[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 133 (Friday, July 11, 1997)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 37338-37406]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-17029]
[[Page 37337]]
_______________________________________________________________________
Part II
Environmental Protection Agency
_______________________________________________________________________
40 CFR Part 80
Regulation of Fuels and Fuel Additives: Modifications to Standards and
Requirements for Reformulated and Conventional Gasoline; Proposed Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 133 / Friday, July 11, 1997 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 37338]]
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 80
[FRL 5850-6]
RIN 2060-AG76
Regulation of Fuels and Fuel Additives: Modifications to
Standards and Requirements for Reformulated and Conventional Gasoline
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Through the amended Clean Air Act of 1990, Congress mandated
that EPA promulgate regulations requiring that gasoline sold in certain
areas be reformulated to reduce vehicle emissions of toxic and ozone-
forming compounds. The EPA published rules for the certification and
enforcement of reformulated gasoline (RFG) and provisions for non-
reformulated or conventional gasoline on February 16, 1994.
Based on experience gained since the promulgation of these
regulations, EPA is proposing a variety of changes to the regulations
relating to emissions standards, emissions models, compliance related
requirements and enforcement provisions. The proposed changes involve
both the reformulated and conventional gasoline programs. Many of the
changes codify guidance issued by the Agency since the initial adoption
of these gasoline programs. These changes are in the nature of minor
adjustments to the structure of these programs. The emissions benefits
achieved from reformulated gasoline will not be reduced.
DATES: The comment period on this proposed action will close August 11,
1997, unless a hearing is requested, in which case the comment period
will close 30 days after the close of the public hearing. EPA will
conduct a hearing (date and location to be announced) if a request for
such is received by July 18, 1997.
ADDRESSES: Written comments on this proposed action should be addressed
to Public Docket No. A-97-03, Waterside Mall (Room M-1500),
Environmental Protection Agency, Air Docket Section, 401 M Street, SW,
Washington, DC 20460. The Agency requests that commenters also send a
copy of any comments to Marilyn Bennett, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Office of Air and Radiation, at the address listed in the For
Further Information Contact section. Those wishing to notify EPA of
their intent to submit adverse comment or request an opportunity for a
public hearing on this action should contact Marilyn Bennett at (202)
233-9006. Materials relevant to the final rule establishing standards
for reformulated gasoline and anti-dumping standards for conventional
gasoline are contained in Public Dockets--A-92-01 and A-92-12, and are
incorporated by reference.
The preamble, regulatory language and regulatory support document
are also available electronically from the EPA Internet Web site and
via dial-up modem on the Technology Transfer Network (TTN), which is an
electronic bulletin board system (BBS) operated by EPA's Office of Air
Quality Planning and Standards. Both services are free of charge,
except for your existing cost of Internet connectivity or the cost of
the phone call to TTN. Users are able to access and download files on
their first call using a personal computer per the following
information. The official Federal Register version is made available on
the day of publication on the primary Internet sites listed below. The
EPA Office of Mobile Sources also publishes these notices on the
secondary Web site listed below and on the TTN BBS.
Internet (Web)
http://www.epa.gov/docs/fedrgstr/EPA-AIR/
(either select desired date or use Search feature)
http://www.epa.gov/OMSWWW/
(look in What's New or under the specific rulemaking topic)
TTN BBS: 919-541-5742
(1200-14400 bps, no parity, 8 data bits, 1 stop bit)
Voice Helpline: 919-541-5384
Off-line: Mondays from 8 am to 12 Noon ET
A user who has not called TTN previously will first be required to
answer some basic informational questions for registration purposes.
After completing the registration process, proceed through the
following menu choices from the Top Menu to access information on this
rulemaking.
Gateway to TTN Technical Areas (Bulletin Boards)
OMS--Mobile Sources Information
(Alerts display a chronological list of recent documents)
Rulemaking & Reporting
At this point, choose the topic (e.g., Fuels) and subtopic (e.g.,
Reformulated Gasoline) of the rulemaking, and the system will list all
available files in the chosen category in date order with brief
descriptions. To download a file, type the letter ``D'' and hit your
Enter key. Then select a transfer protocol that is supported by the
terminal software on your own computer, and pick the appropriate
command in your own software to receive the file using that same
protocol. After getting the files you want onto your computer, you can
quit the TTN BBS with the oodbye command.
