977 3559 ann 1 williams @ sunoil. co (215) 977 3871 Patricia Ellis, Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control Hydrologist Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control Air and Waste Management Division 391 Lukens Drive New Castle, DE 19720 (302) 395 2500 Fax: (302) 395 2601 pellis @ dnrec. state. de. us  Linda Greer, Natural Resources Defense Council Senior Scientist Natural Resources Defense Council 1350 New York Ave., N. W. Washington, D. C. 20005 Fax: (202) 289 1 060 Igreer@ nrdc. org (202) 289 6868 Jason Grumet, NESCAUM Executive Director NESCAUM 129 Portland Street Boston, MA 02 1 14 (6 1 7) 367 8540, ext. 2 16 jgrumet@ nescaum .org Fax: (61 7) 742 9 162 Anne Happel, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory Environmental Scientist Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, L 542 7000 East Avenue Livermore, CA 94550 (925) 422 1425 Fax (925) 422 9203 happel 1 @lInl. gov Carol Henry, American Petroleum Institute Director, Health and Environmental Sciences American Petroleum Institute 1220 L Street, N. W. Washington, D. C. 20005 4070 (202) 682 8308 Fax: (202) 682 8270 henrycj@ api. org Michael Kenny, California Air Resources Board Executive Officer California Air Resources Board P. O. Box 28 15 Sacramento, CA 958 I2 Fax: (9 16) 322 6003 mkenny@ arb. ca. gov (9 I 62445 4383 108 Robert Sawyer, University of California, Berkeley Professor, Graduate School Mechanical Engineering Department University of California at Berkeley 72 Hesse Hall Berkeley, CA 94720 1740 (510) 642 5573 Fax: (5 IO) 642 1850 rsawyer@ newton. berkeley. edu Todd Sneller, Nebraska Ethanol Board Executive Director Nebraska Ethanol Board 301 Centennial Mall South Fourth Floor Lincoln, NE 69509 (402) 47 1 294 1 Fax: (402) 47 1 2470 sneller@ nrcdec. nrc. state. ne. us Debbie Starnes, Lyondell Chemical Senior Vice President, Intermediate Chemical Lyondell Chemical Company 122 1 McKinney Street, Suite 1600 Houston, TX 770 10 (713) 652 7370 Fax: (713) 652 4538 debbie. starnes@ lyondellchem. com Ron White, American Lung Association Director, National Programs American Lung Association 1726 M St., NW Suite 902 Washington, DC 20036 Fax: (202) 452 1 805 rwhite@ lungusa. org (202) 785 3355 1 09 Federal Rewesen ta tives mon Votin&

Robert Perciasepe, Air and Radiation, US EnvironmentaI Protection Agency Assistant Administrator Ofice of Air and Radiation US Environmental Protection Agency 401 M Street, SW Washington, DC 20460 (202) 260 7400 Fax: (202) 260 5 155 perciasepe, robert@ epa. gov Roger Conway, US Department of Agriculture Director, Ofice of Energy Policy and New Uses U. S. Department of Agriculture 1800 M Street NW, Room 4 129 N Washington, DC 20036 (202) 694 5020 Fax: (202) 694 5665 rkconway@ econ. ag. gov Cynthia Dougherty, Drinking Water, US EnvironmentaI Protection Agency Director, Ofice of Ground Water and Drinking Water US Environmental Protection Agency 401 M Street SW Washington, DC 20460 (202) 260 5543 Fax (202) 260 4383 dougherty. cynthia@ epa. gov WiIIiam Farland, Risk Assessment, US Environmental Protection Agency Director, National Center for Environmental Assessment Office of Research and Development US Environmental Protection Agency Washington, DC 20460 Fax (202) 565 0090 farland. wiiliarn@ epa. gov (202) 564 33 19 Barry McNutt, US Department of Energy Senior Policy Analyst Department of Energy 1000 Independence  Avenue Room H021 Washington, DC 20585 (202) 586 4448 Fax: (202) 586 4447 barry. rncnutt@ hq. doe. gov Margo Oge, Mobile Sources, US Environmental Protection Agency Director, Office of Mobile Sources Office of Air and Radiation US Environmental Protection Agency 401 M Street SW Washington, DC 20460 (202) 260 7645 Fax (202) 260 3730 oge. margo@ epa. gov Sammy Ng, Underground Tanks, US Environmental Protection Agency Acting Director, Office of Underground Storage Tanks US Environmental Protection Agency 401 M Street SW Washington, DC 20460 (703) 603 9900 Fax (703) 603 0175 ng. sammy@ epa. gov Mary White, Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry Epidemiologist Chief Health Investigations Branch Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry 1600 Clifton Road Mail Stop E 3 1 Atlanta, GA 30333 Fax (404) 639 62 19 mxw5 Wcdc. gov (404) 639 6229 John Zogor~ ki, US Geological Survey Project Chief, National Water Quality Assessment Program US GeologicaI Survey 1608 Mountain View Road Rapid City, SD 57702 (605) 355 4560 X214 Fax: (605) 355 4523 jszogors@ usgs. gov 111 REFERENCES American Petroleum Institute. A Survey of API Members ' Aboveground Storage Tank Facilities (July 1994).

Altshuller, A. P. "PANS in the Atmosphere," Journal ofAir & Waste Management Association (1993), v. 43( 9), pp. 122 1  1230.

Baehr, A. L., P. E. Stackelberg, and R. J. Baker. "Evaluation of the Atmosphere as a Source of Volatile Organic Compounds in Shallow Ground Water," Water Resources Research (January 19991, v. 35( 1), 1, pp. 127 136.

Borden, R. C. et al. "Intrinsic Biodegradation of MTBE and BTEX in a Gasoline Contaminated Aquifer," Water Resources Research (1 997), v. 33(. 5), pp. 1 105 1 1 15.

Bordvick, Duane, Tosco Corporation. "Perspectives on Gasoline Blending for Clean Air," presentation at the MTBE Blue Ribbon Panel meeting (March 1999).

Bradley, P. M., et. aI., "Aerobic Mineralization of MTBE and tert Butyl Alcohol by Stream bed Sediment Microorganisms," pp. 1877 1 897, v. 33, no. 1 1, Envtl. Sei. Tech. (1999).

Caffrey, Peter J. and Paul Machiele. In Use Volatility Impact of Commingling Ethanol ana'Non Ethanol Fuels. SAE Technical Paper 94065 (February 29, 1994).

California Energy Commission. Supply and Cost Alternatives to MTBE in Gasoiine (October 1998).

California State Water Resources Control Board, "Are Leak Detection Methods Effective In Finding Leaks In Underground Storage Tank Systems? (Leaking Site Survey Report)" January 1998. (http:// www. swrcb. ca. gov/ cwphome/ ust/ leak reports/ Index. htm.)

Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (Ken Nelson and Ron Ragazzi). The Impact of a 10 Percent Ethanol Blended Fuel on the Exhaust Emissions of Zier 0 & 7ier I Light Duty Gasoline Vkhicles at 35 F (March 26, 1999).

Conway, Roger. "Ethanol and Its Implications for Fuel Supply," presentation at the MTBE Blue Ribbon Panel meeting (April 1999).

