[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 58 (Friday, March 24, 2000)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 16094-16109]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-7323]



[[Page 16093]]

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

Part VII





Environmental Protection Agency





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



40 CFR Part 755



Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether (MTBE); Advance Notice of Intent To 
Initiate Rulemaking Under the Toxic Substances Control Act To Eliminate 
or Limit the Use of MTBE as a Fuel Additive in Gasoline; Advance Notice 
of Proposed Rulemaking

  Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 58 / Friday, March 24, 2000 / 
Proposed Rules  

[[Page 16094]]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 755

[OPPT-62164; FRL-6496-1]


Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether (MTBE); Advance Notice of Intent to 
Initiate Rulemaking Under the Toxic Substances Control Act to Eliminate 
or Limit the Use of MTBE as a Fuel Additive in Gasoline

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether (MTBE) is a chemical compound that 
is used as a fuel additive in gasoline. Refiners have primarily added 
MTBE to gasoline to meet the Clean Air Act (CAA) requirement that areas 
with severe problems in attaining the National Ambient Air Quality 
Standard (NAAQS) for ozone use Reformulated Gasoline (RFG) containing 
2% oxygen by weight. Many States have also voluntarily chosen to use 
RFG as a means of addressing marginal, moderate, or serious ozone 
nonattainment, and some refiners use MTBE to boost the octane of 
gasoline. In addition to the RFG program, the CAA also required the 
establishment of a Wintertime Oxygenated Fuel (Wintertime Oxyfuel) 
program. Under this program, gasoline must contain 2.7% oxygen by 
weight during the wintertime in areas that are not in attainment for 
the NAAQS for carbon monoxide (CO). In some cases this requirement is 
met through the use of MTBE. While the use of MTBE as a fuel additive 
in gasoline has helped to reduce harmful air emissions, it has also 
caused widespread and serious contamination of the nation's drinking 
water supplies. Unlike other components of gasoline, MTBE dissolves and 
spreads readily in the groundwater underlying a spill site, resists 
biodegradation, and is difficult and costly to remove from groundwater. 
Low levels of MTBE can render drinking water supplies unpotable due to 
its offensive taste and odor. At higher levels, it may also pose a risk 
to human health. The United States Geological Survey (USGS) has found 
that the occurrence of MTBE in groundwater is strongly related to its 
use as a fuel additive in the area, finding detections of MTBE in 21% 
of ambient groundwater tested in areas where MTBE is used in RFG 
compared with 2% of ambient groundwater in areas using conventional 
gasoline. EPA is today providing an advance notice of its intent to 
initiate a rulemaking pursuant to section 6 of the Toxic Substances 
Control Act (TSCA) to eliminate or limit the use of MTBE as a fuel 
additive. EPA seeks public comment on a number of aspects of this 
anticipated regulatory action, including whether the Agency should take 
action to address any fuel additives other than MTBE.

DATES: Comments, identified by docket control number OPPTS-62164, must 
be received on or before May 8, 2000.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be submitted by mail, electronically, or in 
person. Please follow the detailed instructions for each method as 
provided in Unit I. of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION. To ensure proper 
receipt by EPA, it is imperative that you identify docket control 
number OPPTS-62164 on the first page of your response.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For general information contact: 
Barbara Cunningham, Director, Office of Program Management and 
Evaluation, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics (7401), 
Environmental Protection Agency, Ariel Rios Bldg., 1200 Pennsylvania 
Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: (202) 554-1404; e-
mail address: [email protected].
    For technical information contact: Karen Smith, Office of 
Transportation and Air Quality, Fuels and Energy Division (6406J), 
Environmental Protection Agency, Ariel Rios Bldg., 1200 Pennsylvania 
Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: (202) 564-9674; e-
mail address: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this Action Apply to Me?

    Entities potentially regulated by a limit or ban on the use of MTBE 
as a fuel additive in gasoline are those entities that refine, import, 
or blend gasoline with additives, or that transport, store, or sell 
gasoline, or otherwise introduce gasoline into commerce. Potentially 
regulated categories include:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           Examples of
          Categories              NAICS      SIC  codes     regulated
                                  codes                      entities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry                            324110         2911   Petroleum
                                                          refiners,
                                                          blenders, and
                                                          importers
Industry                            422710         5171   Gasoline
                                    422720         5172   marketers and
                                                          distributors
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This listing is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides 
a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be regulated by an 
action resulting from this ANPRM. Other types of entities not listed in 
this table could also be directly affected, particularly if future 
action includes limits directed at gasoline release prevention or water 
remediation, rather than the MTBE content of gasoline. The North 
American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) and Standard 
Industrial Classification (SIC) codes have been provided to assist you 
and others in determining whether or not this action applies to certain 
entities. To determine whether you or your business is affected by this 
action, you should carefully examine this ANPRM. If you have any 
questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular 
entity, consult the technical person listed under FOR FURTHER 
INFORMATION CONTACT.

B. How Can I Get Additional Information, Including Copies of this 
Document or Other Related Documents?

    1. Electronically. You may obtain electronic copies of this 
document, and certain other related documents that might be available 
electronically, from the EPA Internet Home Page at http://www.epa.gov/. 
To access this document, on the Home Page select ``Laws and 
Regulations'' and then look up the entry for this document under the 
``Federal Register--Environmental Documents.'' You can also go directly 
to the Federal Register listings at http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/.
    2. In person. The Agency has established an official record for 
this action under docket control number OPPTS-62164. The official 
record consists of the documents specifically referenced in this ANPRM, 
any public comments received during an applicable comment period, and 
other information related to this action, including any information 
claimed as Confidential

[[Page 16095]]

Business Information (CBI). This official record includes the documents 
that are physically located in the docket, as well as the documents 
that are referenced in those documents and in this ANPRM. The public 
version of the official record does not include any information claimed 
as CBI. The public version of the official record, which includes 
printed, paper versions of any electronic comments submitted during an 
applicable comment period, is available for inspection in the TSCA 
Nonconfidential Information Center, North East Mall, Rm. B-607, 
Waterside Mall, 401 M St., SW., Washington, DC. The Center is open from 
noon to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The 
telephone number for the Center is (202) 260-7099. For additional 
information related to this ANPRM, see the Office of Air and Radiation 
(OAR) Docket, A-99-01, The Blue Ribbon Panel to Review the Use of 
Oxygenates in Gasoline. The index for OAR docket A-99-01 can be found 
at http://www.epa.gov/oms/consumer/fuels/oxypanel/blueribb.htm.
    3. Fax-on-Demand. Using a faxphone call (202) 401-0527 and select 
item 4005 for an index of items in this category.

C. How and to Whom Do I Submit Comments?

    You may submit comments through the mail, in person, or 
electronically. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, it is imperative that 
you identify docket control number OPPTS-62164 on the first page of 
your response. Commenters should be aware that their comments may be 
placed on an Internet docket web site. This information may include the 
commenters name and address.
    1. By mail. Submit your comments to: Document Control Office 
(7407), Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics (OPPT), Environmental 
Protection Agency, Ariel Rios Bldg., 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., 
Washington, DC 20460.
    2. In person or by courier. Deliver your comments to: OPPT Document 
Control Office (DCO) in East Tower Rm. G-099, Waterside Mall, 401 M 
St., SW., Washington, DC. The DCO is open from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday 
through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the 
DCO is (202) 260-7093. If your comments are received after 3 p.m., they 
will be dated as received the next business day.
    3. Electronically. You may submit your comments electronically by 
e-mail to: ``[email protected],'' or mail your computer disk to the 
address identified above. Do not submit any information electronically 
that you consider to be CBI. Electronic comments must be submitted as 
an ASCII file avoiding the use of special characters and any form of 
encryption. Comments and data will also be accepted on standard disks 
in WordPerfect 6.1/8.0 or ASCII file format. All comments in electronic 
form must be identified by docket control number OPPTS-62164. 
Electronic comments may also be filed online at many Federal Depository 
Libraries.

D. How Should I Handle CBI Information That I Want to Submit to the 
Agency?

    Do not submit any information electronically that you consider to 
be CBI. You may claim information that you submit to EPA in response to 
this document as CBI by marking any part or all of that information as 
CBI. Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance 
with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. In addition to one complete 
version of the comment that includes any information claimed as CBI, a 
copy of the comment that does not contain the information claimed as 
CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public version of the 
official record. Information not marked confidential will be included 
in the public version of the official record without prior notice. If 
you have any questions about CBI or the procedures for claiming CBI, 
please consult the technical person identified under FOR FURTHER 
INFORMATION CONTACT.

E. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA?

    EPA invites you to provide your views on any issue relevant to this 
ANPRM. EPA has identified particular subjects in Unit VI. regarding 
which comment would be particularly appreciated. You may find the 
following suggestions helpful for preparing your comments:
    1. Explain your views as clearly as possible.
    2. Describe any assumptions that you used.
    3. Provide copies of any technical information and/or data you used 
that support your views.
    4. If you estimate potential burden or costs, explain how you 
arrived at the estimate that you provide.
    5. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns.
    6. Offer alternative ways to address the concerns identified by 
EPA.
    7. Make sure to submit your comments by the deadline in this ANPRM.
    8. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, be sure to identify the docket 
control number assigned to this action on the first page of your 
response. You may also provide the name, date, and Federal Register 
citation.

II. Introduction

    This ANPRM initiates an Agency rulemaking to address the threat to 
the nation's drinking water resources from contamination by MTBE, a 
widely used additive in gasoline. This rulemaking will be conducted 
under TSCA section 6, 15 U.S.C. 2605. It is EPA's intent to conduct 
this rulemaking as quickly as reasonably practicable. EPA's review of 
existing information on contamination of drinking water resources by 
MTBE indicates substantial evidence of a significant risk to the 
nation's drinking water supply. A comprehensive approach to such risk 
must include consideration of either reducing or eliminating the use of 
MTBE as a gasoline additive. As a result, EPA is initiating this 
process pursuant to the unreasonable risk provision under TSCA section 
6 to eliminate or greatly reduce the use of MTBE as a gasoline 
additive. EPA is interested in comments on both the risk and these 
possible responses to it.
    MTBE is a common and widely used additive in gasoline. It is an 
oxygenate, meaning it increases the oxygen content of the gasoline. It 
is also a source of octane in gasoline. It is widely used in those 
parts of the country where oxygenated gasoline is required, either by 
Federal or State law. For example, the 1990 amendments to the CAA 
require that Federal RFG meet a 2.0% oxygen content requirement by 
weight. MTBE is the primary oxygenate used by refiners to meet this 
requirement, which applies to over 30% of the country's gasoline. When 
MTBE is used to meet this requirement, the gasoline is blended so it 
contains about 11% MTBE by volume. In other parts of the country, MTBE 
is sometimes used in conventional or non-RFG as a source of octane. 
Significantly more MTBE is used in RFG and other oxygenated gasoline 
programs than is used in conventional gasoline.
    Current data on MTBE levels in ground and surface waters indicate 
widespread and numerous detections at low levels of MTBE, with a more 
limited number of detections at higher levels. Given MTBE's widespread 
use as a gasoline additive and the large volumes of gasoline that are 
stored, transported, and used in all areas of the country, releases of 
MTBE to the nation's ground and surface waters occur in a number of 
ways. Leakage from the gasoline storage and distribution system is a 
major source of contamination, but the