Please note that due to differences between the software used to
develop the document and the software into which the document may be
downloaded, changes in format, page length, etc. may occur.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Marilyn Bennett, Fuels and Energy
Division, U.S. EPA, 401 M Street, SW (6406J), Washington, DC 20460.
Telephone: (202) 233-9006.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Regulated Entities
Regulated categories and entities potentially affected by this
action include:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Category Examples of regulated entities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry.............................. Refiners, importers, and
distributors of motor vehicle
fuel; motor vehicle fuel retail
outlets and wholesale purchaser-
consumer facilities; facilities
that act as independent
laboratories.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 applicability criteria of part 80, subparts D, E and F, of title 40
of the Code of Federal Regulations. If you have questions regarding
applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person
listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.
Today's preamble explains the basis for the regulatory changes and
the purpose of the proposed rule. The remainder of this preamble is
organized into the following sections:
I. Corrections of Typographical Errors and Minor Revisions
II. General Fuels Provisions
III. RFG and Anti-dumping Standards/Models
IV. RFG Compliance Requirements
V. Enforcement
VI. Anti-dumping Requirements
VII. Attest Engagements
[[Page 37339]]
VIII. Environmental and Economic Impacts
IX. Public Participation
X. Regulatory Flexibility
XI. Executive Order 12866
XII. Paperwork Reduction Act
XIII. Unfunded Mandates Act
XIV. Statutory Authority
I. Corrections of Typographical Errors and Minor Revisions
Sec. 80.2(w)................ The reference to the cetane index test
method is removed and added as Sec.
80.3(e). As a replacement, a definition
is proposed for ``previously certified
gasoline'' to mean RFG and conventional
gasoline that has been produced or
imported in conformance with applicable
requirements and included in the
refinery, oxygenate blender or importer
compliance calculations.
Sec. 80.2(y)................ The reference to the sulfur content test
method is removed and added as Sec.
80.3(f). This section is revised to
conform to the sulfur test method in
Sec. 80.46(a).
Sec. 80.2(z)................ The reference to the aromatics content
test method is removed and added as Sec.
80.3(g). This section is revised to
limit the test method to use for diesel
fuel only to avoid conflict with the
test method for aromatics content of RFG
in Sec. 80.46(f).
Sec. 80.2(ee)............... Revises the definition of reformulated
gasoline to delete the requirement for a
gasoline marker under Sec. 80.82.
Sec. 80.2(gg)............... Revises definition of gasoline ``batch''
to make this definition apply to
conventional gasoline as well as to RFG.
Sec. 80.41(d)............... Revises chart to replace ``32.6'' for VOC per-gallon minimum
reduction with ``32.6'' and
replace ``-2.5'' with ``-2.5'' for per-gallon minimum NOX
performance reduction (percent).
Sec. 80.45(c)(1)(iv)(B)..... Corrects several small typographical
errors in both the Phase I and Phase II
equations.
Sec. 80.45(c)(1)(iv)(D)(12). Corrects typographical error by changing
``(E300 X 72 percent)'' to ``(E300--72
percent).''
Sec. 80.45 (c)(1)(iv)(D) Corrects typographical error by changing
(13). Phase I coefficients to Phase II
coefficients, i.e. change ``80.32 +
(0.390 X ARO)'' to ``79.75 + (0.385 X
ARO).''
Sec. 80.45(d)(1)(iv)(B)..... Corrects typographical errors to the
equation.
Sec. 80.45(f)(1)(i)......... Corrects the entry for aromatics
``acceptable range'' to read ``0.0--55.0
volume percent.''
Sec. 80.49(a)............... Corrects typographical error. There is a
reference to section 80.43(c), which is
incorrect. The proper reference is to
section 80.49(a)(5)(i).
Sec. 80.49(a)(1)............ Corrects typographical error in formula
at the bottom of the new parameter under
Fuel 2. Changes from ``C+B/2'' to
``(C+B)/2.''