Corseuil, H. X. and P. J. J. Alvarez. "Natural Bioremediation Perspective for BTX Contaminated Groundwater in Brazil," Water Science & Technology (I996), v. 35,. pp. 9 16.

Corseuil, H. X. et al. "The Influence of the Gasoline Oxygenate Ethanol on Aerobic and Anaerobic BTX Biodegradation," Water Resources Research (1 998), v. 32, pp. 2065 2072.

Conrad, D. L., Texaco Research and Development Department, The Impacts of Gasoline Oxygenate Releases to the Environment  A Review of the Literature (Port Arthur, Texas, 1995).

Creek, Daniel N. and J. Davidson. "The Performance and Cost of MTBE Remediation," National Ground Water Association, 1998 Petroleum Hydrocarbons and Organic Chemicals in Ground Water, pp. 560 569.

113 Couch, Kevin and Thomas M. Young, "Leaking Underground Storage Tanks (USTs) as Point Sources of MTBE to Groundwater and Related MTBE UST Compatibility Issues," in University of California and UC Toxic Substances Research & Teaching Program, Health and Environmental Assessment of MTBE, Volume IV ( 1998).

Cunningham, Robert. "Costs of Potential Ban of MTBE in Gasolines," presentation at the MTBE Blue Ribbon Panel meeting (March 1999).

Dale, M. S. et al. "MTBE  Occurrence and Fate in Source Water Supplies," in American Chemical Society Division of Environmental Chemistry preprints of papers (1 997), 213th, San Francisco, CAY American Chemical Society, v. 37( 1 >, pp. 376 377.

Delzer, G. C. et al. Occurrence of the Gasoline Oxygenate MTBE and BTEX Compounds in Urban Stormwater in the United States, 1991 95, U. S. Geological Survey Water Resources Investigation Report WRIR 96 4145 (1996).

Downstream Alternatives. Ethanol SuppIy, Demand, and Logistics: California and Other RFG Markets (May 1999).

Executive Ofice of the President of the United States. Budget of the United States Government, Fiscal Year 2005  Appendix, p. 937 (1 999).

Fogg, Graham E. et a]., "Impacts of MTBE on California Groundwater," in University of California and UC Toxic Substances Research & Teaching Program, Health and Environmental Assessment of MT3E, Volume IY (1 998)

Froines, John R. et a!. "An Evaluation of the Scientific Peer Reviewed Research and Literature on the Human Health Effects of MTBE, its Metabolites, Combustion Products and Substitute Compounds," in University of California and UC Toxic Substances Research & Teaching Program, Health and Environmental Assessment of MTBE, Volume I . (1998).

Frye, Ellen. "when Push comes to Shove," LUSTLine, September 1998.

Gatto, Stephen. Presentation on BC International at the MTBE Slue Ribbon Panel meeting (April 1999).

Geomatrix Consultants, Inc. Summary of MTBE Groundwater Monitoring Results, Fourth Quarter 1998, Charnock WelI Field Regional Assessment, Los Angeles, California (April 1 , 1999).

Grady, Stephen and Michael Osinski. "Preliminary Findings of the 12 State MTBENOC Drinking Water Retrospective," presentation at the MTBE Blue Ribbon Panel meeting'( Apri1 1999).

Happel, A. M., B. Dooher, and E. H. Beckenbach. "Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether (MTBE) Impacts to California Groundwater," presentation at the MTBE Blue Ribbon Panel meeting (March 1999).

Happel, A. M., et al., Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. An Evaluation of MTBE Impacts tu California Groundwater Resources, UCRL AR 130897 (June 1998).

Health Effects Institute. The Potential Health Efects of Oxygenates Added IO Gasoline (April 1996).

114 Hitzig, Robert, Paul Kostecki, and Denise Leonard. "Study Reports LUST Programs are Feeling Effects of MTBE Releases," Soil & Groundwater Cleanup (August September 1998), pp. 15 19.

Huggins, Jack. Written comments submitted on behalf of the Renewable Fuels Association at the MTBE Blue Ribbon Panel meeting (April 1999).

Hunt, C. S. et al. "Effect of Ethanol on Aerobic BTX Degradation," paper from the Fourth International In Situ and On Site Bioremediation Symposium (April May 1997), Battelle Press, pp. 49 54.

Hunter, B. et al. "Impact of Small Gasoline Spills on Groundwater," preliminary report abstract presented at the Maine Water Conference Meeting (April 1999).

Hurt, K. L., e t al., Anaerobic Biodegradation of MTBE in a Contaminated Aquifer..," pp. 103 108 in Natural Attenuation of Chlorinated Solvents, Petroleum Hydrocarbon and Other Organic Compounds, (1 999).

Jessel, Al, Chevron Products Company. "Fuels Regulations and Emissions Technology," presentation at the MTBE Blue Ribbon Panel meeting (March 1999).

Jessel, Al, Chevron Products Company. "Removing MTBE From Gasoline," presentation at the MTBE Blue Ribbon Panel meeting (March 1999).

Kavanaugh, M. C. and A. Stocking. "Fate and Transport of Ethanol in the Environment," presentation at the MTBE Blue Ribbon Panel meeting (May 24, 1999).

Keller, Arturo, et. al., Executive Summary, Recommendations, Summary, "Health and Environmental Assessment of iWTBE,, ' 1999.

Kirchstetter, T. W. et al. "Impact of Oxygenated Gasoline Use on California Light Duty Vehicle Emissions," Environmental Science & Technology ( 1996).

Komex H20 Science. Drafr Investigaiion Report of MTBE Contamination:. City of Santa Monica, Charnock Well Field, Los Angeles, California (March 2 1, 1997).

Landmeyer, J. E. et al. "Fate of MTBE Relative to Benzene in a Gasoline Contaminated Aquifer (1993 98)," Ground Water Monitoring & Remediation (Fall 1998), pp. 93 102.

Lopes, T. J. and D. A. Bender. "Nonpoint Sources of Volatile Organic Compounds in Urban Areas  Relative Importance of Urban Land Surfaces and Air," Environmental Pollution (1998), v. 101, pp. 221 230.

Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, which is posted on the web site Chttu:// geotracker, iInl. Pov/)

Donald., W. Y Shiu, and K. C. Ma, Illwtrated Handbook of Physical Chemical Properties and Environmental Fate for Organic Chemicals: Vol. 114 Volatile Organic Compounds @oca Ratm, FL: Lewis Publishers, Inc, 1993) p. 91 6,962.

Malcome Pimie, Inc. Evaluation of the Fate and Transport of Ethanol in the Environment (Oaktand, CA, 1998).

115 Malley, Jr., J. P., P. A. Eliason, and J. L. Wagler. "Point of Entry Treatment of Petroleum Contaminated Water Supplies," Water Environment Research (1 993), v. 65( 2), pp. 1 19 128.

MathPro. Potential Economic Benefits of the Feinstein BiIbray Bill (March 18, 1999).

Metropolitan Water District. Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether Monitoring Program at the Metropolitan Water District of Southern Califrnia, monitoring program update (April 1999).