[[Page 16096]]

contamination can also come from spills, emissions from marine engines 
into lakes and reservoirs, and to some extent from air deposition. MTBE 
is highly soluble in water, resists biodegradation, and moves rapidly 
with groundwater. It may end up in drinking water supplies even when 
there are no indications of other gasoline components. MTBE is detected 
in water much more often and at higher concentrations in areas of the 
country where Federal RFG is sold, given its dominant use by refiners 
as an oxygenate to meet the statutory RFG oxygen content requirement. 
The USGS has found detections of MTBE in 21% of ambient groundwater 
tested in areas where MTBE is used in RFG as compared with 2% of 
ambient groundwater in areas using conventional gasoline. (Ref. 1)
    The presence of MTBE in drinking water sources presents two major 
problems. The first concern is that MTBE contamination may render water 
supplies unuseable as drinking water. MTBE has an offensive taste and 
odor which can be detected in water even at low levels. Because of the 
taste and odor problem, MTBE contamination has resulted in the loss of 
certain drinking water sources. For example, high levels of MTBE found 
in groundwater wells that supply Santa Monica's drinking water led that 
city to close its wells, forcing it to purchase drinking water from 
another public water supplier. In addition, MTBE detections found in 
groundwater wells that supply South Lake Tahoe forced the South Tahoe 
Public Utility District to close 8 of its 34 wells despite detections 
below EPA's advisory levels. An additional four wells were closed as a 
precautionary measure due to their proximity to the existing MTBE 
plumes.
    The second major concern involves uncertainty regarding the level 
of risk to public health from the chronic exposure of large numbers of 
people to low levels of MTBE in drinking water. While inhalation of 
MTBE in high concentrations has been shown to cause cancer in 
laboratory animals, the Agency concluded in 1997 that there is little 
likelihood that MTBE in drinking water would cause adverse health 
effects at levels that cause taste and odor problems. (Ref. 2) There is 
still much uncertainty about the extent of the health risks associated 
with chronic, low-level exposures to MTBE in drinking water. The Agency 
is continuing to review and update its analysis of the potential health 
risks posed by MTBE.
    Once MTBE contaminates a drinking water source, its chemical nature 
makes it difficult, expensive, and time-consuming to remediate. For 
example, it is much harder and more expensive to remove MTBE from 
drinking water than it is to remove other organic components of 
gasoline. Furthermore, MTBE does not biodegrade as readily as other 
components of gasoline. Given the numerous and diverse sources of 
potential release into the environment and the problems associated with 
cleaning it up once it is released, EPA believes a comprehensive 
approach to such risk must include consideration of either reducing or 
eliminating the use of MTBE as a gasoline additive.
    As discussed earlier, in ground water MTBE is more soluble, does 
not adsorb as readily to soil particles, biodegrades less rapidly and 
moves more quickly than other components of gasoline. By comparison, 
unless frozen, MTBE in surface water will volatalize and find its way 
into the atmosphere. This accounts for the less frequent and generally 
lower concentrations of MTBE found in surface water.
    Since the available information shows that there are numerous and 
widespread instances of groundwater contamination, EPA is considering 
the substitutes that would likely be used to replace MTBE. In 
oxygenated gasoline programs such as Federal RFG, the most likely 
substitute based on current usage is ethanol. Other ether compounds are 
currently used as oxygenates in relatively small quantities. MTBE does 
not occupy as dominant a position as an octane enhancer for 
conventional gasoline as it does as an oxygenate in RFG. Ethanol, 
alkylates, and aromatics are all widely-used as octane enhancers in 
conventional gasoline. Although EPA is seeking more information on 
alternatives to MTBE, EPA does not expect the use of ethanol, 
alkylates, or aromatics as fuel additives to present the same magnitude 
of risk to drinking water supplies as MTBE. Ethanol biodegrades more 
quickly than MTBE, and therefore seems less likely to contaminate 
drinking water as often as MTBE, or at the concentrations of MTBE. 
First order degradation constants for MTBE in ambient ground water have 
been reported by Schirmer and others (1998) and Borden and others 
(1997). The rate constants, k, from these studies are 0.0012 day(-1) 
(Schirmer and others, 1998) and 0.0010 +- 0.0007 day(-1) (Borden and 
others, 1997). (Refs. 3,4) These reaction rates for MTBE correspond to 
a half-life of about 1.6 and 1.9 years, respectively. By comparison, in 
a December 1999 report to the California Environmental Policy Council 
the authors report that under aerobic conditions, the reported half-
lives of ethanol in surface waters are short. Half-lives span 6.5 to 26 
hours for ethanol. Anaerobic biodegradation in oxygen-limited 
environments is also expected to proceed at rapid rates. Reported half-
lives for ethanol biodegradation under anaerobic conditions range from 
1 to 4.3 days. (Ref. 5) Unlike MTBE, alkylates and aromatics are 
expected to behave in soil and water more like other components 
typically found in gasoline; as a result, they too would be unlikely to 
contaminate drinking water as often as MTBE or at the concentrations of 
MTBE. Ethers other than MTBE, and alcohols other than ethanol, are not 
currently used widely as oxygenates; the Agency does not have much data 
to characterize the risks they might pose to drinking water supplies. 
However, the other ethers are chemically similar or related to MTBE, 
and they may well move through soil and water in ways and amounts 
similar to MTBE. EPA will closely evaluate whether compounds not 
currently used in significant quantities as oxygenates in RFG might be 
widely used as alternatives to MTBE, if MTBE use in gasoline is banned 
or limited, whether additional information on these compounds is 
necessary, and whether other measures are appropriate to assure that an 
elimination or limitation of MTBE in gasoline does not result in the 
use of alternatives that might cause a similar or greater level of 
risk.
    The remainder of this ANPRM outlines the major elements of the 
problem and its potential solution. EPA invites comment from all 
interested parties on these and any other matters relevant to 
addressing the risk of MTBE to the nation's drinking water resources.

III. Background

A. What is MTBE and Why is it Used as a Fuel Additive?

    MTBE is an ether compound made by combining methanol and 
isobutylene. The methanol is typically derived from natural gas; 
isobutylene can be derived as a byproduct of the petroleum refinery 
process. Since the 1970's, MTBE has been used in the United States as 
an octane-enhancing replacement for lead, primarily in mid- and high-
grade gasoline at concentrations as high as 7% (by volume). Now, 
however, MTBE is mainly used as a fuel oxygenate at higher 
concentrations (11% to 15% by volume) as part of the Federal RFG and 
Wintertime Oxyfuel programs. These programs were initiated by EPA in 
1995 and 1992, respectively.
    The CAA mandates that RFG be sold in the 10 largest metropolitan 
areas with

[[Page 16097]]

the most severe summertime ozone levels, including Baltimore, Chicago, 
Hartford, Houston, Los Angeles, Milwaukee, New York, Philadelphia, 
Sacramento, and San Diego. The CAA also allows any other area 
classified as a marginal, moderate, or serious ozone nonattainment area 
to opt into the RFG program. Currently, 17 States and the District of 
Columbia voluntarily participate in the RFG program. These areas are 
located in California, Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia, 
Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Maryland, Massachusetts, Missouri, New 
Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Texas, 
Virginia, and Wisconsin. The total number of areas participating in the 
RFG program may change from year to year, depending on potential opt-
ins.
    EPA regulations adopted pursuant to the CAA require that RFG 
achieve reductions in mass emissions of volatile organic compounds 
(VOCs) and toxic air emissions of at least 15% during Phase I of the 
RFG program (1995 through 1999), and reductions in such emissions of 
27% and 22%, respectively, during Phase II of the RFG program (2000 and 
on). Phase II RFG also requires a 6.8% reduction in oxides of nitrogen 
(NOX). RFG must also meet certain mandatory content 
standards, including limitations on benzene and a restriction of heavy 
metal content. To address its unique air pollution challenges, 
California has adopted similar, but more stringent requirements for 
California RFG.
    The CAA specifies that RFG must contain 2% oxygen by weight. 
Although a number of oxygenates could be used to meet this requirement, 
in practice over 87% of RFG contains MTBE as the primary oxygenate; 
approximately 12% of RFG contains ethanol. Two percent oxygen by weight 
is equivalent to approximately 11% MTBE by volume. When ethanol is used 
as an oxygenate, it is usually blended at 10% by volume, which is 
equivalent to 3.5% oxygen by weight. A small percentage of refiners use 
tertiary amyl methyl ether (TAME) as the primary oxygenate in RFG; more 
frequently TAME is present in RFG as a secondary oxygenate together 
with MTBE. Other oxygenates are available to refiners, such as ethyl 
tertiary butyl ether (ETBE), tertiary butyl alcohol (TBA), and 
diisopropyl ether (DIPE), but are not being used in significant 
quantities (or at all) at this time.
    Reformulated gasoline represents over 30% of the total retail 
gasoline sold in the United States. According to the Department of 
Energy (DOE), over 126 billion gallons of gasoline were supplied for 
U.S. markets in 1998, with 41.5 billion gallons of that volume being 
reformulated gasoline. (Ref. 6) In addition to the RFG program, certain 
areas in California and elsewhere in the nation that have not attained 
the NAAQS for CO are required under the CAA to implement the Wintertime 
Oxyfuel program. The CAA requires Wintertime Oxyfuel to contain no less 
than 2.7% oxygen (by weight) during the winter, when CO levels are 
highest. There are 17 areas across the country that currently implement 
the Wintertime Oxyfuel program. Ethanol is the primary oxygenate used 
to meet this oxygen requirement. Currently, Los Angeles is the only 
area implementing the Wintertime Oxyfuel program with MTBE. When MTBE 
is used to meet the Wintertime Oxyfuel requirements, it is added to 
gasoline at a concentration of approximately 15% by volume.
    MTBE is also used in conventional gasoline to boost the octane of 
gasoline. Octane is a measure of a fuel's resistance to uncontrolled 
combustion (engine knock). The DOE estimates that approximately 12,000 
barrels of MTBE are used per day as an octane enhancer in conventional 
gasoline. (Ref. 7) This is less than 5% of the total MTBE use in 
gasoline. MTBE is typically present in gasoline as an octane enhancer 
at 3-7% by volume. Alternative octane enhancers are also used, 
including ethanol, alkylates, and aromatic compounds.
    A number of States have taken actions designed to limit the use of 
MTBE in gasoline. In March 1999, Governor Gray Davis of California 
issued an executive order requiring the California Air Resources Board 
to develop a timetable for the removal of MTBE from gasoline sold in 
California as soon as possible, but by no later than December 31, 2002. 
Maine opted out of the RFG program in March 1999. In July of 1999, New 
Hampshire enacted a law directed at reducing the use of MTBE in 
gasoline, including a requirement that the State request a waiver from 
EPA of RFG oxygen content requirements until 2002. Five other States 
have initiated proposed limited use, bans or phase-outs of MTBE, 
including Arizona, Kansas, Missouri, New York, and South Dakota.

B. What Risks Does MTBE Pose to Drinking Water Supplies?

    1. Chemical properties. In comparison to other components of 
concern in gasoline, including benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and 
xylenes (collectively referred to as ``BTEX''), the available 
information shows MTBE may pose additional problems when it escapes 
into the environment through gasoline releases. MTBE is capable of 
traveling through soil rapidly, is very soluble in water (much more so 
than BTEX), and is highly resistant to biodegradation (much more so 
than BTEX). MTBE that enters groundwater moves at nearly the same 
velocity as the groundwater itself. As a result, it often travels 
farther than other gasoline constituents, making it more likely to 
impact public and private drinking water wells. Due to its affinity for 
water and its tendency to form large contamination plumes in 
groundwater, and because MTBE is highly resistant to biodegradation and 
remediation, gasoline releases with MTBE can be substantially more 
difficult and costly to remediate than gasoline releases that do not 
contain MTBE (Unit III.E.). This is a substantial concern in the United 
States, where approximately 40-46% of the population uses groundwater 
as a source of drinking water.
    2. Taste and odor. MTBE has a very unpleasant turpentine-like taste 
and odor that at low levels of contamination can render drinking water 
unacceptable for consumption. A number of studies have been conducted 
on the concentrations of MTBE in drinking water at which individuals 
can detect the taste and odor of the chemical. (Refs. 8,9,10) Human 
sensitivity to taste and odor varies widely. In controlled studies, 
some individuals were able to detect very low concentrations of MTBE, 
while others do not taste or smell the chemical even at much higher 
concentrations. In controlled studies individuals have detected odor 
and taste at concentrations of MTBE as low as 2.5 parts per billion 
(ppb) for odor and 2 ppb for taste.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Throughout this ANPRM, various studies are cited which may 
refer to the presence of MTBE in water in either micrograms per 
liter (g/L) or ppb. These units are approximately 
interchangeable assuming the density of the water is constant. In 
reality, to the extent that the water density may vary from study to 
study, equivalence of these units may not be exact.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In December 1997, EPA's Office of Water released a non-regulatory 
advisory for MTBE in drinking water. The EPA advisory is not a 
mandatory standard for action and is not Federally enforceable, but 
provides guidance for communities that may be exposed to drinking water 
contaminated with MTBE. According to the advisory, keeping MTBE 
concentrations in the range of 20-40 g/L or below would likely 
avert unpleasant taste and odor effects, recognizing that some people 
may detect the chemical below this concentration range.
    The State of California has chosen to establish a secondary 
drinking water standard of 5 g/L to ensure the potability of 
drinking water for more

