[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 51 (Monday, March 17, 1997)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 12586-12590]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-6647]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 80
[FRL-5710-6]
Fuels and Fuel Additives; Elimination of Oxygenated Gasoline
Program Reformulated Gasoline (OPRG) Category From the Reformulated
Gasoline Regulations
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In this action, EPA is proposing to amend the reformulated
gasoline (RFG) regulations to eliminate the separate treatment for a
category of gasoline used in oxygen averaging. This category,
oxygenated gasoline program reformulated gasoline (OPRG), includes
gasoline intended for use in a state oxygenated gasoline program
control area during the winter time. Under the current RFG regulations,
a refiner must meet the oxygen content standards for the entire pool of
gasoline they produce, and for the pool of gasoline they produce that
is non-OPRG. EPA is proposing this action because it no longer believes
a distinction between OPRG and non-OPRG is necessary and because
removal of the OPRG category would add flexibility and reduce
compliance costs for regulated parties, without producing a negative
environmental impact.
DATES: Comments on this proposed rule must be received by April 16,
1997. EPA does not plan to hold a public hearing on this proposed rule,
unless one is requested. If a request is received by April 1, 1997, a
public hearing will be held. If such a hearing is held, comments must
be received within 30 days of the date of such hearing.
ADDRESSES: Written comments on this proposed action should be addressed
to Public Docket # A-97-01, Air Docket Section (Room M-1500, Waterside
Mall), Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M Street, SW., Washington,
DC 20460. Documents related to this proposed rule have been placed in
the public docket and may be inspected between the hours of 8:00 a.m.
to 5:30 p.m., Monday through Friday. A reasonable fee may be charged
for copying docket material. Those wishing to notify EPA of their
intent to request an opportunity for a public hearing on this action
should contact Anne-Marie
[[Page 12587]]
Pastorkovich, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air and
Radiation, (202) 233-9013.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Anne-Marie Pastorkovich, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air and Radiation, (202)
233-9013.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Regulatory Entities
Regulatory categories and entities potentially affected by this
action include:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Category Examples of regulated entities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry.............................. Refiners, importers, oxygenate
blenders of reformulated
gasoline.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a
guide for readers regarding entities likely to be regulated by this
action. This table lists the types of entities that EPA is now aware
could be potentially regulated by this action. Other types of entities
not listed in the table could also be regulated. To determine whether
your entity is regulated by this action, you should carefully examine
the existing provisions at 40 CFR sections 80.2, 80.65, 80.67, 80.69,
80.75, 80.77, 80.78, and 80.128, dealing specifically with OPRG. If you
have questions regarding the applicability of this action to a
particular entity, consult the person listed in the preceding FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.
II. Background
A. The Oxygen Standard Under the RFG Program
The federal RFG program is designed for the control of harmful
ground level ozone and toxic air pollutants through reformulation of
gasoline in ways that reduce emissions of air pollutants from motor
vehicles. Federal RFG is required by section 211(k) of the Clean Air
Act (``the Act'') in the nine largest cities with the worst ozone
problems beginning in January, 1995. In addition, other ozone
nonattainment areas are permitted to join the program (i.e., to ``opt
in'') at the request of the Governor of the state wherein the
nonattainment area(s) are located. EPA published final regulations for
the RFG program in the Federal Register on February 16, 1994.1 The
covered areas for the RFG regulations are specified at 40 CFR section
80.70.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ 59 FR 7812 (February 16, 1994).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 211(k) of the Act requires that RFG must contain at least
2.0 weight percent oxygen and further requires that the RFG regulations
issued by EPA allow for oxygen credit trading. These oxygen credit
provisions must ensure that each RFG area does not receive RFG with
less oxygen than it would without such averaging.2 Consistent with
the requirements of the Act, the final RFG regulations issued by EPA
allow refiners the option of electing to meet the oxygen standard on
average, and allow the generation, sale, purchase, and use of oxygen
credits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ See section 211(k)(2)(B) of the Act (2.0 percent oxygen by
weight standard) and section 211(k)(7) of the Act (provisions
dealing with averaging/credits).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Compliance with the RFG standards, including the oxygen standard,
is met on a refinery basis. A refiner who elects to meet the oxygen
standard on an averaging basis must meet an average oxygen content of
2.1 weight percent across all of the RFG he produces in an
averaging period,3 and the minimum oxygen content for an
individual gallon of gasoline is 1.5 weight percent oxygen,
for each of its refineries. In short, the average is met on a refinery-
by-refinery basis rather than on an RFG covered area-by-area basis.