Sec. 80.49(a)(3)............ Corrects typographical error. There is a
reference to Sec. 80.43(c), which is
incorrect. The proper reference is to
Sec. 80.49(a)(5)(i).
Sec. 80.49(b)............... Corrects typographical error. There is a
reference to Sec. 80.43(c), which is
incorrect. The proper reference is to
Sec. 80.49(a)(5)(i).
Sec. 80.50(a)(2)............ Corrects reference to ``extension fuels
per the requirements of Sec. 80.49(a)''
to read ``extension fuels per the
requirements of Sec. 80.49(b).''
Sec. 80.65(e)(2)(ii)(B)..... Revises to apply to importers as well as
refiners.
Sec. 80.65(g)............... Revises to delete heading: ``Marking of
conventional gasoline.''
Sec. 80.68(b)(2)(ii)........ Revises the word ``area'' to read
``area(s)'' to clarify the application
of the equation to a situation in which
more than one area fails a survey or
survey series in a single year.
Sec. 80.69(a)(6)(iv)........ Revises to add reference to Sec.
80.69(e)(2).
Sec. 80.69(e)............... Revises to clarify reference by removing
``who obtains any RBOB in any gasoline
delivery truck'' and adding ``other than
a terminal storage tank blender
specified in Sec. 80.69(c)'.
Sec. 80.69(e)(2)(i)(A)...... Revises to add the word ``to.''
Sec. 80.69(e)(2)(v)......... Corrects reference to Sec.
80.70(b)(2)(i). The correct reference is
to Sec. 80.65(e)(2)(i).
Sec. 80.75(a)............... Revises to require refiners, importers,
and oxygenate blenders to include
notification to EPA of per-gallon versus
average election with the first
quarterly reports submitted each year.
Sec. 80.75(a)(3)............ Revises to add a new Sec. 80.75(a)(3)
which provides a mathematical equation
for converting weight percent oxygen
from an oxygenate to volume percent
oxygenate.
Sec. 80.77(c)............... Revises to add reference to RBOB.
Sec. 80.77(f)............... Revises to add reference to RBOB.
Sec. 80.128(e)(2)........... Revises by changing reference from Sec.
80.69(a)(9) to Sec. 80.69(a)(2).
II. General Fuels Provisions
A. Test Methods (Sec. 80.3; RFG Test Methods Sec. 80.46)
1. Replacement of Lead and Phosphorus Test Methods with Industry
Standard Test Methods (Secs. 80.3 (a) and (b))
40 CFR part 80, appendices A and B, specify the test methods that
are used for determining, respectively, the phosphorus content and the
lead content of gasoline. Today's proposal would remove appendices A
and B and add Secs. 80.3 (a) and (b) which would require the use of
ASTM method D 3231-94 for phosphorus and methods D 3237-90 or D 5059-92
for lead. The phosphorus and lead test methods are used primarily to
determine compliance with the standards under Secs. 80.22 and 80.23,
dealing with the unleaded gasoline program. Also, under
Sec. 80.41(h)(1), RFG may contain no heavy metals. As a result, the
proposed lead test method would be used for determining the presence of
this heavy metal in RFG.
The test methods in appendices A and B of 40 CFR part 80 originally
were adopted from ASTM standard test methods. Over time, however, ASTM
has updated their test methods, while EPA has not. EPA believes the
current ASTM test methods are equivalent to the methods currently in
the regulations, and are more consistent with the test methods
regulated parties normally use for commercial purposes. As a result,
the proposed test methods would be appropriate for determining
compliance with the provisions of 40 CFR part 80.
EPA believes there would be little additional burden on the
regulated industry if the proposed phosphorus and lead test methods
were adopted. Initially, EPA understands that the proposed test methods
are the current industry standard test methods, so most gasoline
testing laboratories already are equipped to conduct the proposed test
[[Page 37340]]
methods. In addition, there is no requirement for regulated parties to
test their gasoline for phosphorus or lead under either the unleaded
gasoline or the RFG regulations, so parties would not be obligated to
use the proposed test methods at all. Rather, the phosphorus and lead
test methods in the regulations are used by EPA to determine if
gasoline meets standards for these metals. EPA or a regulated party
also could use non-regulatory phosphorus or lead test methods. However,
in an enforcement proceeding, the results from non-regulatory test
methods would only constitute evidence of the results that would have
been obtained if the regulatory test method had been conducted on the
gasoline at issue.