[[Page 16098]]

sensitive individuals. EPA is planning to upgrade its MTBE advisory to 
a national secondary drinking water standard and will review its 1997 
advisory levels at that time. Secondary drinking water standards 
address the aesthetic qualities that relate to public acceptance of 
drinking water and are provided as non-enforceable guidance to the 
States.
    3. Human health effects. The majority of the human health-related 
research conducted to date on MTBE has focused on adverse effects that 
may result through inhalation of the chemical. At high doses by the 
inhalation route, MTBE has caused non-cancer health effects as well as 
tumors in two strains of rat and one strain of mouse in a variety of 
organs. However, there have been no human or animal health effects 
studies concerning the ingestion of MTBE in drinking water. In one 
study, animals were given a daily (all at once) dose of MTBE in olive 
oil. There were carcinogenic effects at a high level of exposure. 
Because the animals were not exposed through drinking water, 
uncertainties remain concerning the degree of risk associated with 
typical human exposure.
    EPA classified MTBE as a ``possible'' human carcinogen under its 
1986 cancer risk assessment guidelines on the basis of results of 
inhalation cancer tests and has suggested that it be regarded as posing 
a potential carcinogenic hazard and risk to humans, although no 
quantitative estimate of the cancer potency of MTBE has been 
established by EPA because of limitations in the available data. (Refs. 
11,12) While MTBE has been characterized as an animal carcinogen, both 
the International Agency for Research on Cancer and the Department of 
Health and Human Services have indicated that there are not enough data 
to classify MTBE with regard to human carcinogenicity under their 
classification schemes. (Refs. 13,14) It should be noted that 
conclusions in the Office of Science and Technology Policy's 1997 
Interagency Assessment of Oxygenated Fuels and in a 1996 report by the 
Health Effects Institute generally support EPA's view on potential 
carcinogenic hazard. (Ref. 15) The Interagency Assessment stated, in 
regard to inhalation risks, that ``it is not known whether the cancer 
risk of oxygenated gasoline containing MTBE is significantly different 
from the cancer risk of conventional gasoline.'' The estimated upper 
bound cancer units risks of MTBE are similar to or slightly lower than 
those of fully vaporized conventional gasoline, which has been listed 
by EPA as a probable human carcinogen based on animal carcinogenicity 
data. However, because of lack of health data on the nonoxygenated 
gasoline vapors to which humans are actually exposed, it is not 
possible to have a reasonably good estimate of population cancer risk 
to conventional gasoline.
    As a result of substantial scientific uncertainties, a review 
committee of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) recommended that 
additional studies be conducted on MTBE and that questions about the 
bolus dosing study be resolved before the study is used for risk 
assessment purposes. (Ref. 16) A number of ongoing studies by EPA, the 
Chemical Industry Institute of Toxicology (CIIT) and other 
organizations should provide EPA with information to assess health 
risks via different routes of MTBE exposure. These studies should allow 
for extrapolation from the inhalation studies to an assessment of risks 
associated with ingestion of drinking water. In addition, further study 
of potential health effects of MTBE and other fuel additives are 
underway by the petroleum industry as required under CAA section 211.
    EPA reviewed available health effects information on MTBE in its 
1997 drinking water advisory guidance and determined that there was 
insufficient information available on MTBE health effects and exposure 
to allow EPA to establish a national primary drinking water regulation. 
The drinking water advisory document indicated there is little 
likelihood that MTBE concentrations between 20 and 40 g/L 
would cause adverse health effects. Nevertheless, California and New 
Hampshire have proposed health-based primary drinking water standards 
of 13 g/L for MTBE.

C. How Widespread is the MTBE Contamination?

    Each year approximately 9 million gallons of gasoline (the 
equivalent of a full supertanker) are released to the environment in 
the United States from leaks and spills, according to an estimate by 
the Alliance for Proper Gasoline Handling. (Ref. 17) MTBE may be 
present in a substantial portion of these releases. Because of MTBE's 
solubility in water and resistance to degradation, it is being detected 
with increasing frequency in both groundwater and surface water. The 
potential for harm posed by MTBE releases can perhaps best be 
understood by reviewing some well-documented case studies. The releases 
of MTBE that occurred in these situations could have occurred, and 
could be repeated, virtually anywhere in the United States. Larger-
scale studies document the widespread detection of MTBE in the nation's 
water supplies.
    1. Examples of MTBE contamination. The City of Santa Monica, 
California, has historically relied on seven wells from the Arcadia and 
Charnock well fields to provide approximately 50% of the drinking water 
to the town's 87,000 residents. In August of 1995, the City found MTBE 
in water derived from the Charnock Wellfield. By April of 1996, MTBE 
levels had risen dramatically in all wells, with concentrations 
reaching up to 610 ppb. All five of the city's Charnock wells were shut 
down in 1996. The Southern California Water Company (SCWC), which had 
withdrawn drinking water from the Charnock well field, also closed its 
two production wells to avoid drawing contamination into the wells. The 
SCWC Charnock wells had provided a portion of the drinking water for 
10,000 residences in Culver City, California. After completion of 
screening level investigations at 28 underground storage tanks (USTs) 
locations and two gasoline product pipelines, the EPA and the Los 
Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) identified 25 USTs 
as contributing contamination to the Charnock Sub-Basin, the 
groundwater basin which supplies water to the Charnock Wellfields. From 
1997-1999, three companies potentially responsible for the 
contamination voluntarily conducted testing of wellhead drinking water 
treatment technologies, performed regional groundwater investigation 
activities, and reimbursed the City of Santa Monica and Southern 
California Water Company for water replacement costs. These companies 
claim to have spent over $50 million on response activities to date. 
Since 1996, the city and SCWC have met their municipal water demand by 
utilizing water purchased from the Metropolitan Water District, at a 
cost of over $3 million per year. Together with the Agencies' oversight 
cost and the costs of investigation and cleanup at all the UST 
locations and gasoline product pipelines, it is estimated that over $60 
million in response costs have been expended in addressing the Charnock 
Wellfield problem to date. In September 1999, EPA and RWQCB issued 
orders to potentially responsible parties that require them to pay for 
replacement water for the affected homeowners from January 2000 until 
January 2005. A final cleanup is expected to cost more than $160 
million.
    Contamination of the Arcadia field was traced to a single gas 
station. The gas station was demolished,

[[Page 16099]]

underground tanks and lines were removed, and approximately 2,000 cubic 
yards of gasoline-containing soils were excavated. Cleanup crews are 
now working to control and remove additional sources of contamination 
from the area. In addition, a shallow groundwater pump and treat system 
was installed in October 1997 to control further migration of the 
contaminated groundwater. The extracted water is filtered through three 
carbon beds to remove the bulk of MTBE before the water is discharged 
into the sanitary sewer. Actions are currently underway to begin 
additional treatment of water from the Arcadia wells with carbon and 
eventually obtain a permit to serve the water as drinking water.
    In Glennville, California, residential drinking wells were 
contaminated with MTBE at levels up to 20,000 ppb. The likely source of 
the contamination was an UST and associated piping at the town's only 
gas station. The town was forced to start using an alternative drinking 
water source in 1997, and still relies on alternative sources of water.
    In Whitefield, Maine, an automobile gasoline leak of 20 gallons or 
less contaminated a bedrock drinking water well for an elementary 
school with MTBE to a level of 900 g/L. According to a report 
by the the Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use Management 
(NESCAUM), the State of Maine traced the source of the spill to an area 
about 120 feet from the well where cars were parked on the grass. (Ref. 
18)
    In December 1997, a car accident in Standish, Maine, led to the 
release of 8 to 10 gallons of gasoline that contaminated 24 nearby 
private wells. Eleven wells were contaminated with MTBE to a level 
above 35 g/L; two were contaminated at over 1,000 g/
L; and the well nearest the accident site contained the highest 
concentration of 6,500 g/L. When the State discovered the 
contaminated wells in May 1998, it removed 79 cubic yards of 
contaminated soil. The contamination extended to the top of the 
underlying bedrock at a depth of 9 feet below the surface. (Ref. 19)
    In the town of Windham, Maine, two public water supply wells 900 to 
1,100 feet from underground gasoline tanks were contaminated to levels 
of 1 to 6 g/L MTBE. According to a NESCAUM report, the tanks 
were state-of-the-art technology, double walled and only 10 months old 
when the MTBE contamination was discovered. (Ref. 20) Extensive testing 
showed that the tanks did not leak directly to the ground, nor were any 
vapor leaks found after extensive testing. NESCAUM stated that the only 
plausible cause of the contamination was gasoline overfills. The amount 
spilled was estimated to be 10 to 40 gallons.
    MTBE has also been detected in surface waters of lakes and 
reservoirs. A University of California, Davis, study was conducted at 
Donner Lake, California. (Ref. 21) The lake is a source of drinking 
water for lakeside residents and contributes to the drinking water 
supply of downstream communities, such as Reno, Nevada. MTBE levels 
were low during winter months, at just above the 0.1 g/L level 
of detection. Levels increased dramatically during the summer boating 
season to a high of 12.1 g/L. Following Labor Day, boat use 
declined dramatically, as did MTBE levels. Volatilization between the 
air/water interface appeared to be the major avenue for loss of MTBE.
    In Shasta Lake, a large recreational-use reservoir in northern 
California, MTBE concentrations were reported to range from 9-88 
g/L over the Labor Day 1996 weekend. Maximum values were 
associated with large boats entering a docking area or with engine 
exhaust from those boats. MTBE was also measured in a temporary lake 
constructed in southern California for a jetski event in the summer of 
1996. After the 3-day event, concentrations reportedly ranged from 50-
60 g/L.
    On January 28, 2000, a tanker truck rolled over on Route 110 in 
Lowell, Massachusetts, releasing approximately 11,000 gallons of 
gasoline. Most of the gasoline entered the Merrimack River. The cities 
of Tewksbury, Methuen, and Lawrence each have drinking water intakes on 
the River downstream of the spill site. Although contaminants were not 
detected at the drinking water treatment plants the night of the spill, 
later samples indicated elevated levels of MTBE. The cities of 
Tewksbury and Lawrence temporarily closed their drinking water 
treatment facilities and purchased water from alternative sources; the 
treatment facility in Methuen remained open. MTBE levels dropped 
significantly after a few days, and the facilities were advised that 
they could safely use their intakes.
    2. Large-scale studies. Although scattered incidents of localized 
water contamination by MTBE have been reported since the early 1980s, 
the first report to suggest that MTBE contamination of water might be 
occurring on a widespread basis came as a result of the sampling of 
ambient groundwater conducted by the USGS National Water Quality 
Assessment Program (NAWQA). Ambient groundwater is groundwater where 
there are no known point sources of contamination prior to sampling in 
drinking water and non-drinking water wells. In an initial report of 
sampling conducted in shallow groundwater in 1993 and 1994, USGS 
reported that of 210 sampled wells and springs in 8 urban areas, 56 
(27%) contained MTBE at a minimum reporting level of 0.2 
g/L, and 3% of the wells and springs had MTBE 
concentrations exceeding 20 g/L. (Ref. 22) The maximum 
concentration of MTBE detected in these urban areas was over 100 
g/L.
    The USGS collected data in 1995 from additional wells in urban 
areas and combined them with data from 1993-1994 to provide specific 
information on drinking water aquifers. This analysis showed MTBE 
detections in 12 (14%) of 83 shallow urban wells located in aquifers 
supplying drinking water and in 19 (2%) of 949 rural wells in aquifers 
used for drinking water, with a median concentration of approximately 
0.50 g/L. (Ref. 23)
    Finally, in a 1999 publication in the Proceedings of the 1999 Water 
Resources Conference of the American Water Works Association, USGS 
assembled its early ambient groundwater data with additional data from 
urban and rural wells. (Ref. 24) For urban areas, the frequency of 
detection of MTBE in groundwater in areas of substantial MTBE use was 
about 27% (49 of 184 wells), whereas frequency of detection in non-
substantial use areas was about 5%. In rural areas, the frequency of 
detection of MTBE in areas of substantial MTBE use was about 17% (50 of 
298 wells), whereas the frequency of detection in non-substantial use 
areas was about 2%. Overall, USGS found detections of MTBE in 21% of 
ambient groundwater tested in areas where MTBE is used in RFG compared 
with 2% of ambient groundwater in areas using conventional gasoline. In 
contrast, BTEX was found in only 4% of areas where RFG or winter 
oxyfuels were used. (Ref. 25)
    Preliminary results from a joint USGS/EPA study of 12 northeastern 
States (with a detection limit of 1.0 g/L) show that MTBE was 
detected in 7% of drinking water supplies, with 0.8% of these 
detections above 20 g/L. (Ref. 26) The study also concluded 
that MTBE is detected five times more frequently in drinking water from 
community water systems in RFG or Winter Oxyfuel areas than in non-RFG 
or non-Winter Oxyfuel areas. The study showed BTEX detections in 8.3% 
of the systems analyzed (2,097 systems). Although collectively BTEX was 
found at approximately the same frequency as MTBE, there is very little 
co-occurrence of the BTEX compounds with MTBE (less than 1% of the 
systems). This may indicate that MTBE separated from the