Milgrom, L. "Clean Car Fuels Run Into Trouble," New Scientist (1989), v. 122, p. 30.

Miller, Dexter. "Alkylates, Key Components in Clean Burning Gasoline," presentation at the MTBE Blue Ribbon Panel meeting (May 1999).

MOBILE6 effects are draft only. Only after MOBILE6 is finalized will actual and more accurate estimates be available. These projected MOBILE6 Oxy on CO effects are based on MOBIL Report #M6. FUL. 002, which is posted on the MOBILE6 web site (http:// www. epa.~ ov/ OMS/ M6. htm .)

MTBE Research Partnership. Treatment Technologies for Removal of Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether (mBE) @om Drinking Water  Air Stripping, Advanced Oxidation Process (AOP), and Granular Activated Carbon (GAC), Executive Summary (Sacramento, CA, 1998).

National Petroleum News. Market Facts 1998 (Arlington Heights, IL: Adams Business Media, I998), p. 124.

National Research Council (NRC). Ozone Forming Potential of Reformulated Gasoline (May 1999).

National Research Council, "Toxicological and Performance Aspects of Oxygenated Motor Vehicle Fuels," Washington D. C., 1996, p. 115.

National Toxicology Program. Summary of Data for Chemical Selection: Methyl Tert Butyl Ether (http:// ntpdb. niehs. nih. govMTP_ ReportsMTP_ Chem_" TP_ MSDS/ HS_ 1634 O4 4. txt.)

Nebraska Ethanol Board. Economic Impacts of Ethanol Production in the United States (April 1998).

NESCAUM. Relative Cancer Risk of Reformulated Gasoline and Conventional Gasoline Sold in the Northeast (August 1998).

NESCAUM. RFG/ MTBE Findings and Recommendations, Boston, MA, August, 1999.

Office of Science and Technology Policy, National Science and Technology Council. Interagency Assessment of Oxygenated Fuels (June 1997).

PACE ConsuItants, Inc. Analysis and Refinery Implications of Ethanol Based RFG Blends Under the Complex Model Phase II( Novem ber 1998). 'f '&

Peagrin, Tom. "Empirical Study of MTBE Benzene and Xylene Groundwater Remediation Rates," National Ground Water Association, 1998 Petroleum Hydrocarbons and Organic Chemicals in Ground Water, pp. 551 559. Reid, J. B., et. al., "A Comparative Assessment of the Long Term Behavior of MTBE and Benzene Plumes in Florida," pp. 97 I02 in Natural Attenuation of Chlorinated Solvents, Petroleum Hydrocarbon and Other Organic Compounds, (1 999).

Reuter, J. E. et ai. "Concentrations, Sources, and Fate of the Gasoline Oxygenate Methyl Tert Butyl Ether (MTBE) in a Multiple Use Lake," Environmental Science & Technology ( 1998), v. ' 32( 23), pp. 3666 3672.

Reynolds, Robert E., President. Downstream Alternatives, Inc. Letter sent to Dan Greenbaum, Panel Co Chair (June 24, 1999).

Robbins, G. A. et al. "Evidence for MTBE in Heating Oilyyy Ground Water Monitoring and Remediation (Spring 1999), pp. 65 68.

Salanitro, J. P. et al. "Perspectives on MTBE Biodegradation and the Potential for In Situ Aquifer Bioremediation," proceedings of the National Ground Water Association's Southwest Focused Ground Water Conference: Discussing the Issue of MTBE and Perchlorate in Ground Water (Anaheim, CAY June 1998), pp. 40 54.

Salanitro, J. P., "Understanding the Limitations of Microbial Metabolism of Ethers Used as Fuel Octane Enhancers," Curr. Opin. Biotechnol. 6: 337 340, 1995.

Santa Clara Valley Water District Groundwater Vulnerability Pilot Study, "Investigation of MTBE Occurrence Associated with Operating UST Systems," July 22, 1999. (http:// www. scvwd. dst. ca. us/ wtrqual/ factmtbe. htm.)

Schirmer, Mario and J. F. Barker." A Study of Long Term MTBE Attenuation in the Borden Aquifer, Ontario, Canada," Ground Water Monitoring & Remediation (Spring 1998), pp. 1 13 122.

Sexton, Juan, Kansas State Department of Health & Environment. Paper presented at the 1 Oh Annual USTLUST National Conference (Long Beach, CA, March 30, 1999).

Squillace, P. J. "Volatile Organic Compound in Untreated Ambient Groundwater of the United States, 1985  1995," presentation at the MTBE Blue Ribbon Panel meeting (April 1999).

Squillace, P. J. et al., "Review of the Environmental Behavior and Fate of Methyl Tert Butyl Ether," Environmental Toxicology & Chemistry (1 997), p. 16.

Squillace, P. J., Pope, D. A., Price, C. V. Occurrence of the Gasoline Additive MTBE in ShalIow Ground Water in Urban and Agricultural Areas, U. S. Geological Survey Fact Sheet FS 1 14 95 (1995).

Squillace, P. J. "MTBE in the Nation's Ground Water, National Water Quality Assessment (NAWQA) Program Results," presentation at the MTBE Blue Ribbon Panel Meeting (April 1999).

State of Maine Bureau of Health, Department of Human Services, Bureau of Waste Management & Remediation, Department of Environmental Protection, Maine Geological Survey, and Department of Conservation. Maine MTBE Drinking Water St&, The Presence of MTBE and other Gasoline Compounds in Maine's Drinking Water Preliminary Report ( 1 998).

117 Sunoco, i7me Required to Complete Desulfirization, personal communication.

Systems Application International. Regression Modeling of Oxyfiel Eflects On Ambient CO Concentrations (January 1997).

UC Davis Report, "Transport and Fate Modeling of MTI3E in Lakes and Reservoirs," Stephen A. McCord and Geoffrey S., Schladow Vol. IV, Ground and Surface Water, (November, 1998).

UC Davis Report, "Health & Environmental Assessment of MTBE," Vol. I, Summary and Recommendations, (November, 1998)

US. Department of Energy. Estimating the Refining Impacts of Revised Oxygenate Requirements for Gasoline: Summary Findings (May 1999).

U. S. Energy Information Administration. Demand and Price Outlook for Phase 2 Reformulated Gasoline, 2000 (April 1999).

U. S. Energy Information Administration. Petroleuni Supply Annual 1998, Volume I (June 1999).

U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Ofice of Air Quality Planning and Standards, `Wational Air Quality Trends Report," 1997.

U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Underground Storage Tanks. "Corrective Action Measures Archive." (h tt~:// www. eva . Pov/ swerust I /cat/ cam archv. h tm .>

U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. The bar charts reflect survey data collected from 19,000 samples during 1998. Data from RFG Survey Association.

U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. The Octamix Waiver, 53 FR 3636 (February 8, 1988).

U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Underground Storage Tanks. Publication on Sources of Financial Assistance for Underground Storage Tank Work (May 1990).

U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Underground Heating Oil And Motor Fuel Tanks Exempt From Regulation Under Subtitle I Of The Resource Conservation And Recovery Act (May 1990).

U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. Regulatory Impact Analysis, 59 FR 7716, Docket No. A 92 12 ,( 1993).