This type of averaging permits maximum operational flexibility for
refiners. However, this type of averaging by a number of refiners also
means that a substantial amount of RFG may be produced with an oxygen
content that is higher than the standard, and a substantial amount that
is lower than the standard. Although the fungible distribution system
for gasoline means that the higher and lower oxygen content gasoline
should generally produce the same average oxygen content throughout the
covered areas where RFG is required, a general risk exists that one or
more areas might end up receiving RFG that has a lower oxygen content
on average than would occur if no averaging were allowed. To address
this concern, the requirements for averaging also require that refiners
who average must conduct gasoline quality surveys in each area where
their gasoline is distributed. If a survey is failed (i.e., the average
oxygen content in the area is less than 2.0 weight percent), the
minimum oxygen standard is made more stringent. The combination of a
survey requirement and tightening of the minimum standard upon a survey
failure provides an incentive for refiners to avoid conduct that could
lead to a survey failure, and reduces the likelihood of a problem
continuing once a survey is failed.4
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ The averaging period for oxygen credits corresponds with the
calendar year of January 1-December 31. See 40 CFR section
80.67(f)(1).
\4\ See 40 CFR 80.68 for gasoline quality survey requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The gasoline quality survey provisions require refiners who elect
to meet RFG standards on average, including the oxygen standard, to
either conduct surveys themselves or to participate in a consortium
with other refiners. The consortium sponsors a series of gasoline
quality surveys in each RFG area each year. If a survey shows that the
average oxygen content for an area is < 2.0="" weight="" percent,="" an="" additional="" 0.1="" weight="" percent="" minimum="" would="" be="" applied="" to="" the="" per-="" gallon="" minimum="" applicable="" to="" the="" averaging="" refiner.="" therefore,="" although="" the="" oxygen="" average="" standard="" would="" still="" be="" 2.1="" weight="" percent,="" the="" minimum="" oxygen="" standard="" for="" all="" refiners="" serving="" that="" failed="" area="" would="" be="" increased="" from="" 1.5="" weight="" percent="" oxygen="" to="" 1.6="" weight="" percent="" oxygen.="" future="" survey="" failures="" would="" result="" in="" additional="" increases="" of="" the="" minimum="" standard="" to="" the="" 2.0="" weight="" percent="">5 Based
upon preliminary survey data received for 1996, EPA is aware that
several RFG cities are reasonably expected to experience survey
failures for oxygen and, therefore, would experience a required
``ratcheting'' of the minimum oxygen standard for averaging from 1.5
weight% to 1.6 weight%.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ The regulations provide that the standard would be changed
to be more stringent, based on minimum oxygen survey failures. The
standard would subsequently be made less stringent, based on a
pattern of successful surveys.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Agency acknowledges that, if the separate averaging category
for OPRG is dropped, there is some marginal increase in the risk that
an area might receive RFG with too low oxygen content. This is because
oxygen credits generated in an oxygenated gasoline program area could
now be transferred to a non-oxygenated gasoline program area, resulting
in a lower ``actual'' oxygen content for the RFG used in that non-
oxygenated gasoline program area. However, the Agency believes that the
oxygen surveys are adequately designed to address this type of concern
and ``ratcheting'' of the minimum oxygen standard will be implemented
in failing areas as appropriate. The ratcheting of the minimum oxygen
standard should provide a strong incentive, over time, against conduct
leading to survey failures. Given this incentive, the marginal increase
in risk noted above does not warrant the regulatory burden from
retraining OPRG as a separate RFG category.