[[Page 16100]]

rest of the contaminants in the original gasoline plumes, but it also 
indicates that the increased use of MTBE since 1995 may have created a 
new universe of contaminated water supplies.
    In 1998, the State of Maine reported on sampling conducted on 951 
household drinking water wells and 793 public water supplies. (Ref. 27) 
The study was designed to be statistically representative of the entire 
State. MTBE was detected in 150 (15.8%) of the sampled household wells 
at a minimum reporting level of 0.1 g/L, and 1.1% of the wells 
contained MTBE levels exceeding 35 g/L. The Maine report 
projected that approximately 1,400-5,200 private wells across the State 
could be contaminated at levels exceeding 35 g/L. For public 
water systems sampled, 125 (16%) showed detectable levels of MTBE, 48 
(6.1%) between 1 g/L and 35 g/L, and no samples above 
35 g/L.
    In another study reported in 1998, the American Water Works Service 
Company collected data from drinking water wells in 16 States. (Ref. 
28) Forty-four (2%) of 2,120 samples from 17 (4%) of 450 wells tested 
positive for MTBE at a minimum reporting level of 0.2 g/L, 
with the highest concentration at 8 g/L.
    In a 1998 industry study of 700 service stations known to have 
released gasoline, MTBE was detected at 83% of the sites, with about 
43% of the sites having MTBE concentrations greater than 1,000 
g/L. (Ref. 29) A large percentage (76%) of station sites 
sampled in Florida showed MTBE contamination, even though Florida does 
not participate in the RFG or winter oxyfuel programs. It is assumed 
that MTBE was used as an octane enhancer in gasoline released from 
Florida service stations.
    An EPA-supported survey of the 50 States and District of Columbia 
in 1998 found that, of the 34 States that acquire MTBE data from 
leaking underground storage tank (LUST) sites, 27 (79%) indicated that 
MTBE was present at more than 20% of their sites, and 10 (29%) reported 
MTBE at more than 80% of their sites. (Ref. 30) The survey also asked 
about contamination of drinking water wells. Of the 40 State programs 
that responded, 25 (51%) had received reports of private wells 
contaminated with MTBE. In addition, 19 (39%) of the programs reported 
public drinking water wells contaminated with MTBE. Five of the States 
responding to the survey reported that MTBE was detected in groundwater 
at LUST sites where the product released was not gasoline. MTBE 
concentrations of greater than 20 g/L in groundwater had 
occurred as the result of releases of diesel fuel, jet fuel, heating 
oil, aviation fuel, and waste oil. Apparently, MTBE cross-contaminated 
other petroleum products during transport and distribution. A study of 
fuel releases in Connecticut (Ref. 31) provides further evidence of 
MTBE contamination of heating oil. In this study, 27 heating oil 
release sites resulted in MTBE contamination of groundwater with 
concentrations ranging from 1 to 4,100 g/L. At the site with 
the highest concentration of MTBE in groundwater, MTBE was measured in 
the heating oil at a concentration of 14 milligram/Liter (mg/L).
    Individual case studies suggest that, depending on the hydrogeology 
of the site, significant MTBE contamination of water supplies could 
occur and is costly and time-consuming to remedy. The large-scale 
studies indicate that MTBE releases have occurred in many places, with 
documented detections in public and private drinking water sources.

D. What are the Major Sources of MTBE Contamination and How are They 
Currently Regulated?

    As a large industrialized nation, the United States produces, 
distributes, and consumes extensive quantities of gasoline, and much of 
that gasoline contains MTBE. The DOE estimates that in 1998, over 126 
billion gallons of gasoline were sold in the United States (Ref. 32) 
RFG represented 41.5 billion gallons of that total, with the vast 
majority containing MTBE as the primary oxygenate. After production in 
the United States or import, gasoline may travel through thousands of 
miles of pipelines, or be transported by truck, to any of roughly 
10,000 terminals and bulk stations. From there it may be distributed to 
one of 180,000 retail outlets and fleet storage facilities, or to any 
of hundreds of thousands of above-ground or underground tanks at farms, 
industrial facilities, businesses, and homes. Finally, gasoline is 
removed from bulk storage into individualized storage units associated 
with such products as cars, trucks, boats, planes, lawn mowers, brush 
cutters, and chain saws. Residual gasoline in transport conduits may 
contaminate different types of fuels (e.g., home heating oil) that is 
transported through the same conduits at different times. Although this 
does not normally cause problems, it may explain why MTBE has been 
found in releases of home heating oil and other fuels. There are 
opportunities for leaks wherever gasoline (or a product containing 
gasoline) is stored, and there are opportunities for spills whenever 
fuel is transported or transferred from one container to another. 
Although many Federal and State programs have been developed to 
minimize the potential for leaks and spills from the vast array of 
units and individuals handling gasoline, no system involving so much 
product and so many individual handlers can be foolproof. Gasoline is 
released to the environment every day; these releases can be expected 
to continue and MTBE, being more soluble and less biodegradable than 
BTEX, will move more quickly and at higher concentrations than the 
other components of gasoline, making its way to surface water and 
groundwater resources. This unit describes the major sources of 
gasoline leaks, and summarizes regulatory programs applicable to them.
    1. Underground storage tanks. There are an estimated 760,000 USTs 
currently in use for petroleum storage in the United States that are 
subject to regulation under Subtitle I of the Resource Conservation and 
Recovery Act (RCRA), 42 U.S.C . 6991a-i. These tanks have a storage 
capacity of approximately 6 billion gallons. In addition, there are 
approximately 3 to 4 million USTs storing fuel that are exempt from 
RCRA Subtitle I regulation including:
    a. Farm and residential tanks of 1,100 gallons or less capacity 
holding motor fuel for noncommercial purposes.
    b. Tanks storing heating oil used on the premises where it is 
stored.
    c. Tanks on or above the floor of underground areas, such as 
basements or tunnels.
    d. Septic tanks and systems for collecting storm water and 
wastewater.
    e. Flow-through process tanks.
    f. Tanks of 110 gallons or less capacity.
    g. Emergency spill and overfill tanks.
    Leaking USTs have been identified as the likely sources of a number 
of the more problematic releases of MTBE to the environment, including 
releases that have closed water supplies in Santa Monica and 
Glennville, California. In California alone, the minimum number of MTBE 
point sources from leaking UST sites is estimated at greater than 
10,000.
    In 1988, EPA issued regulations setting minimum standards for RCRA 
Subtitle I-regulated UST systems. Existing UST systems, those installed 
on or before December 22, 1988, had until December 22, 1998, to upgrade 
with spill, overfill, and corrosion protection, properly close, or meet 
new tank performance standards. Any UST system installed after December 
22, 1988, had to meet new tank performance standards for spill, 
overfill,

[[Page 16101]]

and corrosion protection at the time of installation. Based on reports 
received as of the end of September 1999, EPA estimates that 
approximately 85% of the RCRA-regulated universe of UST systems 
currently meet EPA's upgrade or new tank requirements. By the end of 
2000, EPA expects that approximately 90% of RCRA-regulated USTs will be 
in compliance, leaving approximately 70,000 substandard USTs.
    The Federal regulations also require that UST systems have release 
detection equipment to identify releases to the environment. The 
regulations required that all owners and operators install and properly 
operate a method of release detection no later than 1993 based on the 
age of the UST system. While virtually all UST systems are equipped 
with leak detection equipment, they are not necessarily installed or 
operated properly. Largely as a result of problems with proper 
operation of leak detection equipment, EPA estimates that approximately 
60% of UST systems are in compliance with the leak detection 
requirements. By the end of 2005, EPA expects compliance with the leak 
detection requirements will be 90%.
    EPA provides funding (through the Leaking Underground Storage Tank 
Trust Fund) to States to oversee the cleanup of releases from USTs. 
Since the UST program began, approximately 400,000 releases from USTs 
have been confirmed; of that number, approximately 230,000 cleanups 
have been completed. While not every State is testing for MTBE at UST 
release sites, those that do have found MTBE at most, if not all, 
release sites. In response to a recommendation by the Blue Ribbon Panel 
(the Panel), EPA recently sent a memo to all State UST programs 
recommending that they monitor for and report MTBE in groundwater at 
all leaking UST sites.
    Those facilities that have a total underground oil storage capacity 
of more than 42,000 gallons, and which are located such that they could 
reasonably be expected to discharge oil into navigable waters or 
adjoining shorelines, are subject to EPA requirements for the 
development of Spill Prevention, Control and Countermeasure (SPCC) 
Plans pursuant to Clean Water Act (CWA) section 311(j)(1)(C). An SPCC 
plan is a detailed, facility-specific description of how the facility 
will comply with EPA regulatory requirements for secondary containment, 
facility drainage, dikes or barriers, sump and collection systems, 
retention ponds, curbing, tank corrosion protection systems, and liquid 
level devices (40 CFR 112.1-112.7). To avoid duplicative regulation 
under the RCRA and CWA section 311 programs, EPA proposed in 1991 to 
exempt from SPCC requirements those completely buried tanks that are 
subject to RCRA Subtitle I requirements. EPA expects to issue a final 
rule dealing with this and other modifications to the SPCC program 
later in 2000.
    It is important to understand that even after USTs are in full 
compliance with the RCRA and CWA section 311 requirements, some 
releases are expected to occur as a result of improper installation or 
upgrading, improper operation and maintenance, and accidents.
    2. Above-ground storage tanks. EPA regulates under the CWA section 
311 SPCC program approximately 440,000 facilities with above-ground 
storage tanks (ASTs) that are located so as to be reasonably expected 
to discharge oil to surface waters or adjoining shorelines. A facility 
is regulated if it has an AST with a capacity of more than 660 gallons, 
or multiple ASTs with a combined capacity of more than 1,320 gallons. 
ASTs are also subject to EPA's more general requirements for the 
reporting of oil spills to navigable waters, 40 CFR part 110, and EPA's 
prohibition on the discharge to navigable waters of oil in quantities 
that will:
    a. Violate applicable water quality standards.
    b. Cause a sheen on the waters.
    c. Cause a sludge or emulsion to be deposited beneath the surface 
of the water or adjoining shoreline (40 CFR 110.3).
    Despite EPA's regulatory programs, almost 20,000 oil spills to 
navigable water (from all sources, including tank trucks, barges, etc.) 
are reported each year. About half, or 10,000 spills, occur annually to 
the inland zone over which EPA has jurisdiction, while the other half 
occurs in the coastal zone over which the Coast Guard exercises 
jurisdiction.
    3. Pipelines. Excluding intrastate pipelines and small gathering 
lines associated with crude oil production fields, there are 
approximately 160,000 miles of liquids pipelines in the United States. 
These pipelines transport approximately 525 billion gallons of crude 
oil and refined products annually. The Department of Transportation 
(DOT) estimates that, over a recent 5-year period (1994-1998), an 
average of 29 gasoline spills occurred annually from pipelines, with 
the total volume of gasoline released from pipelines averaging 1.03 
million gallons per year. While there are little or no data on the 
extent of MTBE releases from pipelines, MTBE is expected to be present 
in some portion of the refined product in the pipelines.
    In California, pipeline release data are currently being compiled 
by the Office of the State Fire Marshal, which regulates approximately 
8,500 miles of pipelines. Since 1981, there have been approximately 300 
pipeline releases within the State Fire Marshal's Jurisdiction. (Ref. 
33)
    Pipelines are regulated by the DOT, Research and Special Programs 
Administration (RSPA). Under authority of the Pipeline Safety Act of 
1992, 49 U.S.C. 60101 et seq., DOT has established minimum safety 
standards for pipelines carrying hazardous liquids, including petroleum 
and petroleum products (49 CFR part 195). Under authority of CWA 
section 311, DOT also requires response planning for pipelines that, 
because of their location, could reasonably be expected to cause 
substantial harm to the environment by discharging oil into or on the 
navigable water, adjoining shorelines, or the exclusive economic zones 
(49 CFR part 194).
    4. Other releases. Releases from automobile accidents, tank truck 
spills, consumer disposal of ``old'' gasoline, and spills during 
fueling operations have been identified as sources of contamination of 
drinking water wells. The incidents in Maine, described in Unit 
III.C.1. are examples of how relatively small spills can result in 
contamination of nearby drinking water supplies. Home heating oil 
storage tanks have also been identified as potential sources of MTBE 
contamination, as MTBE might be present from mixing the heating oil 
with small volumes of gasoline in the bulk fuel distribution or tank 
truck delivery systems. Other data on releases of this type are not 
available, and EPA is not aware of any efforts currently underway to 
further characterize these sources of MTBE contamination.
    EPA regulatory programs do not address small episodic releases of 
gasoline unless they result in a discharge to surface waters. For those 
releases, the spill must be reported, and the responsible party may be 
penalized for any violation of EPA's oil discharge prohibition. In the 
many cases involving accidental spills, however, these requirements are 
not effective in preventing releases.
    5. Watercraft. Gasoline-powered watercraft have contributed to the 
contamination of lakes and reservoirs with MTBE. The two-stroke engines 
commonly used for certain watercraft can discharge up to 30% of each 
gallon of gasoline as unburned hydrocarbons. (EPA issued a final rule 
to reduce the