U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development and Ofice of Solid Waste & Emergency Response. Light Nonaqueous Phase Liquids, EPA Ground Water Issue Paper # EPA/ 540/ S 95/ 500 (1995).

U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Mobile Sources. (Cook, R.) Impact of the Oxyfiel Program on Ambient CO Levels (1996).

U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Ofice of Water. National Water Quality Inventory: 1996 Report to Congress (1 996).

118 US. Environmental Protection Agency, Ofice of Research and Development. Pump and Treat Ground Water Remediation: A Guide for Decision Makers and Practitioners, EPA/ 625/ R 95/ 005 (1 996).

U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, OWce of Water. Drinking Water Advisory: Consumer Acceptability Advice and Health Effects Analysis on Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether (.B E ) (December 1997).

U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. State Assurance Funds: State Funds in Transition Models for Underground Storage Tank Assurance Funds, (1997) EPA 5 10 B 97 002. (www. epa. gov/ swerust 1 /states/ fimdinfo. htm .)

U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water. State Source Water Assessment and Protection Programs Guidance, (1997) EPA 8 16 F 97 004. (httD:// www. ewa. gov/ OGWDW/ swp/ fs swug. htm1)

U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. "Use of Monitored Natural Attenuation at Superfund, RCRA Corrective Action, and Underground Storage Tank Sites," Draft Memorandum (June 9, 1997) from Timothy Fields, Jr., Acting Assistant Administrator, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response.

U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. Air Quality Criteria for Carbon Monoxide (External Review Drap); Estimation of Carbon Monoxide Exposures and Associated Carboxyhemoglobin Levels in Denver Residents UsingpMEWCO. Federal Register, v. 64( 5 l), March 17, 1998, p. 13 198.

U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. Final Notftcation of Health Efects Testing Requirements for Baseline Gasoline and Oxygenated Nonbaseline Gasoline and Approval of an Alternative Emissions Generator, v. 63( 236), December 9, 1998, p. 67877.

U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, OEce of Research and Development. Oxygenates in Water: Critical Information and Research Need (December 1998).

U. S. Environmental Protection Agency and United States Geological Survey. Preliminary Findings of the 22 State MTBE/ VOC Drinking Water Retrospective ( 1999).

U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Underground Storage Tanks, based upon F Y 1999 Semi Annual Activity Report  First Half( unpub1ished).

U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Ofice of Underground Storage Tanks, estimate based upon data submitted by States on February 28, 1999 and April 30, 1999 (unpublished).

Young, Thomas M. and the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Field Evaluation of Leak Detection Performance, National Leak Detection Performance Study (1999).

119 *... .

.. . P ~

ACRONYMS AQMD AS AST ASTM AWWARF BTEX BtU CAA CAAA CaIEPA CARB CaRFG CEC CG CIIT co COZ CWSRF DIPE DOE DOT DWSRF EIA EPA EPACT ETBE El0 FCC HC HE1 IARC ILEV LEV LLNL LUST MNA MTBE NAAQS NAPL CAFE GLOSSARY OF TERMS Air Quality Management District Air Sparging Aboveground Storage Tank American Society for Testing & Lter,, American Water Works Association Research Foundation Benzene, Toluene, Ethylbenzene, and Xylene British Thermal Unit Clean Air Act Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 Corporate Average Fuel Economy California Environmental Protection Agency California Air Resources Board California Reformulated Gasoline California Energy Commission Conventional Gasoline Chemical Industry Institute of Toxicology Carbon Monoxide Carbon Dioxide Clean Water State Revolving Fund Di isoprop yl Ether U. S. Department of Energy U. S. Department of Transportation Drinking Water State Revolving Fund U. S. Energy Information Administration U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Energy Policy Act of 1992 Ethyl Tertiary Butyl Ether 10% EthanoI/ 90% Gasoline by volume Fluid Catalytic Cracked Hydrocarbons Health Effects Institute International Agency for Research on Cancer Inherently Low Emission Vehicle Low Emission Vehicle Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory Leaking Underground Storage Tank Monitored Natural Attenuation Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether National Ambient Air Quality Standards Non Aqueous Phase Liquid 121 NAWQA NESCAUM NMOG NO, NRC OMS OSTP OUST OXY PADD PAN PM POM PPb P P psi RBCA RFG RVP SDWA SIP SPCC SULEV SVE TAME TBA TLEV ULEV USDA US. EPA USGS T50 T90 UST voc ZEV National Water Quality Assessment P r o p Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use Management Non Methane Organic Gases Oxides of Nitrogen National Research Council U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Mobile Sources White House Office of Science and Technolo U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Underground Storage Tanks Winter OxyfueI Program Petroleum Administration for Defense Districts Peroxyacetyl Nitrate Particulate Matter PolycycIic Organic Matter Parts Per Billion Parts Per Million Pounds Per Square Inch (pressure) Risk Based Corrective Action Reformulated Gasoline Reid Vapor Pressure Safe Drinking Water Act State Implementation Plan Spill Control and Counter Control Super Ultra Low Emission Vehicle Soil Vapor Extraction Tertiary Amyl Methyl Ether Tertiary Butyl Alcohol Transitional Low Emission Vehicle Ultra Low Emission Vehicle U. S. Department of Agriculture U. S. Environmental Protection Agency United States Geological Survey 50% Distillation Temperature 90% Distillation Temperature Underground Storage Tank Volatile Organic Compound Zero Emission Vehicle TERMS Additives: Chemicals added to fuel to improve and maintain fuel quality. Detergents and corrosion inhibitors are examples of gasoline additives.

Air Toxics: Toxic air pollutants defined under Title II of the CAA, including benzene, formaldehyde, acetaldehyde, 1.3 butadiene, and polycyclic organic matter (POM). Benzene is a constituent of motor vehicle exhaust, evaporative, and refueling emissions. The other compounds are exhaust pollutants.

Alcohols: Organic compounds that are distinguished from hydrocarbons by the inclusion of a hydroxl group. The two simplest alcohols are methanol and ethanol.

Aldehydes: A class of organic compounds derived by removing the hydrogen atoms from an alcohol. Aldehydes can be produced from the oxidation of an alcohol.

Alkanes: See Paraffins.

Alkylate: The product of an alkyIation reaction. It usually refers to the high octane product from alkylation units. This alkylate is used in blending high octane gasoline.

Aromatics: Hydrocarbons based on the ringed six carbon benzene series or related organic groups. Benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylene are the principal aromatics, commonly referred t the BTEX group. They represent one of the heaviest fractions in gasoline. as Attenuation: The reduction or lessening in amount (e. g., a reduction in the amount of contaminants in a plume as it migrates away from the source). Attenuation occurs as a result of in situ processes (including biodegradation, dispersion, dilution, sorption, volatilization), and chemical or biological stabiIization, transformation, or destruction of contaminants.

Benzene: Benzene is a six carbon aromatic that is common gasoline component. Benzene has been identified as toxic and is a known carcinogen.

Biodegradation: A process by which microbial organisms transform or alter (through metabolic or enzymatic action) the structure of chemicals introduced into the environment.