[[Page 12588]]
B. State Oxygenated Gasoline Programs and the Purpose of the OPRG
Category for RFG
Section 211(m) of the Act required that certain states implement
oxygenated gasoline programs by not later than November 1, 1992. The
control period for these oxygenated gasoline programs are based upon
the time period during which each area is prone to high ambient
concentrations of carbon monoxide (CO) and must be at least four months
in length. The oxygen content for gasoline in these areas is 2.7 weight
percent minimum, higher than the levels required for RFG. Because CO
tends to be a cold weather problem, the control periods tended to fall
during the winter months. Control periods are adopted by each
individual state as part of its oxygenated gasoline regulations. Four
of the original East coast oxygenated gasoline program Consolidated
Metropolitan Statistical Areas (CMSAs)/Metropolitan Statistical Areas
(MSAs) were also RFG covered areas. The Baltimore, Maryland MSA
(including areas within Maryland), the Washington DC-MD-VA CMSA
(including areas within the District of Columbia, Maryland, and
Virginia), and the Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, DE-MD-NJ-PA CMSA
(including areas within Pennsylvania, Maryland, and Southern New Jersey
6) have redesignated to attainment for CO and are no longer
required to implement oxygenated gasoline programs. The New York/New
Jersey/ Connecticut CMSA (which includes the several New York City and
State counties, Northern New Jersey, and Southern Connecticut areas) is
the only oxygenated gasoline/RFG overlap area that still exists. 7
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Delaware did not contain any CO nonattainment areas and was
not required to implement an oxygenated gasoline program.
\7\ The OPRG distinction does not apply in California areas
required to implement both the federal RFG and state oxygenated
gasoline programs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Although the survey requirements, discussed above, were designed to
reduce a risk that some areas might receive relatively low oxygen RFG,
EPA believed, at the time it issued the final RFG regulation, that the
overlap of these several winter oxygenated gasoline programs and the
RFG program presented an additional risk that allowing averaging for
oxygen might lead to certain RFG areas receiving, on average, RFG with
lower oxygen content than they would if averaging were not allowed.
Specifically, in developing the RFG regulations, EPA was concerned that
the requirement that refiners supply RFG with 2.7 weight percent oxygen
to oxygenated gasoline/RFG areas would lead, through the use of
transferable credits and averaging, to the use of RFG in non-oxygenated
gasoline/RFG areas with oxygen content significantly lower than would
occur without such averaging. To prevent this, the final RFG
regulations require refiners to designate all RFG as either OPRG
(intended for use in an oxygenated gasoline/RFG area during an
oxygenated gasoline control period), or as non-OPRG (gasoline other
than OPRG, e.g., non-oxygenated gasoline program reformulated
gasoline). Refiners are required to meet the oxygen standard separately
for non-OPRG, as well as for all RFG.8 In addition, OPRG and non-
OPRG oxygen credits must be identified and kept separate. OPRG and non-
OPRG also have physical segregation requirements and must be used
consistently with their designations.9
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Under the simple model, the oxygen average must be met
separately for VOC-controlled RFG.
\9\ See 59 FR 7772, footnote 56.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. Why the OPRG Category May Be Eliminated Now
Between 1993, when the final RFG rule was issued, and 1995, when
the RFG program was implemented, the number of overlapping oxygenated
gasoline program and RFG areas significantly decreased. Several areas
were redesignated to attainment with the National Ambient Air Quality
Standards (NAAQS) for CO and were no longer required to comply with the
winter oxygenated gasoline program requirements. There is now only one
area outside of California (see note 7), the New York/New Jersey/
Connecticut CMSA, that is still an oxygenated gasoline program/RFG
overlapping program area.
Although EPA is concerned that the statutory mandate for 2.0 weight
percent oxygen for RFG is met, the Agency feels that the specific risk
of uneven RFG quality due to overlapping oxygenated gasoline/RFG
program areas is significantly less than was expected when the RFG
regulations were promulgated. There is still some risk that an area
might receive relatively low oxygen RFG because of averaging, but the
risk is no longer as likely to be specifically caused by program
overlap.