[[Page 16102]]

amount of air emissions from new gasoline-powered watercraft and 
outboard motors which will be phased-in beginning in 1998, and 
completed in the 2006 model year. This rule is also expected to reduce 
the release of unburned hydrocarbons from new engines into surface 
waters. This rulemaking published in the Federal Register of October 4, 
1996 (61 FR 52088) (FRL-5548-8), which applies only to new engines, 
will reduce hydrocarbon emissions by 75%. The State of California 
requires that EPA's new standards be fully implemented by 2001). As 
described in Unit III.C.1., concentrations of MTBE in lakes with 
significant recreational boating tend to peak in the boating season at 
levels that can be a concern for taste and odor, and possibly human 
health, and decrease fairly rapidly after the boating season has ended. 
Volatilization at the air/water surface is considered the dominant 
mechanism for this removal process.
    Although most discharges of pollutants from point sources (e.g., 
pipes and other discrete conveyances) to surface waters must be 
authorized under CWA section 402 by a National Pollutant Discharge 
Elimination System (NPDES) permit, discharges from properly functioning 
marine engines are currently subject to a regulatory exemption from 
this requirement (40 CFR 122.3 (a)).
    6.Storm water runoff. Storm water runoff becomes contaminated with 
MTBE from the dissolution of residual MTBE from parking lots and 
roadways, as well as from atmospheric washout during precipitation 
events. The USGS has characterized MTBE concentrations in runoff in 
many areas and has found such contamination typically to be lower than 
2 ppb. (Ref. 34) The National Science and Technology Council's 1997 
Interagency Assessment of Oxygenated Fuels Report describes storm water 
runoff as exhibiting concentrations of 0.2-8.7 ppb in 7% of the samples 
tested in 16 cities from 1991 to 1995. (Ref. 35) Most detections in 
this study were in the Denver area, where implementation of the 
Wintertime Oxyfuel program began in 1988. Based on predictive modeling, 
concentrations in rainwater (in g/L) are expected to be 
equivalent to the surrounding air concentrations (in ppb, volume). MTBE 
air concentrations tend to be less than 1 ppb in urban areas, leading 
to predicted rainwater levels of 1 g/L or less. However, 
rainwater around localized areas of high MTBE air concentrations (e.g., 
parking garages) could contain correspondingly higher levels of MTBE. 
Storm water may be discharged to surface water or percolate to 
groundwater, and thus serves as a continuing source of low-level MTBE 
contamination of these potential drinking water sources.
    Clean Water Act NPDES permit requirements apply to certain 
discharges of storm water which may contain MTBE. Though many 
discharges of storm water are not subject to permit requirements, NPDES 
permits are required for industrial storm water discharges, discharges 
from municipal separate storm sewer systems, and storm water discharges 
specifically designated by EPA or authorized NPDES States. Although 
MTBE is not typically targeted in these permits, the best management 
practices and planning requirements usually specified are likely to 
reduce MTBE discharges through storm water.
    As this summary demonstrates, there are a number of programs in 
place to minimize or mitigate the effects of gasoline releases. 
However, in light of the volume of gasoline used and the myriad 
opportunities for leaks, spills, and accidents, substantial releases of 
gasoline are likely to continue to occur in the future.

 E. How Practical is it to Cleanup Drinking Water Supplies to Remove 
MTBE?

    Because spills of conventional gasoline typically move slowly 
through groundwater, and are biodegraded over time, many are left in 
place to undergo bioremediation at no cost other than temporarily 
replacing the water supply. However, MTBE moves rapidly with 
groundwater, is not readily degraded in the groundwater environment, 
and can render groundwater unpotable at low levels. Therefore, spills 
involving MTBE require much more aggressive management and remediation 
than do spills of conventional gasoline.
    MTBE's chemical properties also make it difficult or costly to 
remediate using conventional ``active'' processes. Two common treatment 
techniques are air stripping and use of granular activated carbon 
(GAC). In air stripping, contaminated groundwater is passed through an 
aeration tower that effectively removes the chemicals from the water 
and releases it into the air. Where necessary, the chemical is then 
removed from the air into a solid medium that can be disposed of. MTBE 
does not readily partition from water to the vapor phase. Air stripping 
of MTBE is most effective when higher air to water ratios, or higher 
temperatures are used than would be required for other more volatile 
compounds. In a GAC system, water is passed through one or more beds of 
carbon; contaminants in the water are sorbed onto the carbon, which can 
either be disposed of or ``refreshed'' by driving out the contaminants 
(usually by heating). However, the relatively low sorption of MTBE to 
solid particles means that the GAC must be used in greater quantities, 
driving up treatment costs. As a practical matter, therefore, MTBE-
contaminated groundwater is difficult and costly to remediate.

F. What Action did EPA's Blue Ribbon Panel Recommend?

    In November 1998, EPA established a the Panel to investigate air 
quality benefits and water quality concerns associated with the use of 
oxygenates, including MTBE, in gasoline. The Panel was established 
under EPA's Clean Air Act Advisory Committee, a policy committee 
established to advise EPA on issues related to implementing the CAA 
Amendments of 1990.
    The Panel members consisted of leading experts from the public 
health, environmental and scientific communities, automotive and fuels 
industry, water utilities, and local and State governments. The Panel 
met six times from January to June 1999, with the charge to:
    1. Examine the role of oxygenates in meeting the nation's goal of 
clean air.
    2. Evaluate each product's efficiency in providing clean air 
benefits and the existence of alternatives.
    3. Assess the behavior of oxygenates in the environment.
    4. Review any known health effects.
    5. Compare the cost of production and use and each product's 
availability--both at present and in the future.
    Further, the Panel studied the causes of groundwater and drinking 
water contamination from motor vehicle fuels, and explored prevention 
and cleanup technologies for water and soil. In September 1999, the 
Panel released its report, entitled Achieving Clean Air and Clean 
Water, The Report of the Blue Ribbon Panel on Oxygenates in Gasoline. 
The Report is available in the docket to this ANPRM, and is also 
available on http://www.epa.gov/oms/consumer/fuels/oxypanel.blueribb.htm.
    The Panel recommended a package of reforms to ensure that water 
supplies are better protected while the substantial reductions in air 
pollution that have resulted from RFG are maintained. The Panel 
enumerated 16 suggestions for Federal, State, and Congressional action, 
including the following:
     Recommended a comprehensive set of improvements to the 
nation's water protection programs, including over 20 specific actions 
to enhance UST, safe

[[Page 16103]]

drinking water, and private-well protection programs.
     Agreed broadly that use of MTBE should be reduced 
substantially (with some members supporting its complete phase out), 
and recommended action by Congress to clarify Federal and State 
authority to regulate and/or eliminate the use of MTBE and other 
gasoline additives that threaten drinking water supplies.
     Recommended that Congress act to remove the current CAA 
requirement that 2% of RFG, by weight, consist of oxygen, to ensure 
that adequate fuel supplies can be blended in a cost-effective manner 
while quickly reducing usage of MTBE.
     Recommended that EPA take action to ensure that there is 
no loss of current air quality benefits associated with the use of 
MTBE.
    While the Panel indicated that its recommendations should be 
implemented as a complete package, it also stated that ``the majority 
of these recommendations could be implemented by Federal and State 
environmental agencies without further legislative action, and we would 
urge their rapid implementation.''
    Although the Panel agreed broadly on its recommendations, two 
members, while in general agreement with the Panel, had concerns with 
specific provisions: The MTBE industry representative disagreed with 
the recommendation to limit the use of MTBE, and the ethanol industry 
representative disagreed with the recommendation that the CAA 
requirement that oxygenates be used in RFG be eliminated. Some Panel 
members believed that MTBE use should be banned altogether.
    EPA agrees with the concerns raised in the report of the Panel 
regarding the continued use of MTBE as a fuel additive, and will 
consider its recommendations further as it proceeds through a TSCA 
section 6 rulemaking to limit or ban MTBE's use in gasoline.

IV. Section 6 of the Toxic Substances Control Act

A. What is the Scope of TSCA Section 6 Authority?

    Section 6 of TSCA, 15 U.S.C. 2605, provides EPA with broad 
authority to issue rules to regulate the manufacture, processing, 
distribution in commerce, use, and/or disposal of chemical substances 
in the United States where such regulation is necessary to prevent 
unreasonable risks to health or the environment. The Agency and courts 
have interpreted the ``unreasonable risk'' standard to be a risk-
benefit standard, allowing regulation where risks to health or the 
environment posed by a particular activity or activities involving a 
chemical outweigh the benefits associated with such activity or 
activities. TSCA section 6 lists a number of possible forms that such 
regulation may take, including:
    1. Regulating the manufacturing, processing, or distribution in 
commerce of a chemical substance, including a complete ban of any such 
activity or limiting the amounts of the chemical substances that may be 
manufactured, processed, or distributed in commerce.
    2. Regulating the manufacturing, processing, or distribution in 
commerce of a chemical substance for a particular use or uses, 
including banning any such activity for a particular use or uses of the 
chemical substance; limiting the concentration of the chemical 
substance that may be used in any such activity; or limiting the 
amounts of the chemical substance that may be manufactured, processed, 
or distributed in commerce for such particular use or uses.
    3. Requiring that the chemical substance be accompanied by such 
warning statements and/or instructions for use with respect to its use, 
distribution in commerce, and/or disposal as the Administrator finds 
necessary.
    4. Requiring manufacturers and/or processors of a chemical 
substance to make and retain such records of the manufacturing process 
as the Administrator finds necessary and/or to monitor or conduct tests 
which are reasonable and necessary to assure compliance with a rule 
under TSCA section 6.
    5. Prohibiting or regulating any manner or method of commercial use 
of a chemical substance.
    6. Prohibiting or regulating the disposal of a chemical substance.
    7. Requiring manufacturers or processors of a chemical substance to 
provide warnings to distributors or users of the substance and to 
replace or repurchase such substance.
    TSCA section 6(a) directs the Agency to apply the least burdensome 
of the identified regulatory options to the extent necessary to 
mitigate the unreasonable risk. The statute also makes clear that the 
Agency may select a combination of the options, and may limit the 
geographic application of a rule under TSCA section 6(a).
    In promulgating any rule under TSCA section 6(a), TSCA section 6(c) 
requires the Agency to publish a statement addressing:
    1. The effect of the chemical substance being regulated on health 
and the magnitude of exposure of humans to the substance.
    2. The effects of such substance on the environment and the 
magnitude of exposure of the environment to the substance.
    3. The benefits of such substance for various uses and the 
availability of substitutes for such uses.
    4. The reasonably ascertainable economic consequences of the rule, 
after consideration of the effect on the national economy, small 
business, technological innovation, the environment, and public health.
    TSCA section 6(c) also provides that if the Administrator 
determines that the risk of injury to health or the environment could 
be eliminated or reduced to a sufficient extent through actions taken 
under another statute administered by EPA, she may not promulgate a 
rule under TSCA section 6 unless the Administrator finds, in her 
discretion, that it is in the public interest to protect against such 
risk under TSCA. In making this finding, the Administrator must 
consider all relevant aspects of the risk; a comparison of the 
estimated costs of complying with actions taken under TSCA and any 
other statute that adequately addresses the risk; and the relative 
efficiency of actions under TSCA and such other statute to address the 
risk.
    Any rulemaking under TSCA section 6 includes the opportunity for 
any interested person to request an informal hearing. Such hearings 
could be limited to the right to present an oral statement, or could 
include the right to present and cross-examine witnesses if the 
Administrator determines that there are disputed issues of material 
fact necessary to be resolved and that cross-examination of witnesses 
is both appropriate and required for full and true disclosure with 
respect to such issues.