Biomass: Renewable organic matter, such as agricultural crops, crop waste residues, wood, animal and municipal wastes, aquatic plants, or fungal growth, used for the production of energy.  British Thermal Unit (Btu): A standard unit for measuring heat energy. One Btu represents the amount of heat required to raise one pound of water one degree Fahrenheit (at sea level).

Butane: An easily liquefied gas recovered from natural gas. Used as a low volatility component of motor gasoline, processed further for a high octane gasoline component, used in LPG for domestic and industrial applications, and used as a raw material for petrochemical synthesis.

123 Butyl Alcohol: Alcohol derived from butane that is used in organic synthesis and as a solvent.

CAA: The original Clean Air Act was signed in 1963, setting emissions standards for stationary sources. The CAA was amended several times, most recently in 1990. The Amendments of 1970 introduced motor vehicle emission standards. Criteria pollutants included lead, ozone, CO, SOz, NOx, and PM, as we11 as air toxics. In 1990, reformulated gasoline (RFG) and oxygenated gasoline (OXY) provisions were added. The RFG provision requires use of RFG all year in certain areas. The OXY provision requires the use of oxygenated gasoline during certain months, when CO and ozone pollution are most serious. The regulations also require certain fleet operators to use clean fuel vehicles in 22 cities.

California Low Emissions Vehicle Program: State requirement for automakers to produce vehicles with fewer emissions than current EPA standards. The five categories of the Program, from least to most stringent are as follows: TLEV; LEV; ULEV; SULEV; and ZEV.

Carcinogens: Chemicals and other substances known to cause cancer.

Distillation Curve: The percentages of gasoline that evaporate at various temperatures. The distillation curve is an important indicator for fuel standards such as Volatility (vaporization).

Ethanol: Can be produced chemicaIIy from ethylene or biologically from the fermentation of various sugars or from carbohydrates found in agricultural crops and cellulosic residues from crops or wood. Ethanol is used in the United States as a gasoline octane enhancer and oxygenate. It increases octane 2.5 to 3.0 numbers at 10 percent concentration. Ethanol also can be used in higher concentrations in alternative fuel vehicles optimized for its use.

Ethers: A family of organic compounds composed of carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen. Ether molecules consist of two alkyl groups linked to one oxygen atom. Light ethers such as ETBE, MTBE, TAME, and DIPE have desirable properties as gasoline blendstocks and are used as oxygenates in gasoline.

Ethyl Tertiary Butyl Ether (ETBE): An aliphatic ether similar to MTBE. This fuel oxygenate is manufactured by reacting isobutylene with ethanol. Having high octane and low volatility characteristics, ETBE can be added to gasoline up to a level of approximately 17 percent by volume.

EIO: EthanoVgasoline mixture containing I O percent denatured ethanol and 90 percent gasoline, by volume.

Evaporative Emissions: Hydrocarbon vapors that escape from a fuel storage tank, a vehicle fuel tank, or vehicle fuel system.

Exhaust Emissions: Materials that enter the atmosphere through the exhaust, or tailpipe, of a vehicle. Exhaust emissions include carbon dioxide (and water vapor), carbon monoxide, unburned fuel, products of incomplete combustion, fuel contaminants, and the combustion products of lubricating oiIs.

124 Feedstock: Any material converted to another form of fuel or energy product.

Fungible: A term used within the oil refining industry to denote products that are suitable for transmission by pipeline.

Ground Water: The water contained in the pore spaces of saturated geologic media. Ground water can be confined by overlying less permeable strata (confined aquifer) or open to the atmosphere (water table or unconfined aquifers).

In situ: In its original place; unmoved; unexcavated; remaining in the subsurface.

Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether (MTBE): An ether manufactured by reacting methanol and isobutylene, The resulting ether has high octane and low volatility. MTBE is a fuel oxygenate and is permitted in unleaded gasoline up to a level of 15 percent by volume.

National Ambient Air Quality Standards: Ambient standards for criteria air pollutants specifically regulated under the CAA. These pollutants include ozone, particulate matter, carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, sulfur dioxide, and lead.

Neat Fuel: Fuel that is free from admixture or dilution with other fuels.

Neat Alcohol Fuel: Straight or 100 percent alcohol (not blended with gasoline), usually in the form of either ethanol or methanol.

Nonattainment Area: A region, determined by population density in accordance with the U. S. Census Bureau, which exceeds minimum acceptable NAAQS for one or more "criteria pollutants." Such areas are required to seek modifications to their State Implementation Plans (SIPS), setting forth a reasonable timetable using EPA approved means to achieve attainment of NAAQS for these criteria pollutants by a certain date. Under the CAA, if a nonattainment area fails to attain NAAQS, EPA may superimpose a FIP with stricter requirements or impose fines, construction bans, cutoffs in Federal grant revenues, etc., until the area achieves the applicable NAAQS.

Octane Enhancer: Any substance such as MTBE, ETBE, toluene, xylene and alkylates that is added to gasoline to increase octane and reduce engine knock.

Oxyfuei Program: Nonattainment areas for carbon monoxide are required to use oxygenated fuel during the winter season.  Oxygenate: A term used in the petroleum industry to denote fueI additives containing hydrogen, carbon, and oxygen in their molecular structure. Includes ethers such as MTBE and ETBE and alcohols such as ethanol and methanol.

Oxygenated Gasoline: Gasoline containing an oxygenate such as MTBE or ethanol. The increased oxygen content may promote more complete combustion, thereby reducing tailpipe emissions of co.

125 Paraffins: Also referred to as Alkanes, a group of chain saturated aliphatic hydrocarbons, including methane, ethane, propane, butane, and alkanes (not including cycloalkanes).

Particulate Matter (I` M): A generic term for a broad class of chemically and physically diverse substances that exist as discrete particles (liquid droplets or solids) over a wide range of sizes; a NAAQS pohtant. Recalcitrant: Unreactive, nondegradable; refractory. SlowIy degraded compounds.

Reformulated Gasoline (RFG): Gasolines that have had their compositions and/ or characteristics altered to reduce vehicular emissions of pollutants, particularly pursuant to EPA regulations under the CAA.

Reid Vapor Pressure (RVP): A standard measurement of a liquid's vapor pressure in psi at 100 degrees Fahrenheit. It is an indication of the propensity of the liquid to evaporate.

State IrnpIementation Plan (SIP): Plan that a state must submit to EPA under the CAA to demonstrate compliance to NAAQS.

Tertiary Amyl Methyl Ether (TAME): An ether based on reaction of C, olefins and methanol.

Toluene: Basic aromatic compound derived from petroleum and used to increase octane. A hydrocarbon commonly purchased for use in increasing octane.

Toxic Emission: Any pollutant emitted from a source that can negatively affect human health or the environment.

Toxics: Pollutants defined by the CAAA, including benzene, formaldehyde, acetaldehyde, 1'3 butadiene, and polycyclic organic material. Benzene is emitted both in exhaust and evaporative emissions; the other compounds are exhaust emissions.

Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs): Reactive gases released during combustion or evaporation of fuel and regulated by EPA. VOCs react with NOx in the presence of sunlight and form ozone.