There is only one oxygenated gasoline overlap area left outside of
California and the volume of gasoline expected to fall under the OPRG
category has been greatly reduced. Based upon EPA estimates made prior
to the beginning of the first year of the RFG program, approximately
one-third (33%) of all gasoline nationwide was predicted to be RFG.
Oxygenated gasoline program overlap areas outside of California
accounted for approximately one-third (33%) of the total RFG pool, with
approximately 19% going to the New York CMSA.10 EPA believes that
any risk that an area might receive low oxygen RFG is significantly
less than it appeared in 1993 or 1994. In 1994, roughly one-third of
RFG was expected to be destined for several oxygenated gasoline overlap
cities outside of California. In 1996, there is only one of these
oxygenated gasoline overlap areas left (i.e. the New York City CMSA).
Clearly, the New York CMSA consumes a large volume of RFG--based on
1994 estimates, 19% of the total RFG was expected to be destined for
New York--but this is still a significantly lower volume of gasoline
than the 33% that was originally estimated to be destined for all non-
California oxygenated gasoline overlap areas. Under these
circumstances, EPA believes that the risk that an area might receive
low oxygen RFG can be adequately addressed through another existing
compliance mechanism--the RFG surveys, discussed above, and the
additional restrictions based on the OPRG category do not provide
enough additional protection to warrant the burden they place on the
regulated community.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ It should be noted that, since these estimates were made in
1994, some areas have opted out of the RFG program and Sacramento,
California joined the program as a required covered area, and
comparative volume totals will have changed somewhat as a result.
These estimates are not based upon the comparative volume of OPRG to
RFG. Rather, they are ``straight'' estimates of program area's share
of the total RFG ``pool'' and are not broken down into compliance
categories. The reader should be aware that OPRG gasoline likely
represents a smaller, subset of the total volume represented for
each area. The document from which the volume estimates were taken
has been placed in the public docket at the location indicated in
the ADDRESSES section of this notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
III. Description of Today's Proposed Rule
EPA is proposing today to amend the Federal RFG regulations to
remove the use of a separate OPRG category and to eliminate the
distinction between OPRG and non-OPRG. The following sections would be
affected by today's proposal. In most cases, the changes are minor and
would remove references to, and distinctions between, the eliminated
OPRG category and RFG which is non-OPRG.
[[Page 12589]]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
40 CFR part 80, section Description of change
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 80.2--Definitions. 80.2(nn).... Definition of ``Oxygenated
gasoline program reformulated
gasoline,'' or OPRG'' is
proposed to be deleted.
Section 80.65--General requirements for Requirements for designation of
refiners, importers, and oxygenate gasoline as OPRG or non-OPRG
blenders. 80.65(d)(2)(iii) (A) and (B). are proposed to be deleted.
Section 80.67--Compliance on average. Propose to delete requirements
80.67(f)(2)(ii), 80.67(h)(v) (A) and to meet oxygen average
(B). separately and to segregate
credits for non-OPRG, since
the OPRG versus non-OPRG
distinction would be
eliminated.
Section 80.69--Requirements for Propose to delete these sub-
downstream oxygen blending. 80.69(f) sections, as there would no
(1) and (2). longer be a category known as
``OPRG.''
Section 80.75--Reporting requirements. For 80.75 (f)(2)(ii)(A) (1)
80.75(f)(2)(ii)(A) (1) through (4) and through (4), propose to
(B) (1) and (2); 80.75 (f)(2)(iii)(B); eliminate the OPRG and non-
80.75(h)(2) (i) and (ii). OPRG distinction. Thus, the
only categories remaining
would be VOC-controlled
(divided into subcategories 1
and 2) and non-VOC-controlled
RFG. Propose to delete 80.75
(f)(2)(ii)(B) (1) and (2) and
to eliminate to OPRG and non-
OPRG distinction. Propose to
delete 80.75(f)(2)(iii)(B),
which refers to gasoline
designated as non-OPRG.
Section 80.77--Product transfer Propose to delete requirement
documentation. 80.77 (g)(1)(ii). to identify gasoline as OPRG
or non-OPRG.