B. How Would EPA Apply TSCA Section 6 to Risks Associated with MTBE?

    As discussed earlier, the use of MTBE as an additive in gasoline 
has resulted, and if unchanged is likely to continue to result, in the 
widespread release of MTBE into the environment; MTBE is difficult to 
contain and prevent from reaching sources of drinking water once it is 
released into the environment; and it has the potential to render 
drinking water unpotable at low levels and unsafe at higher levels. 
EPA's review of existing information on contamination of drinking water 
resources by MTBE indicates substantial evidence of a significant risk 
to the nation's drinking water supply. A comprehensive

[[Page 16104]]

approach to such risk must include consideration of either reducing or 
eliminating the use of MTBE as a gasoline additive. As a result, EPA is 
initiating this process pursuant to the unreasonable risk provision 
under TSCA section 6 to eliminate or greatly reduce the use of MTBE as 
a gasoline additive. EPA is interested in comments on both the risk and 
these possible responses to it. In accordance with the requirements of 
TSCA section 6, EPA will consider whether there are other appropriate 
mechanisms to address the problems presented by the use of MTBE as a 
gasoline additive. Thus, the outcome of this rulemaking could be a 
total ban on the use of MTBE as a gasoline additive. Consistent with 
TSCA section 6, EPA will carefully consider regulatory alternatives to 
a ban. These could include limiting the amount of MTBE that could be 
used in gasoline, limiting use of MTBE in particular geographic areas 
or during particular times of year; limiting the types of facilities in 
which MTBE can be stored; limiting the manner in which MTBE is 
transported; etc. Any final outcome must, however, provide adequate 
protection against any unreasonable risk associated with MTBE.
    As part of a rulemaking under TSCA section 6, the Agency must also 
consider whether action under another statute administered by EPA, such 
as the CAA, RCRA, CWA, or SDWA, could effectively address the risks 
posed by MTBE and, if so, whether it is in the public interest to 
regulate the risk under TSCA instead of such other statute. It is worth 
noting in this regard that although a number of Agency programs could 
address some of the risks posed by MTBE (such as, for example, the 
regulation of USTs under RCRA), TSCA appears to provide the best tool 
for assessing and addressing the risks posed by MTBE.
    As part of the consideration of other programs and identification 
of the least burdensome mechanism to provide adequate protection 
against the risks of MTBE, the Agency expects to consider a number of 
possible strategies for mitigating those risks, including preventing 
MTBE in gasoline from getting into groundwater, cleaning up water 
contaminated with MTBE, and removing MTBE from gasoline in whole or in 
part. While the Agency's assessment in this regard is preliminary at 
this point, the available evidence suggests that dealing with the 
problem before MTBE is added to gasoline may be the best solution for 
mitigating any unreasonable risks associated with MTBE. Given the large 
quantities of gasoline that are used and transported in the United 
States, and the number of different possible avenues for release into 
the environment (including leaks from storage tanks and pipelines; 
spills resulting from loading/unloading gasoline at tanks, gasoline 
pumps, or pipelines; spills resulting from transportation accidents; 
un-combusted gasoline from boat engines; emissions from automobile 
exhaust), it may not be practicable to prevent significant quantities 
of MTBE from getting into surface water or groundwater once the 
chemical is added to gasoline. Similarly, given the importance of 
groundwater as a drinking water source in the United States and the 
large number of wells and groundwater sources that have been and could 
be contaminated with MTBE and the costs and difficulties of cleaning 
contaminated drinking water sources, a risk-mitigation strategy 
centering on cleaning up water may not be the preferred strategy under 
TSCA section 6 for mitigating any unreasonable risks associated with 
MTBE. Consequently, EPA believes that a comprehensive approach must 
include consideration of either reducing or eliminating the use of MTBE 
as a gasoline additive.
    In conducting this rulemaking under TSCA section 6, the Agency will 
also consider the costs and impacts of alternatives to MTBE. In 
oxygenated gasoline programs like Federal RFG, the most likely 
substitute based on current usage is ethanol. Other ether compounds are 
currently used as oxygenates in small quantities. MTBE does not occupy 
as dominant a position as an octane enhancer for conventional gasoline 
as it does as an oxygenate in RFG. Ethanol, alkylates, and aromatics 
are alternative octane enhancers in conventional gasoline. Although EPA 
is seeking more information on alternatives to MTBE, EPA does not 
expect ethanol, alkylates, or aromatics to present the same magnitude 
of risk to drinking water supplies as MTBE. Ethanol biodegrades more 
quickly than MTBE, and therefore is less likely to contaminate drinking 
water as often as MTBE, or at the levels of MTBE. Alkylates and 
aromatics are expected to behave in soil and water more like other 
components typically found in gasoline than MTBE; they too would be 
unlikely to contaminate drinking water as often as MTBE or at the 
levels of MTBE. Other ether compounds are not currently used widely as 
oxygenates, and the Agency does not have much data to characterize the 
risks they might pose to drinking water supplies. However, they are 
chemically similar to MTBE, and they may well move through soil and 
water in ways and amounts similar to MTBE. EPA will closely evaluate 
the likelihood that compounds not currently used in significant 
quantities as oxygenates in RFG might be widely used as alternatives to 
MTBE, whether additional information on these compounds is necessary, 
and whether other measures are appropriate to assure that an 
elimination or limitation of MTBE in gasoline does not result in the 
use of alternatives that might cause similar risks to drinking water. 
It appears that eliminating or limiting the use of MTBE as a fuel 
additive will result in increased costs in producing gasoline of 
approximately $1.9 billion per year if the oxygen mandate remains in 
place.

V. Alternative Gasoline Additives to MTBE

    In conducting a rulemaking under TSCA section 6, EPA must consider 
the alternatives to MTBE. If the use of MTBE as a fuel additive is 
limited or banned by EPA, refiners will have to look to other chemicals 
as substitutes. To meet the oxygenate requirements of RFG, ethanol and 
other ethers are the most likely alternatives, while ethanol, 
alkylates, and aromatics will most likely replace MTBE as an octane 
enhancer. This unit assesses these chemicals and their potential to 
replace MTBE in gasoline.

A. What Oxygenates Other Than MTBE Could be Used to Meet RFG 
Requirements?

    If the use of MTBE is limited or banned and the CAA oxygenate 
requirement remains in place, refiners will have to use a substitute 
oxygenate to meet the RFG requirements. Ethanol and other ethers are 
the most likely oxygenate alternatives.
    1. Ethanol. Ethanol is an oxygenate that is produced from 
agricultural products such as corn. Ethanol and MTBE have been the 
primary oxygenates used to meet the RFG oxygen content requirements 
because of their availability, blendability, and ability to deliver air 
quality benefits. Ethanol is currently the primary oxygenate in about 
12.5% of RFG, and it is the main oxygenate in the Midwest RFG areas.
    Despite its current use in RFG, ethanol is not yet manufactured in 
sufficient volume to meet total current national oxygenate demands. 
Current U.S. ethanol production capacity is estimated at 120,000 b/d 
(barrels per day), which is equivalent in oxygen content to 
approximately 230,000 b/d of MTBE. In order for ethanol alone to 
fulfill the nationwide oxygen requirement in all RFG and oxygenated

[[Page 16105]]

fuels areas, the Panel estimated that at least an additional 67,000 b/d 
of ethanol would be needed. Because of the higher oxygen content of 
ethanol, a smaller volume of ethanol (5.7%) needs to be added to a 
gallon of RFG to satisfy the CAA oxygen content requirement than MTBE 
(11% by volume).
    This shortfall in ethanol supply could be fulfilled by a 
combination of increasing production capacity at existing facilities 
and by building new facilities. The ethanol industry estimates that the 
current expansion of existing ethanol-from-corn production facilities 
may increase production capacity by as much as 40,000 b/d. (Ref. 36) 
Additionally, the industry estimates that new ethanol production 
facilities currently being planned could provide another 25,000 b/d. 
Ethanol production from biomass processing is currently approximately 
4,000 b/d. Thus, while there is an insufficient supply of ethanol to 
meet current oxygenate demand, the ethanol industry projects that 
future ethanol production should be able to adequately meet the 
oxygenate demand and replace MTBE given appropriate time. The 
Department of Agriculture (USDA) has concluded that ethanol can fully 
meet all oxygenate requirements within 4 years. (Ref. 37)
    Refiners that currently use MTBE in meeting the oxygenate 
requirement would need to modify their operations to produce an 
appropriate blendstock to which ethanol can be added. Terminals, 
responsible for actually adding the ethanol to the gasoline, would also 
have to modify their facilities. For example, terminals would have to 
add storage facilities for ethanol. Due to these initial logistical 
concerns, refiners have stated that an immediate ban on MTBE could have 
a negative impact on the nation's fuel supply.
    In addition to initial capital costs, use of ethanol as a 
replacement for MTBE would have several long term impacts on the price 
of gasoline. When added to gasoline, ethanol increases the Reid Vapor 
Pressure (RVP) of the gasoline by about 1.0 pound per square inch. RVP 
is a measure of the gasoline's volatility. An RVP increase results in 
an increase in emissions of VOCs from motor vehicles. To compensate for 
this increase, and to reduce the risk of VOCs evaporating into the air, 
refiners must blend ethanol gasoline with a low-RVP blendstock. This 
low-RVP blendstock is more expensive to produce or purchase.
    In order to make RFG with MTBE, refiners blend MTBE into gasoline. 
After mixture, the RFG is transported to distribution terminals by 
pipeline. Since ethanol is soluble in water, which is commonly found in 
pipelines, and will separate from gasoline, ethanol is usually blended 
at the distribution terminal. Because ethanol is produced primarily in 
the Midwest, though, it must be transported to terminals by either an 
ethanol-only pipeline, rail, marine or truck shipping or some 
combination of these options. It is possible that greater 
transportation connections between ethanol producers and terminals will 
have to be developed. The USDA study indicates that given a 3 to 5 year 
transition period, there does not appear to be a transportation 
impediment to the use of ethanol as a substitute for MTBE. (Ref. 38)
    Economic impacts are not likely to be shared equally among 
petroleum refiners/marketers. Each refinery processes different types 
of crude, supplies different mixes of products (e.g., some refineries 
do not manufacture any RFG), and use widely varying technologies. Areas 
of the country that rely heavily on MTBE as an oxygenate will 
experience a more pronounced economic effect in the event of an 
oxygenate replacement or removal (e.g., Texas, California, and 
Northeast RFG markets use MTBE, whereas the Chicago and Milwaukee RFG 
markets use ethanol). In addition, markets farthest from the Midwest 
may experience a greater effect due to increased transportation costs.
    The economic impact of using ethanol as an alternative to MTBE will 
be reflected primarily in the price of gasoline. A 1999 study by the 
DOE concluded that a phased elimination of MTBE as an additive for 
oxygenation in RFG in 4 years would result in an increase in the price 
of RFG of between 2.4 cents per gallon and 3.9 cents per gallon. (Ref. 
39) A California Energy Commission (CEC) study estimated that the price 
of gasoline in California would increase anywhere from 1.9 cents per 
gallon to 2.5 cents per gallon in the long term (6 years) if ethanol 
was substituted for MTBE. (Ref. 40) A Chevron/Tosco analysis estimated 
that gasoline prices in California would increase 1.9 cents per gallon 
in the long term (6 years) if ethanol was substituted for MTBE. (Ref. 
41)
    Pure ethanol is highly soluble in water, and hypothetically should 
travel in groundwater at about the same rate as MTBE. Ethanol is not 
expected to persist in groundwater, though, because it biodegrades 
easily. Thus, ethanol itself does not appear to pose as great a danger 
to groundwater supplies as MTBE.
    Ethanol's ability to biodegrade does present another potential 
issue of concern. Laboratory data and hypothetical modeling indicate 
that based on physical, chemical, and biological properties, ethanol 
will likely preferentially biodegrade in groundwater compared with 
other gasoline components. As a result, the levels of BTEX in water may 
decline more slowly, and BTEX plumes may extend further than they would 
without ethanol present. However, BTEX does not migrate as quickly as 
MTBE. Thus, even with the presence of ethanol, BTEX plumes would not be 
expected to travel as far as MTBE plumes. Although there are limited 
data regarding the movement of ethanol and BTEX, a recent USGS report 
cites several examples of MTBE plumes migrating further than BTEX 
plumes. (Ref. 42) At some sites, MTBE has migrated much further than 
other common gasoline components and those long travel distances 
increase the probability that MTBE will be detected in a drinking water 
well and that treatment may be required.
    The health effects of ingested ethanol have been extensively 
investigated. Given that ethanol is formed naturally in the body at low 
levels, inhalation exposure to ethanol at the low levels that human are 
likely to be exposed are generally not expected to result in adverse 
health effects. (Ref. 43) Ingestion of ethanol in relatively large 
quantities, increases the risks for several forms of human cancer. 
(Ref. 44) However, it is highly unlikely that the public will be 
exposed to large quantities of ethanol from drinking water 
contamination.
    When used as an oxygenate, ethanol blends of RFG achieve all Phase 
I goals of the RFG program. Ethanol is the primary oxygenate in Chicago 
and Milwaukee, and those areas have easily exceeded all Phase I 
performance requirements for VOCs, NOX and air toxics. Thus, 
use of ethanol as an oxygenate nationwide would not appear to 
compromise compliance with air quality requirements; refiners seem able 
to produce RFG using ethanol that complies with RFG emissions 
standards. The Panel did note, however, that Chicago and Milwaukee, 
while exceeding the Phase I requirements, do not appear to achieve as 
great a reduction in air toxics as do other RFG areas. It is unclear 
whether MTBE is responsible for this greater reduction in air toxics or 
other aspects of the formulation. Starting in the year 2000, all RFG 
areas will be subject to more stringent standards for VOC, 
NOX and toxics reductions, regardless of which oxygenate is 
used.
    2. Other ethers. A variety of other ethers (ETBE, DIPE, TAME) are