Volatilization: The process of transfer of a chemical from the aqueous or liquid phase to the gas phase. Solubility, molecular weight, vapor pressure, mixing of the liquid, and the nature of the gas liquid interface affect the rate of volatilization.

Vapor Pressure or Volatility: The tendency of a liquid to pass into the vapor state at a given temperature. With automotive hels, volatility is determined by measuring RVP.

Wellhead: The area immediately surrounding the top of a well, or the top of the well casing.

Wellhead Protection Area: The recharge area surrounding a drinking water well or wellfield, which is protected to prevent contamination of a well.

126


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 98 (Wednesday, May 20, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 30740-30741]
[FR Doc No: 2020-10828]

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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Occupational Safety and Health Administration

[Docket No. OSHA-2010-0040]

Concrete and Masonry Construction Standard; Extension of the
Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) Approval of Information
Collection (Paperwork) Requirements

AGENCY: Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Labor.

ACTION: Request for public comments.

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

SUMMARY: OSHA solicits public comments concerning the proposal to
extend the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) approval of the
information collection requirements specified in the Concrete and
Masonry Construction Standard.

DATES: Comments must be submitted (postmarked, sent, or received) by
July 20, 2020.

ADDRESSES:
    Electronically: You may submit comments and attachments
electronically at http://www.regulations.gov, which is the Federal e-
Rulemaking Portal. Follow the instructions online for submitting
comments.
    Facsimile: If your comments, including attachments, are not longer
than 10 pages you may fax them to the OSHA Docket Office at (202) 693-
1648.
    Mail, hand delivery, express mail, messenger, or courier service:
When using this method, you must submit your comments and attachments
to the OSHA Docket Office, Docket No. OSHA-2010-0040, Occupational
Safety and Health Administration, U.S. Department of Labor, Room N-
3653, 200 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20210. Deliveries
(hand, express mail, messenger, and courier service) are accepted
during the Docket Office's normal business hours, 10:00 a.m. to 3:00
p.m., ET.
    Instructions: All submissions must include the agency name and the
OSHA docket number (OSHA-2010-0040) for the Information Collection
Request (ICR). All comments, including any personal information you
provide, such as social security number and date of birth, are placed
in the public docket without change, and may be made available online
at http://www.regulations.gov. For further information on submitting
comments see the ``Public Participation'' heading in the section of
this notice titled SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION.
    Docket: To read or download comments or other material in the
docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov or the OSHA Docket Office at
the above address. All documents in the docket (including this Federal
Register notice) are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index;
however, some information (e.g., copyrighted material) is not publicly
available to read or download from the website. All submissions,
including copyrighted material, are available for inspection and
copying at the OSHA Docket Office. You also may contact Theda Kenney at
the below phone number to obtain a copy of the ICR.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Theda Kenney or Seleda Perryman,
Directorate of Standards and Guidance, OSHA, U.S. Department of Labor;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    The Department of Labor, as part of the continuing effort to reduce
paperwork and respondent (i.e., employer) burden, conducts a
preclearance consultation program to provide the public with an
opportunity to comment on proposed and continuing information
collection requirements in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act
(PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). This program ensures that information
is in the desired format, reporting burden (time and costs) is minimal,
collection instruments are clearly understood, and OSHA's estimate of
the information collection burden is accurate. The Occupational Safety
and Health Act of 1970 (the OSH Act) (29 U.S.C. 651 et seq.) authorizes
information collection by employers as necessary or appropriate for
enforcement of the OSH Act or for developing information regarding the
causes and prevention of occupational injuries, illnesses, and
accidents (29 U.S.C. 657). The OSH Act also requires that OSHA obtain
such information with minimum burden upon employers, especially those
operating small businesses, and to reduce to the maximum extent
feasible unnecessary duplication of efforts in obtaining information
(29 U.S.C. 657).
    The warning signs/barriers required by paragraph 1926.701(c)(2)
reduce exposure of non-essential workers to the hazards of post-
tensioning operations, principally a failed rope or wire striking a
worker and causing serious injury. The requirements for lockout and tag
ejection systems and other hazardous equipment (e.g., compressors,
mixers, screens or pumps used for concrete and masonry construction)
specified by paragraphs 1926.702(a)(2), (j)(1), and (j)(2) warn
equipment operators not to activate their equipment if another worker
enters the equipment to perform a task (e.g., cleaning, inspecting,
maintaining, repairing), thereby preventing injury or death.
    Construction contractors and workers use the drawings, plans, and
designs required by paragraph 1926.703(a)(2) to provide specific
instructions on how to construct, erect, brace, maintain, and remove
shores and formwork if they pour concrete at the job site. Paragraph
1926.705(b) requires employers to mark the rated capacity of jacks and
lifting units. This requirement prevents overloading and subsequent
collapse of jacks and lifting units, as well as their loads, thereby
sparing exposed workers from serious injury or death.

II. Special Issues for Comment

    OSHA has a particular interest in comments on the following issues:
     Whether the proposed information collection requirements
are necessary for the proper performance of the agency's functions,
including whether the information is useful;
     The accuracy of OSHA's estimate of the burden (time and
costs) of the information collection requirements, including the
validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
     The quality, utility, and clarity of the information
collected; and
     Ways to minimize the burden on employers who must comply;
for example, by using automated or other technological information
collection and transmission techniques.

III. Proposed Actions

    OSHA is requesting that OMB extend the approval of the collection
of information (paperwork) requirements contained in the Concrete and
Masonry Construction Standard. The agency is requesting a 10,197 hour
adjustment increase (from 12,771 hours to 22,968 burden hours).
    Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.
    Title: Concrete and Masonry Construction Standard (29 CFR part
1926, subpart Q).
    OMB Number: 1218-0095.

    Affected Public: Businesses or other for-profits.
    Number of Respondents: 1,378,095.
    Frequency of Response: On Occasion.
    Total Responses: 275,619.
    Average Time per Response: Various.
    Estimated Total Burden Hours: 22,968.
    Estimated Cost (Operation and Maintenance): $0.

IV. Public Participation--Submission of Comments on This Notice and
Internet Access to Comments and Submissions

    You may submit comments in response to this document as follows:
(1) Electronically at http://www.regulations.gov, which is the Federal
e-Rulemaking Portal; (2) by facsimile; or (3) by hard copy. All
comments, attachments, and other material must identify the agency name
and the OSHA docket number for this ICR (Docket No. OSHA-2010-0040).
You may supplement electronic submissions by uploading document files
electronically. If you wish to mail additional materials in reference
to an electronic or facsimile submission, you must submit them to the
OSHA Docket Office (see the section of this notice titled ADDRESSES).
The additional materials must clearly identify your electronic comments
by your name, date, and the docket number so the agency can attach them
to your comments.
    Because of security procedures, the use of regular mail may cause a
significant delay in the receipt of comments. For information about
security procedures concerning the delivery of materials by hand,
express delivery, messenger, or courier service, please contact the
OSHA Docket Office at<PHONE_NUMBER>, (TTY<PHONE_NUMBER>).
    Comments and submissions are posted without change at http://www.regulations.gov. Therefore, OSHA cautions commenters about
submitting personal information such as your social security number and
date of birth. Although all submissions are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index, some information (e.g., copyrighted
material) is not publicly available to read or download from this
website. All submissions, including copyrighted material, are available
for inspection and copying at the OSHA Docket Office. Information on
using the http://www.regulations.gov website to submit comments and
access the docket is available at the website's ``User Tips'' link.
Contact the OSHA Docket Office for information about materials not
available from the website, and for assistance in using the internet to
locate docket submissions.