Section 80.78--Controls and The existing section prohibits
prohibitions on reformulated gasoline. addition of oxygen to finished
80.78(a)(6). RFG, unless such RFG is
designated as OPRG used in an
oxygenated gasoline control
area during the oxygenated
gasoline control period.
Propose to amend this OPRG
``exception'' to allow for
elimination of the OPRG/non-
OPRG categories. Specifically,
the proposed amended section
would allow for addition of
oxygenate to RFG intended for
and used in an oxygenate
gasoline program area.
Sections 80.128 and 80.129-- Agreed Propose to remove requirement
upon procedures for refiners and to compare PTD designation
importers and Agreed upon procedures consistency for OPRG versus
for oxygenate blenders. 80.128(d)(2) non-OPRG. Propose to remove
and 80.129 (d)(3)(iv). similar requirement for
downstream oxygenate blenders.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
IV. Statutory Authority
Section 114, 211, and 301(a) of the Clean Air Act as amended (42
U.S.C. 7414, 7545, and 7601(a)).
V. Environmental Impact
This rule is expected to have no environmental impact. The original
reason for the OPRG category was concern that RFG quality might suffer
in areas that were not both oxygenated gasoline program and RFG areas.
There were several such areas when the RFG rules were promulgated.
However, there is only one area, the New York/New Jersey/Connecticut
CMSA, which has overlapping programs during the winter months.
VI. Economic Impact
Today's proposed regulation would have a positive economic impact
on parties covered by the RFG regulation. The elimination of the OPRG/
non-OPRG distinction would result in increased flexibility for
regulated parties. Specifically, elimination of this distinction from
the RFG regulations would alleviate the burden and cost associated with
maintenance of separate recordkeeping, reporting, and product transfer
documentation category for OPRG and non-OPRG gasoline. Elimination of
the OPRG/non-OPRG distinction may also be expected to result in a
general reduction of compliance costs associated with the need to meet
the oxygen average separately for two classes of RFG.
VII. Regulatory Flexibility
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency
to conduct a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to
notice and comment rulemaking requirements unless the agency certifies
that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small
businesses, small not-for-profit enterprises, and small governmental
jurisdictions. This proposed rule would not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities because it is not
expected to result in any additional compliance costs to regulated
parties. It should instead reduce costs and increase flexibility
allowed under the regulations by removing one category of gasoline for
oxygen averaging, the OPRG category, and eliminating in large part the
distinction between OPRG and non-OPRG gasoline. Therefore, I certify
that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
VIII. Executive Order 12866
Under Executive Order 12866,11 the Agency must determine
whether a regulation is ``significant'' and therefore subject to
interagency review under the Executive Order. The Order defines
``significant regulatory action'' as one that is likely to result in a
rule that may:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ 58 FR 51735 (October 4, 1993).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more,
or adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the
economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public
health or safety, or State, local or tribal governments of communities;
(2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an
action taken or planned by another agency;
(3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants,
user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients
thereof, or
(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in
this Executive Order.12
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ Id. at section 3(f) (1)-(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
It has been determined that this rule is not a ``significant
regulatory action'' under the terms of Executive Order 12866 and is
therefore not subject to interagency review under the Order.
IX. Unfunded Mandates
Under Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
(''UMRA''), P.L. 104-4, EPA must prepare a budgetary impact statement
to accompany any general notice of proposed rulemaking or final rule
that includes a Federal mandate which may result in estimated costs to
State, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate,
[[Page 12590]]
or to the private sector, of $100 million or more. Under Section 205,
for any rule subject to Section 202 EPA generally must select the least
costly, most cost-effective, or least burdensome alternative that
achieves the objectives of the rule and is consistent with statutory
requirements. Under Section 203, before establishing any regulatory
requirements that may significantly or uniquely affect small
governments, EPA must take steps to inform and advise small governments
of the requirements and enable them to provide input.