[[Page 16106]]

currently used in gasoline, though in limited quantities; these ethers 
provide approximately 5% of the oxygenate used in RFG. These other 
ethers have found only limited use because they are more expensive than 
MTBE. For example, greater volumes of ETBE and TAME are necessary to 
achieve the 2.0% weight standard compared to MTBE. Use of ETBE also 
requires large quantities of ethanol as feedstock. Production supplies 
of other ethers are also limited. The current production capacity in 
this country of TAME is approximately 23,000 b/d. Increasing ETBE 
production would require refitting MTBE plants, primarily in the Gulf 
South. Transportation issues could be similar to those involving 
increased use of ethanol. CEC estimates that gasoline prices will 
increase 2.4 cents per gallon if ETBE is used to replace MTBE. (Ref. 
45) This estimate is specific to California.
    Given their similarity to MTBE, other ethers are likely to display 
similar chemical properties--high solubility in groundwater, poor 
sorption in soil, and slower biodegradation compared to BTEX. MTBE has 
become a concern in large part because of its chemical properties. MTBE 
can travel farther than other gasoline constituents and can create 
larger contamination plumes, making it more likely to impact drinking 
water supplies. Other ethers are likely to demonstrate the same 
properties and thus could well raise similar water contamination 
concerns as MTBE. No studies have been reported on the carcinogenicity 
of ETBE, TAME, or TBA.

B. What Compounds Other Than MTBE Could be Added to Gasoline to Boost 
Octane?

    In addition to its use as an oxygenate, MTBE is also used as an 
octane enhancer in conventional gasoline. However, while MTBE is the 
dominant oxygenate additive in RFG, it is not the predominant octane 
enhancing additive in conventional gasoline. More conventional gasoline 
contains ethanol as an octane enhancer than contains MTBE for that 
purpose. In 1997, approximately 12,000 b/d of MTBE were used for octane 
enhancement purposes. If MTBE is banned or its use as an octane 
enhancer is limited, refineries will have to look to other alternatives 
to replace this source of octane. There are a limited number of octane-
rich components that refiners can choose to produce needed octane. 
Ethanol, alkylates, and aromatics are the three most likely available 
alternatives to MTBE for use as an octane enhancer in conventional 
gasoline. Ethanol as an additive is discussed in Unit V.A.1.
    1. Alkylates. Alkylates are a mix of high octane, low vapor 
pressure compounds that are produced from crude oil through a catalytic 
cracking process. Because of their desirable properties, alkylates are 
popular components for use in gasoline.
    In order for a refiner to use alkylates as an octane enhancer, the 
refiner must possess an alkylation unit. According to an industry 
estimate, an alkylation unit can cost up to $80 million for a refinery 
that produces 10,000 b/d of alkylate. (Ref. 46) Refiners that do not 
currently use alkylates would have to make a substantial initial 
capital investment in order to do so. In addition, refiners would need 
to adjust other component streams to accommodate the change in vapor 
pressure characteristics associated with a fuel containing high 
alkylate content.
    Supply of alkylates could be a key economic consideration. There 
are currently not enough domestic alkylates available to make up for 
the loss in MTBE volume. While increasing alkylate production is 
possible, it appears that refiners in California have limited 
possibilities for such an increase. Alkylate production on the East 
Coast and Gulf Coast also appears to be close to capacity. Given this 
situation, it may take refiners some number of years to modify 
facilities to produce enough alkylates to replace the octane 
enhancement currently provided by MTBE.
    It is unclear, however, how much alkylate is needed to replace MTBE 
as an octane enhancer. Only 12,000 b/d of MTBE are currently used for 
octane enhancement in conventional gasoline. MTBE has a higher octane 
value than alkylates, and a simple linear comparison of these values 
would conclude that 14,350 b/d of alkylates would be necessary to 
replace MTBE. This linear comparison would not take into account 
several factors important in determining the amount of alkylates used, 
such as the blend of gasoline. Refineries can be expected to react in 
different ways to these factors to maximize production and economic 
feasibility and to meet performance standards.
    Alkylates are less soluble in water, and they will not likely pose 
the same degree of risks to water resources as MTBE. Alkylates would be 
expected to behave more like other components of gasoline (BTEX) than 
like MTBE if released into the environment. Alkylates thus do not 
appear to pose a significant threat to drinking water resources.
    According to NESCAUM, increased use of alkylates in gasoline blends 
will not increase toxic emissions. (Ref. 47) However, the available 
human and aquatic toxicity data on alkylates are limited.
    2. Aromatics. Aromatics are hydrocarbons which can include benzene, 
toluene, and xylene. Toluene is the primary aromatic used for octane 
enhancing. NESCAUM estimates that current toluene production capacity 
may be sufficient to produce enough toluene to replace MTBE by volume. 
(Ref. 48) The aromatics are significantly less likely to end up in 
drinking water sources in significant quantities after release to the 
environment than is MTBE.
    Aromatics contain compounds that are known to have a range of 
potential human health effects. Benzene is a known human carcinogen, 
and xylene is a major contributor to smog. Toluene is associated with 
some toxic by-products, though it is less toxic than benzene.

VI. Specific Requests for Comment, Data, and Information

    Interested persons are invited to comment on any issue raised in 
this ANPRM. The Agency is particularly interested in receiving 
additional information and/or comments addressing the following issues:

A. EPA Action

    As explained in this ANPRM, EPA is initiating this process pursuant 
to TSCA section 6 to consider eliminating or limiting the use of MTBE 
in gasoline. EPA requests comment (including comments addressing the 
health, environmental, and/or cost implications) on:
    1. Whether some use of MTBE as a gasoline additive should be 
allowed to continue and, if so, the level or type of use that should be 
allowed to continue?
    2. How much lead time, if any, would be necessary to enable 
refiners to eliminate MTBE from RFG while continuing to meet the 
current levels of compliance with RFG standards for VOC, 
NOX, and toxic emissions without unacceptable impacts on the 
price or supply of fuel?
    3. How much lead time, if any, would be necessary to enable 
refiners to eliminate MTBE as an octane enhancer in conventional 
gasoline without unacceptable impacts on the price or supply of fuel?
    4. Whether EPA should obtain additional information on, or reduce, 
eliminate, or cap the use of any other gasoline additives in addition 
to MTBE?
    5. Whether MTBE presents significantly greater risk to public 
health

[[Page 16107]]

and/or water quality than alternative gasoline additives.

B. Releases of Gasoline Containing MTBE, Contamination of Water 
Resource by MTBE, and Remediation Technologies

    1. As explained in this ANPRM, the Agency identified numerous and 
widespread instances of MTBE contamination of groundwater. In order to 
ensure that EPA has the most recent and accurate data available, EPA 
requests information regarding incidents of both releases of gasoline 
containing MTBE and the detection of MTBE in groundwater, surface 
waters, or drinking water supplies. Comments should include, to the 
extent possible, the amounts, locations, sources, and types of MTBE 
releases, and the levels and sources of water resource contamination 
from MTBE.
    2. EPA is interested in additional information concerning the 
toxicity of MTBE, the levels at which its taste or odor can be detected 
in water, the levels at which its taste or odor makes water 
unacceptable to consumers, and any other properties of MTBE that may be 
relevant to a rulemaking under TSCA section 6.
    3. EPA's summary of current MTBE contamination problems suggests 
that there is significant risk of additional future contamination of 
water resources by MTBE from gasoline. In order to more comprehensively 
characterize this risk EPA is requesting comment regarding the likely 
future occurrence of MTBE contamination in groundwater, surface water, 
and/or drinking water.
    4. EPA is requesting information regarding the relative 
contribution of different sources (such as USTs, spills, storm water 
runoff, air deposition, and marine engines) to present and future MTBE 
contamination of groundwater, surface water, and drinking water.
    5. EPA is requesting information regarding the cost and efficacy of 
technologies for remediating soil and drinking water sources that have 
been contaminated with MTBE. EPA is particularly interested in examples 
of remediation efforts that have addressed MTBE contamination, and cost 
and efficacy comparisons with remediation efforts for other components 
of gasoline (such as BTEX).

C. Alternatives to MTBE

    1. EPA is requesting information on potential substitutes, 
including those not identified in this ANPRM, that might replace MTBE 
either as an oxygenate in RFG or an octane enhancer in conventional 
gasoline. In addition to identifying a potential substitute, any 
information addressing the following would be helpful:
    a. The basis for the belief that the substitute might replace MTBE 
in significant quantities.
    b. The behavior of the substitute in soil and water, with an 
emphasis on the quantities of the substitute that might find their way 
into drinking water sources if the substitute is added to gasoline.
    c. Toxicity, taste or odor properties, current exposure levels, or 
any other properties or considerations of the substitute that may be 
relevant to a rulemaking under TSCA section 6.
    2. EPA is interested in information based on actual releases of 
oxygenates and other gasoline additives other than MTBE to the 
environment; including degree of contamination, the spread of any 
contaminant plumes, and the cost and efficacy of the technologies 
available to remediate such contamination. Comments should include, to 
the extent possible, the amounts, locations, sources and types of 
releases, and the levels and sources of water resource contamination 
from these oxygenates and additives, as well as from other gasoline 
constitutents.
    3. EPA is interested in information regarding any possible impacts 
on health or the environment that might result from the elimination or 
limitation of use of MTBE as a gasoline additive and the use of 
alternative compounds in MTBE's place, including not only whether 
alternative additives may have a greater or lesser impact than MTBE on 
drinking water sources, but also whether increased use of such 
alternatives might have other beneficial or negative consequences on 
human health or the environment (such as air quality or water quality 
impacts).

D. Economic Considerations

    1. EPA is requesting comment on the cost impacts of an elimination 
or limitation of MTBE in gasoline, in the absence of a change in the 
RFG requirements. EPA is particularly interested in comments that 
address:
    a. The cost implications of an immediate elimination of MTBE from 
gasoline nationwide.
    b. The cost implications of an immediate nationwide limit on MTBE 
content in gasoline to pre-RFG levels or levels generally associated 
with the use of MTBE for purposes of octane enhancement.
    c. The cost implications of a phase out of MTBE from gasoline 
nationwide, resulting in complete elimination in a period of 3 to 4 
years or 5 to 6 years.
    d. The cost implications of a nationwide phase down of MTBE content 
in gasoline, over 3 to 4 years, resulting in a limit on MTBE content 
equivalent to pre-RFG levels or levels generally associated with the 
use of MTBE for purposes of octane enhancement.
    2. EPA is requesting comment regarding any information that was not 
considered by the Blue Ribbon Panel on the availability of alternative 
oxygenates and octane enhancers, the time it would take for production 
of alternatives to meet national demand, and the potential impacts on 
fuel supply and price.