V. Authority and Signature

    Loren Sweatt, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of Labor for
Occupational Safety and Health, directed the preparation of this
notice. The authority for this notice is the Paperwork Reduction Act of
1995 (44 U.S.C. 3506 et seq.) and Secretary of Labor's Order No. 1-2012
(77 FR 3912).

    Signed at Washington, DC.
Loren Sweatt,
Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety
and Health.
[FR Doc. 2020-10828 Filed 5-19-20; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4510-26-P


Overview of Human Health Risk Assessment Process Bill Burnam Health Effects Division Office of Pesticide Programs 2 Mission of Health Effects Division  Assess the risks of pesticide use to humans and domestic animals

We have both the Subdivision F Guidelines and the 40CFR Toxicology Data Requirements to get the data we need for risk assessment 3 Data Needs  HED needs both exposure data and toxicity data to assess the risks

The basis for the toxicity data requirements and the dietary exposure data are from the old FDA days

Non dietary exposure data come later

FQPA has brought about the need for other data 4 Exposure Data  Exposure data is for both dietary ( including water) and non dietary sources ( including applicators, mixer loaders, residential and reentry into treated fields)

Jeff Evans will discuss non dietary sources

Rick Loranger will discuss dietary exposure 5 Toxicity Data  Toxicity data requirements are meant to provide data and endpoints that can be used to:

Assess the hazards of pesticides over various routes ( oral, dermal and inhalation) durations of time ( short, intermediate and long term)

Assess hazards during critical periods of life stages 6 Durations of Exposure

These durations of times for any route of exposure are as follows:

Acute o Single day o May use toxicity endpoints of concern from acute neurotoxicity,

developmental toxicity, developmental neurotoxicity studies

Short term o 1 30 days o May use toxicity endpoints of concerns from the studies mentioned above plus subchronic studies in mice, rats and/ or dogs

Intermediate o 1 180 days o All the above plus subchronic and multi generation reproduction studies

Chronic or long term o Greater than 180 days o May use toxicity endpoints of concern from chronic toxicity/ cancer ( rat),

cancer ( mouse), chronic ( dog), multi generation reproduction ( rat) studies 7 Critical Testing Period  Examples of the critical period testing would be as follows:

Developmental toxicity o During critical periods of gestation examines growth and development of fetuses

Reproduction o Through reproductive cycle of 2 generations examines reproductive changes in parents and toxicity to offspring

Developmental neurotoxicity o Prenatal and postnatal, examines functional and morphological hazard in the offspring 8 Proposed Changes to Part 158  The proposed 2005 draft of Part 158 is similar in format & design to the 1984 version

Food/ Non food

Required/ Conditionally required

Many footnotes  Options for toxicity data requirements for non food uses

The key is exposure o Magnitude, duration and frequency 9 Character of Changes  There are no sweeping changes but some evolution of data requirements  But what has changed?

Better explanation of why we need the data

Explanation of why the data requirements have changed o Re registration process ( 1988 FIFRA Amendments)

o The 1983 National Academy Science report o The proposed changes in 1994 o The 1996 FQPA Mandate with emphasis on children's health risk 10 Toxicology Data Requirements:

Acute Testing 870.2500 870.2400 870.1300 870.1200 870.1100 Guideline Primary dermal irritation Primary eye irritation  rabbit Acute inhalation toxicity  rat Acute dermal toxicity Acute oral toxicity  rat Current requirement Primary dermal irritation Primary eye irritation

rabbit Acute inhalation toxicity

rat Acute dermal toxicity Acute oral toxicity  rat Proposed requirement Added testing using the TGAI to support end use products 81 5 Added testing using the TGAI to support end use products 81 4 No changes 81 3 Modified test substance 81 2 Modified test substance 81 1 Change Guide  line 11 Toxicology Data Requirements:

Acute Testing 870.6200 870.6100 870.2600 Guide line None Acute delayed neurotoxicity  hen Dermal sensitization Current requirement Acute neurotoxicity  rat Delayed neurotoxicity ( acute)  hen Dermal sensitization Proposed requirement New requirement  No changes 81 7 Added testing using the TGAI to support end use products 81 6 Change Guideline 12 Toxicology Data Requirements:

Subchronic Testing No changes 90 day Inhalation

rat 870.3465 90 day Inhalation  rat 82 4 Changed from CR to R for all nonfood uses.

90 day Dermal 870.3250 90 day Dermal 82 3 870.3200 870.3150 870.3100 Guide line 21 day Dermal 90 day Feeding   non rodent 90 day Feeding

rodent Current requirement 21 day Dermal 90 day Feeding   non rodent 90 day Feeding

rodent Proposed requirement Changed from CR to R for all food uses. Not required for nonfood uses.

82 2 No changes 82 1 Requirement modified to include 2 rodent species 82 1 Change Guideline 13 Toxicology Data Requirements:

Subchronic Testing 870.6100 870.6200 Guideline 90 day Neurotoxicity  hen 90 day Neurotoxicity  mammal Current requirement 28 day Neurotoxicity  hen 90 day Neurotoxicity  rat Proposed requirement New  conditional requirement.

Replaces 90 day neurotoxicity hen study 82 5 Changed from CR to R 82 5 Change Guideline 14 Toxicology Data Requirements:

Chronic Testing 870.6100 870.4100 Guideline Oncogenicity   rat and mouse,

preferred Chronic feeding   rodent and nonrodent Current requirement Carcinogenicity   rat and mouse,

preferred Chronic feeding   rodent and nonrodent Proposed requirement Changed name.

Proposed requirement to perform range finding studies 83 2 No changes 83 1 Change Guideline 15 Toxicology Data Requirements:

Developmental Toxicity & Reproduction New   conditional requirement science based approach to testing.

Developmental neurotoxicity 870.6300 None 870.3800 870.3700 Guideline Reproduction   2 generation Teratogenicity   2 species Current requirement Reproduction Prenatal developmental toxicity   rat and rabbit, preferred Proposed requirement Changed from CR to R for nonfood uses based on potential exposure.

83 4 Changed name.

Testing required on a second species for food and nonfood uses 83 3 Change Guideline 16 Toxicology Data Requirements:

Mutagenicity Testing No changes Other mutagenicity studies Replaces current mutagenicity battery In vivo cytogenetics 870.5385 870.5395 Other genotoxic effects 84 4 870.5300 870.5375 870.5100 Guideline Structural chromosome aberration Gene mutation Current requirement In vitro mammalian cell assay Bacterial reverse mutation assay Proposed requirement Replaces current mutagenicity battery 84 2 Replaces current mutagenicity battery 84 2 Change Guideline 17 Toxicology Data Requirements:

Special Testing Replaces current neurotoxicity battery Peripheral nerve function 870.6850 None Replaces current neurotoxicity battery.