EPA has determined that the rule proposed today does not include a
federal mandate as defined in UMRA. The rule does not include a Federal
mandate that may result in estimated annual costs to State, local or
tribal governments in the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100
million or more, and it does not establish regulatory requirements that
may significantly or uniquely affect small governments.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 80
Environmental protection, Fuel additives, Gasoline, Imports,
Labeling, Motor vehicle pollution, Penalties, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
Dated: March 10, 1997.
Carol M. Browner,
Administrator.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, 40 CFR part 80 is proposed
to be amended as follows:
PART 80--REGULATION OF FUELS AND FUEL ADDITIVES
1. The authority citation for part 80 continues to read as follows:
Authority: Secs. 114, 211, and 301(a) of the Clean Air Act as
amended (42 U.S.C. 7414, 7545, and 7601(a)).
Sec. 80.2 [Amended]
2. Section 80.2 is proposed to be amended by removing and reserving
paragraph (nn).
Sec. 80.65 [Amended]
3. Section 80.65 is proposed to be amended by removing and
reserving paragraph (d)(2)(iii).
4. Section 80.67 is proposed to be amended by removing and
reserving paragraph (f)(2)(ii) and by revising paragraphs
(h)(1)(v)(A)(1) and (h)(1)(v)(A)(2) and by removing and reserving
paragraph (h)(1)(v)(B) to read as follows:
Sec. 80.67 Compliance on average.
* * * * *
(f) * * *
(2) * * *
(ii) [Reserved]
* * * * *
(h) * * *
(1) * * *
(v) * * *
(A) * * *
(1) VOC controlled; and
(2) Non-VOC controlled.
(B) [Reserved]
* * * * *
Sec. 80.69 [Amended]
5. Section 80.69 is proposed to be amended by removing paragraph
(f).
6. Section 80.75 is proposed to be amended by revising paragraphs
(f)(2)(ii)(A)(1), (f)(2)(ii)(A)(2), (h)(2)(i)(A) and (h)(2)(i)(B) and
by removing paragraphs (f)(2)(ii)(A)(3), (f)(2)(ii)(A)(4),
(h)(2)(i)(C), (h)(2)(i)(D), and removing and reserving (h)(2)(ii) to
read as follows:
Sec. 80.75 Reporting requirements.
* * * * *
(f) * * *
(2) * * *
(ii) * * *
(A) * * *
(1) Gasoline designated as VOC-controlled; and
(2) Gasoline designated as non-VOC-controlled.
* * * * *
(h) * * *
(2) * * *
(i) * * *
(A) VOC-controlled; and
(B) Non-VOC-controlled.
* * * * *
Sec. 80.77 [Amended]
7. Section 80.77 is proposed to be amended by removing and
reserving paragraph (g)(1)(ii).
8. Section 80.78 is proposed to be amended by revising paragraph
(a)(6) to read as follows:
Sec. 80.78 Controls and prohibitions on reformulated gasoline.
(a) * * *
(6) No person may add any oxygenate to reformulated gasoline,
except that such oxygenate may be added to reformulated gasoline
provided that such gasoline is used in an oxygenated fuels program
control area during an oxygenated fuels control period.
* * * * *
9. Section 80.128 is proposed to be amended by revising paragraph
(d)(2) to read as follows:
Sec. 80.128 Agreed upon procedures for refiners and importers.
* * * * *
(d) * * *
(2) Compare the product transfer documents designation for
consistency with the time and place, and compliance model designations
for the tender (VOC-controlled or non-VOC-controlled, VOC region for
VOC-controlled, summer or winter gasoline, and simple or complex model
certified); and
* * * * *
10. Section 80.129 is proposed to be amended by revising paragraph
(d)(3) (iv) to read as follows:
Sec. 80.129 Agreed upon procedures for downstream oxygenate blenders.
* * * * *
(d) * * *
(3) * * *
(iv) Review the time and place designations in the product transfer
documents prepared for the batch by the blender, for consistency with
the time and place designations in the product transfer documents for
the RBOB (e.g. VOC-controlled or non-VOC-controlled, VOC region for
VOC-controlled, and simple or complex model).
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 97-6647 Filed 3-14-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE: 6560-50-P