VII. References

    1. Moran, Michael J., Zogorski, John S., and Squillance, Paul J. 
USGS. MTBE in Ground Water of the United States--Occurrence, Potential 
Sources, and Long Range Transport. Published in Proceedings of the 1999 
Water Resources Conference. American Water Works Association.
    2. USEPA, Office of Water. Drinking Water Advisory: Consumer 
Acceptability Advice and Health Effects Analysis on Methyl Tertiary-
Butyl Ether (MTBE). December 1997.
    3. Schirmer, Barker, J.F., Butler, B.J., Church, C.D., and 
Schirmer, K., 1998, Natural Attenuation of MTBE at the Bordon field 
site: in Wickramanayake, G.B., and Hinchee, R.E., Eds. Natural 
Attenuation: Chlorinated and Recalcitrant Compounds: The First 
International Conference on Remediation of Chlorinated and Recalcitrant 
Compounds. Monterey, California. May 18-21, Battelle Press. Columbus, 
OH. pp. 327-331.
    4. Borden, R.C., Daniel, R.A., LeBrun, L.E. IV, and Davis, C.W. 
Intrinsic biodegradation of MTBE and BTEX in a gasoline-contaminated 
aquifer: Water Resources Research. Vol. 33. No. 5. pp. 1105-1115. 1997.
    5. Alvarez, Pedro, et al. Health and Environmental Assessment of 
the Use of Ethanol as a Fuel Oxygenate. Potential Ground and Surface 
Water Impacts, The Effect of Ethanol on BTEX Biodegradation and Natural 
Attentuation. Vol. 4. pp. 3-12. December 1999.
    6. U.S. Energy Information Administration. Petroleum Supply Annual 
1998. Vol. 1. Table S4. p. 17. June 1999.
    7. U.S. Energy Information Administration (T. Litterdale and A. 
Bohn). Demand and Price Outlook for Phase 2 Reformulated Gasoline, 
2000. pp. 7-8. April 1999.
    8. Prah, J.D., et al. Sensory, Symptomatic, Inflammatory, and 
Ocular Responses to and the Metabolism of Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether 
in a Controlled Human Exposure

[[Page 16108]]

Experiment. Inhalation Toxicology. 6:521-528.
    9. API. Odor Threshold Studies Performed with Gasoline and Gasoline 
combined with MTBE, ETBE, and TAME. Washington DC. API #4592. 1993.
    10. Oxygenated Fuels Association. Technical Memorandum: Taste and 
Odor Properties of Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether and Implications for 
Setting a Secondary Maximum Contaminant Level. Prepared by Malcolm 
Pirnie. 1998.
    11. CENR. 1997 Interagency Assessment of Oxygenated Fuels. 
Committee on the Environment and Natural Resources (CENR), Office of 
Science and Technology Policy (OSTP), National Science and Technology 
Center, (NSTC). June 1997.
    12. USEPA, Office of Research and Development. 1994 Health Risk 
Perspectives on Fuel Oxygenates. Report EPA/600R-94/217.
    13. International Agency for Research on Cancer 
Monographs.Evaluation of Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether. Vol. 73. p. 339. 
1999
    14. National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, National 
Toxicology Program. Summary of RG1, RG2, and NTP Board Subcommittee 
Recommendations for the Report on Carcinogens. Ninth Edition.1998.
    15. Office of Science and Technology Policy, National Science and 
Technology Council. Interagency Assessment of Oxygenated Fuels. June 
1997.
    16. National Research Council (NRC). Toxicological and Performance 
Aspects of Oxygenated Motor Vehicle Fuels. June 1996.
    17. The Alliance for Proper Gasoline Handling. http://www.gas-care.org. New Alliance Launches Consumer ``Gas Care'' Campaign to 
Prevent Small Gasoline Spills. Press Release dated, July 27, 1999.
    18. Hunter, B., et al. Impact of Small Gasoline Spills on 
Groundwater, preliminary report abstract presented at the Maine Water 
Conference Meeting, April 1999, and NESCAUM, RFG/MTBE Findings and 
Recommendations. Boston, MA. August 1999.
    19. NESCAUM, RFG/MTBE Findings and Recommendations. Boston, MA. p. 
4. August 1999.
    20. NESCAUM, RFG/MTBE Findings and Recommendations. Boston, MA. 
August 1999.
    21. Reuter, J. E., et al. Concentrations, Sources and Fate of the 
Gasoline Oxygenate Methyl Ter-Butyl Ether (MTBE) in a Multiple-Use 
Lake. Environmental Science and Technology. 32, 3666-3672. 1998.
    22. Squillance, Paul, et al. A Preliminary Assessment of the 
Occurrence and Possible Sources of MTBE in Ground Water of the United 
States, 1993-1994. Environmental Science and Technology. Vol. 30. No. 
5. pp. 1721-1730. 1996.
    23. Zogorski, John, et al. MTBE Summary of Findings and Research by 
the U.S. Geological Survey. Proceedings of the 1998 Annual Conference 
of the American Water Works Association.
    24. Moran, Michael J., Zogorski, John S., and Squillance, Paul J. 
USGS. MTBE in Ground Water of the United States--Occurrence, Potential 
Sources, and Long Range Transport. Published in Proceedings of the 1999 
Water Resources Conference. American Water Works Association.
    25. Squillace, Paul, USGS. MTBE in the Nation's Ground Water, 
National Water--Quality Assessment (NAWQA) Program Results, 
Presentation Before the Blue Ribbon Panel on Oxygenates in Gasoline. 
April 29, 1999.
    26. USGS/USEPA Joint Study. Preliminary Findings of the 12-State 
MTBE Drinking Water Retrospective.
    27. State of Maine Bureau of Health, Department of Human Services, 
Bureau of Waste Management & Remediation, Department of Environmental 
Protection, Maine Geological Survey, and the Department of 
Conservation. Maine MTBE Drinking Water Study, The Presence of MTBE and 
other Gasoline Compounds in Maine's Drinking Water--Preliminary Report. 
1998.
    28. Siddiqui, Mohamed, et al. Occurrence of Perchlorate and Methyl 
Tertiary Butyl Ether (MTBE) in Ground Water of the American Water 
System. American Water Works Service Company Inc. September 30, 1998.
    29. Buscheck, T. E., Gallagher, D. J., Kuehne, D. L., Zuspan, C. R. 
Occurrence and Behavior of MTBE in Groundwater. Presented at: 
Underground Storage Tank Conference: '98 & Beyond. Los Angeles, CA. 
Sacramento, CA. State of California Water Resources Control Board. 
April 1998.
    30. Hitzig, Robert, et al. Study Reports LUST Programs Are Feeling 
Effects of MTBE Releases. Soil and Ground Water Clean-Up. pp. 15-19. 
August-September 1998.
    31. Robbins, G.A., Henebry, B.J., Schmitt, B.M., Bartolomeo, F.B., 
Green, A., and Zack, P. Evidence for MTBE in Heating Oil. Groundwater 
Monitoring and Remediation. Vol. 19. No.2. pp.65-69. 1999.
    32. U.S. Energy Information Administration. Petroleum Supply Annual 
1998. Vol. 1. Table S4. p. 17. June 1999.
    33. The Report of the Blue Ribbon Panel on Oxygenates in Gasoline. 
Achieving Clean Air and Clean Water.
    34. Delzer, G.C., Zogorski, J.S., Lopes, T.J., and Bosshart, R.L. 
Occurrence of Gasoline Oxygenate MTBE and BTEX Compounds in Urban 
Stormwater in the United States, 1991-1995. USGS Water-Resources 
Investigations Report. 96-4145. 1996.
    35. Office of Science and Technology Policy, National Science and 
Technology Council. Interagency Assessment of Oxygenated Fuels. June 
1997.
    36. Huggins, Jack. Submitted written comments on behalf of the 
Renewable Fuels Association at the April 1999 Meeting of the Blue 
Ribbon Panel on Oxygenates in Gasoline.
    37. Letter from Agriculture Secretary Dan Glickman to Senator Tom 
Harkin, dated November 15, 1999. Attached Analysis entitled ``Economic 
Analysis of Replacing MTBE with Ethanol in the United States.''
    38. USDA. Economic Analysis of Replacing MTBE with Ethanol in the 
United States. November 1999.
    39. DOE. Estimating the Refining Impacts of Revised Oxygenate 
Requirements for Gasoline: Follow-up Findings. May 1999.
    40. California Energy Commission. Supply and Cost Alternatives to 
MTBE in Gasoline. October 1998.
    41. MathPro. Potential Economic Benefits of the Feinstein-Bilbray 
Bill. March 18, 1999.
    42. Moran, Michael J., Zogorski, John S., and Squillance, Paul J. 
USGS. MTBE in Ground Water of the United States Occurrence, Potential 
Sources, and Long Range Transport, Published in Proceedings of the 1999 
Water Resources Conference. American Water Works Association.
    43. Blue Ribbon Panel. Achieving Clean Air and Clean Water. The 
Report of the Blue Ribbon Panel on Oxygenates in Gasoline. p. 85. 
September 1999.
    44. Office of Science and Technology Policy, National Science and 
Technology Council. Interagency Assessment of Oxygenated Fuels. June 
1997.
    45. California Energy Commission. Supply and Cost Alternatives to 
MTBE in Gasoline. October 1998.
    46. Estimate provided by industry representative via personal 
communication Sheldon Thompson, Senior Vice President and Chief 
Administrative Officer, Sunoco, Inc. via telephone communication and 
inquiry. February 2000.

[[Page 16109]]

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

VIII. Regulatory Assessment Requirements

A. Executive Order 12866

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), the EPA 
must determine whether a regulatory action is ``significant'' and 
therefore subject to Office of Management and Budget (OMB) review and 
the requirements of the Executive Order. The Executive Order defines 
``significant regulatory action'' as one that is likely to result in a 
rule that may:
    1. Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more, or 
adversely affects 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. Creates a serious inconsistency or otherwise interferes with an 
action taken or planned by another agency;
    3. Materially alters the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, 
user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients 
thereof; or
    4. Raises novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal 
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in 
the Executive Order.
    A draft of this ANPRM was reviewed by OMB prior to publication, as 
required by E.O. 12866. Any changes made in response to OMB suggestions 
or recommendations will be documented in the public record.

B. Federalism

    Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR 43255, August 
10, 1999), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure 
``meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the 
development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.'' 
``Policies that have federalism implications'' is defined in the 
Executive Order to include regulations that have ``substantial direct 
effects on the States, on the relationship between the national 
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and 
responsibilities among the various levels of government.'' Under 
Executive Order 13132, EPA may not issue a regulation that has 
federalism implications, that imposes substantial direct compliance 
costs, and that is not required by statute, unless the Federal 
government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance 
costs incurred by State and local governments, or EPA consults with 
State and local officials early in the process of developing the 
proposed regulation. The EPA also may not issue a regulation that has 
federalism implications and that preempts State law unless the EPA 
consults with State and local officials early in the process of 
developing the proposed regulation.
    If EPA complies by consulting, Executive Order 13132 requires EPA 
to provide to OMB, in a separately identified unit of the preamble to 
the rule, a federalism summary impact statement. The federalism summary 
impact statement must include a description of the extent of EPA's 
prior consultation with State and local officials, a summary of the 
nature of their concerns and the EPA's position supporting the need to 
issue the regulation, and a statement of the extent to which the 
concerns of State and local officials have been met. Also, when EPA 
transmits a draft final rule with federalism implications to OMB for 
review pursuant to Executive Order 12866, EPA must include a 
certification from the agency's Federalism Official stating that EPA 
has met the requirements of Executive Order 13132 in a meaningful and 
timely manner.
    EPA has determined that the requirements of Executive Order 13132 
do not apply to this ANPRM, and therefore the Executive Order does not 
apply to this ANPRM.

C. Small Business Concerns

    Section 603 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601 
et seq., as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement 
Fairness Act (SBREFA) of 1996, Public Law 104-121, requires the 
Administrator to assess the economic impact of proposed rules on small 
entities, including small businesses. The Agency accordingly requests 
comment on the potential economic impact on small business of the 
limitation or elimination of MTBE as an oxygenate or octane enhancer in 
gasoline. EPA does not anticipate, at this point, that the potential 
action discussed in this ANPRM will have a significant economic impact 
on small business. Comments on the potential economic impact of such an 
action on small businesses will help the Agency meet its obligations 
under the RFA, as amended by SBREFA, and will provide information to 
assist the Agency in its efforts to minimize any significant economic 
impact of such an action for potentially affected small businesses.

D. Children's Health Protection

    Executive Order 13045, entitled ``Protection of Children from 
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 
1997) applies to any rule that:
    1. Is determined to be ``economically significant'' as defined 
under E.O. 12866.
    2. Concerns an environmental health or safety risk that EPA has 
reason to believe may have a disproportionate effect on children.
    If the regulatory action meets both criteria, the Agency must 
evaluate the environmental health or safety effects of the planned rule 
on children, and explain why the planned regulation is preferable to 
other potentially effective and reasonably feasible alternatives 
considered by the Agency.
    While E.O. 13045 does not require EPA to evaluate the health or 
safety risks of actions discussed in an ANPRM, the Agency is, 
nonetheless, soliciting comment on such risks. The potential action 
discussed in this ANPRM might involve issues related to health or 
safety risks. To the extent that this is the case, the potential action 
would be intended to minimize or eliminate any such risks for all 
people who utilize groundwater resources, including children. We 
request comment on whether there are health or safety considerations 
related to the potential action discussed in this ANPRM that may 
disproportionately affect children.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 755

    Environmental protection, Air pollution, Fuel additives, Hazardous 
substances, Water resources.

    Dated: March 20, 2000.
Carol M. Browner,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 00-7323 Filed 3-21-00; 2:11 pm]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-F