Scheduled controlled operant behavior 870.6500 None No changes Companion animal safety 870.7200 Domestic animal safety 85 1 870.7600 870.7485 Guideline Dermal penetration General metabolism Current requirement Dermal penetration General metabolism Proposed requirement No changes 85 2 No changes 85 1 Change Guideline 18 Toxicology Data Requirements:

Special Testing 870.7800 870.6855 Guideline None None Current requirement Immunotoxicity Neurophysiology:

Sensory evoked potentials Proposed requirement New requirement.

Required for food uses and nonfood uses.

Replaces current neurotoxicity battery Change Guideline


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 232 (Tuesday, December 5, 2023)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 84241-84242]
[FR Doc No: 2023-26489]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R05-OAR-2022-0442; FRL-10601-02-R5]

Air Plan Approval; Ohio; Volatile Organic Compounds

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving into
the Ohio State Implementation Plan (SIP) a source-specific volatile
organic compound (VOC) limit, excluding water and exempt solvents, for
the applicable process lines at Forest City Technologies, Plant 4, in
Wellington, Ohio as contained in the June 23, 2020, operating permit
issued by the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency. On August 14, 2023,
EPA proposed to approve this action and received no adverse comments.

DATES: This final rule is effective on January 4, 2024.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID
No. EPA-R05-OAR-2022-0442. All documents in the docket are listed on
the www.regulations.gov website. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, i.e., Confidential Business
Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted
by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is
not placed on the internet and will be publicly available only in hard
copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available either
through www.regulations.gov or at the Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 5, Air and Radiation Division, 77 West Jackson Boulevard,
Chicago, Illinois 60604. This facility is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30
p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding Federal holidays and facility
closures due to COVID-19. We recommend that you telephone Anthony
Maietta, at<PHONE_NUMBER> before visiting the Region 5 office.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Anthony Maietta, Control Strategies
Section, Air Programs Branch (AR18J), Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312)
353-8777, [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA.

I. Background Information

    On August 14, 2023 (88 FR 54996), EPA proposed to approve the
addition of paragraphs C.1.b)(1)e., C.1.d)(3), C.1.e)(1)c.,
C.1.f)(1)d., C.2.b)(1)e., C.2.d)(4), C.2.e)(3)b., and C.2.f)(1)d. as
listed in the June 23, 2020, operating permit for Forest City
Technologies into Ohio's SIP. An explanation of the Clean Air Act (CAA)
requirements, a detailed analysis of the revisions, and EPA's reasons
for proposing approval were provided in the notice of proposed
rulemaking and will not be restated here. The public comment period for
this proposed rule ended on September 13, 2023. EPA received two
supportive comments from citizens. EPA also received one comment on the
proposal that discussed border protection and vehicular incidents on
roadways. All the comments received are included in the docket for this
action.
    We do not consider the border protection and vehicular incident
comment to be germane or relevant to this action and therefore not
adverse to this action. The comment lacks the required specificity to
the proposed SIP revision and the relevant requirements of CAA section
110. Moreover, the comment does not address a specific regulation or
provision in question or recommend a different action on the SIP
submission from what EPA proposed. Therefore, we are finalizing our
action as proposed.

II. Final Action

    EPA is approving into Ohio's SIP the addition of paragraphs
C.1.b)(1)e., C.1.d)(3), C.1.e)(1)c., C.1.f)(1)d., C.2.b)(1)e.,
C.2.d)(4), C.2.e)(3)b., and C.2.f)(1)d. as listed in the Permit-to-
Install and Operate, Number P0127984, issued to Forest City
Technologies, Plant 4 on June 23, 2020.

III. Incorporation by Reference

    In this rule, EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes
incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR
51.5, EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of the permit
for Forest City Technologies, Plant 4, which regulates operations at
the plant, as described in section II of this preamble and set forth in
the amendments to 40 CFR part 52 below. EPA has made, and will continue
to make, these documents generally available through
www.regulations.gov, and at the EPA Region 5 Office (please contact the
person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of
this preamble for more information). Therefore, these materials have
been approved by EPA for inclusion in the SIP, have been incorporated
by reference by EPA into that plan, are fully federally enforceable
under sections 110 and 113 of the CAA as of the effective date of the
final rulemaking of EPA's approval, and will be incorporated by
reference in the next update to the SIP compilation.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 62 FR 27968 (May 22, 1997).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this
action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and
does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state
law. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review
by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58
FR 51735, October 4, 1993), and 14094 (88 FR 21879, April 11, 2023);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885,
April 23, 1997) because it approves a state program;
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001); and
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because

application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the CAA.
    In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian
reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has
demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian
country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose
substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
    Executive Order 12898 (Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations, 59 FR 7629,
February 16, 1994) directs Federal agencies to identify and address
``disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental
effects'' of their actions on minority populations and low-income
populations to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law.
EPA defines environmental justice (EJ) as ``the fair treatment and
meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, color,
national origin, or income with respect to the development,
implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and
policies.'' EPA further defines the term ``fair treatment'' to mean
that ``no group of people should bear a disproportionate burden of
environmental harms and risks, including those resulting from the
negative environmental consequences of industrial, governmental, and
commercial operations or programs and policies.''
    The Ohio Environmental Protection Agency did not evaluate
environmental justice considerations as part of its SIP submittal; the
CAA and applicable implementing regulations neither prohibit nor
require such an evaluation. EPA did not perform an EJ analysis and did
not consider EJ in this action. Consideration of EJ is not required as
part of this action, and there is no information in the record
inconsistent with the stated goal of E.O. 12898 of achieving
environmental justice for people of color, low-income populations, and
Indigenous peoples.
    This action is subject to the Congressional Review Act, and EPA
will submit a rule report to each House of the Congress and to the
Comptroller General of the United States. This action is not a ``major
rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by February 5, 2024. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect
the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor
does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may
be filed and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or
action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to
enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: November 21, 2023.
Debra Shore,
Regional Administrator, Region 5.

    For the reasons stated in the preamble, title 40 CFR part 52 is
amended as follows:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

0
2. In Sec.  52.1870, the table in paragraph (d) is amended by adding an
entry for ``Forest City Technologies, Plant 4'' before the entry for
``Globe Metallurgical Inc.'' to read as follows:

Sec.  52.1870  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (d) * * *

                                  EPA-Approved Ohio Source-Specific Provisions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                    Ohio effective
          Name of source                Number           date         EPA approval date           Comments
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
Forest City Technologies, Plant 4.        P0127984       6/23/2020  12/5/2023, [INSERT     Only paragraphs
                                                                     FEDERAL REGISTER       C.1.b)(1)e.,
                                                                     CITATION].             C.1.d)(3),
                                                                                C.1.e)(1)c.,
                                                                                C.1.f)(1)d.,
                                                                                C.2.b)(1)e.,
                                                                                C.2.d)(4),
                                                                                C.2.e)(3)b., and
                                                                                C.2.f)(1)d.

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2023-26489 Filed 12-4-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P