2. Reformulated Gasoline Test Methods (Secs. 80.46 (a) Through (g))
In Sec. 80.46, test methods were specified for the measurement of
the regulated properties of reformulated gasoline. Many of the test
methods designated in the original rule were consensus standards,
prepared and maintained by ASTM. Since the original issuance of the
rule, some of these methods have been updated. EPA is now proposing to
replace the current regulatory methods with the updated versions of
these methods for the measurement of sulfur, olefins, and distillation
parameters. In addition, EPA is proposing an alternative test method
(ASTM D 5453-93) for determining the sulfur content in conventional
gasoline until September 1, 1998. This proposed alternative test method
is discussed in Section VI.B.6. The proposed updated methods all are
finally approved ASTM test methods. In addition, ASTM has developed a
method (ASTM D 5599-95) that is the same as the procedure for the
measurement of oxygenates at Secs. 80.46(g) (1) through (8), and EPA
proposes to replace Secs. 80.46(g) (1) through (8) with a reference to
the ASTM method. For the measurement of RVP, EPA proposes to eliminate
the appendix containing EPA Method 3 (appendix E), and designate ASTM D
5191-96 as the required method, with the exception that the correlation
equation as described in EPA Method 3 must be used in place of the
correlation equation described in ASTM D 5191-96. ASTM D 5191-96 is
identical to the RVP test method in appendix E when the correlation
equation from EPA Method 3 is used with the ASTM method. In all cases,
these changes do not amount to a deviation in method, or significant
change in procedure. Most of the ASTM changes revolve around
improvements in quality statements. The inclusion of ASTM D 5599-95 for
oxygenates is the result of ASTM preparing a test method that is
consistent with that previously defined in the Federal Register.
The test method previously designated for benzene, ASTM D 3606, has
been updated since the original publication of the rule. However, the
parameters must be adjusted to allow for the resolution of ethanol and
methanol from the benzene. In addition, the EPA GC/MS method has been
demonstrated through ASTM round-robin testing to be an equivalent
method for the measurement of benzene. Since the use of the EPA GC/MS
method would allow two parameters (benzene and aromatics) to be
performed with a single test, EPA believes the use of the EPA GC/MA
method for the measurement of benzene would result in a reduced burden
to the regulated industry, and, therefore, is proposing to allow its
use as an alternate test procedure for the measurement of benzene in
gasoline.
3. Butane Test Methods (Sec. 80.46(h))
Blendstocks require the same full set of parameter measurements as
reformulated gasoline, since final properties must be extrapolated for
all final blends. When butane designated for blending must be tested,
the designated methods are generally not applicable, since the
properties for butane typically fall outside the scope of the methods.
Therefore, EPA is proposing to designate several test methods
specifically for butane blendstock testing. ASTM D 2163-91 and D 5623-
94 have been identified as suitable methods for the measurement of
light hydrocarbons and sulfur respectively. The Gas Producers
Association (GPA) has developed a method for the measurement of benzene
and aromatics in butane. This method is GPA 2186-95. EPA is not
proposing to designate a method for measuring olefins in butane. No
consensus method currently exists for measuring total olefins in butane
blendstocks. ASTM D 2163-91 will measure the lighter olefins, but not
any heavier ones in the mix. EPA has identified a proprietary method,
known as the Wasson ECE 383-01 method, which measures all of the
olefinic compounds in the blendstock. This method is not a consensus
standard, but is of the type that would be acceptable, due to its
ability to measure total olefins.
4. Volatility Test Methods (Secs. 80.3 (c) and (d))
As discussed above, for the measurement of RVP, EPA proposes to
eliminate the appendix containing EPA Method 3 (appendix E) and
designate ASTM D 5191-96 as the regulatory method, with the exception
that the correlation equation as described in EPA Method 3 must be used
in place of the correlation equation described in ASTM D 5191-96.
The measurement of alcohols, especially ethanol, for the volatility
rule has been described in detail in appendix F of 40 CFR part 80. In
this appendix, Method 1 describes a water extraction method, and Method
2 details a chromatographic procedure (an older version of ASTM D
4815.) In an effort to harmonize methods, EPA believes it would reduce
the testing burden to allow test methods that are consistent with the
reformulated gasoline rule. As a result, EPA proposes to eliminate
Appendix F and designate ASTM D 5599-95 as the method for the
measurement of alcohols in gasoline for the purpose of complying with
the volatility regulations. Consistent with the reformulated gasoline
rule, the use of ASTM D 4815-94a will be allowed as an alternate as
long as this use is allowed under the reformulated gasoline rule.
5. Diesel Fuel Test Methods (Secs. 80.3 (e), (f), and (g))
When the diesel sulfur rule was originally published by EPA,
several methods were included for the measurement of the regulated
properties. Included in these properties are sulfur concentration,
cetane index, and aromatic content. The current designated test for
sulfur is ASTM D 2622-87, with D 4294-83 being an allowable alternate.
As discussed above, EPA proposes to substitute the current regulatory
test method for sulfur, D 2622-87, with the latest version of this
method, D 2622-94. EPA also proposes to substitute the alternate method
for determining sulfur content in diesel fuel, D 4294-83, with the
latest version, D 4294-90(1995), and substitute the current test method
for cetane index, ASTM D 976-80, with the latest version, D 976-91.
The test for aromatics in diesel had been designated to be ASTM D
1319-88. EPA recognizes that ASTM describes this test as inadequate for
the measurement of the aromatic content in diesel fuel. For some time,
EPA has been performing ASTM D 5186 in parallel with D 1319, and found
D 5186 to be superior in both precision and accuracy. The primary
difficulty in changing from the use of D 1319 to D 5186 to measure
compliance lies in the units reported by the two methods. The
regulation specifies a limit on the aromatic content in volume per-
cent, coincidentally the same units reported
[[Page 37341]]
by D 1319. Unfortunately, D 5186 reports results in mass per-cent. In
order to comply with the regulation, these results must be converted to
volume per-cent. EPA proposes to apply a conversion factor to the
results. The equation to be used for the conversion of mass per-cent
diesel aromatics to volume per-cent diesel aromatics is:
Vol% = (Mass% * 0.916) + 1.33
Where Mass% refers to the output from D 5186-96, the SFC test.
This equation is identical to that used by CARB in their conversion
of mass per-cent results to volume per-cent results for the affirmation
of regulatory limits.
This change should not impose any additional financial burden on
industry, since it is not a required test. The option of measuring
aromatics was originally placed in the rule to allow an alternate to
the requirement that low sulfur fuels meet a minimum requirement of a
40 cetane index. The intent was to regulate aromatic content, and it
was found that some fuels with high napthenic content could actually be
very low in aromatics, yet still not meet the 40 cetane index level.
The option to test for aromatic content would only be exercised if a
fuel fails to meet the required cetane index level, a relatively
infrequent occurrence.
6. Table of Test Methods
The following table sets out the test methods currently required
under the fuels regulations at 40 CFR part 80, and the corresponding
proposed test methods:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Parameter Old test New test
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reformulated Gasoline:
RVP............................... EPA Method 3.................. ASTM 5191-96, except that equation is as
in Method 3.
Benzene........................... ASTM D3606-92, with exceptions ASTM D3606-96, also with exceptions. In
for Methanol and Ethanol. addition, the use of the EPA GC/MS
Method for the measurement of Benzene
will now be allowed as an alternate.
Distillation...................... ASTM D86-90................... ASTM D86-96.
Aromatics......................... EPA GC/MS Method (80.46)...... EPA GC/MS Method (80.46) (No Change)
alternate is D1319-95a.
Olefins........................... ASTM D1319-93................. ASTM D1319-95a.
Sulfur............................ ASTM D2622-92................. ASTM D2622-94 (ASTM D5453-93 is
alternate for Conventional Gasoline to
9/1/98).
Oxygenates........................ EPA OFID Method (80.46)....... ASTM D5599-95, alternate is D4815*-94a.
Lead Phase Down:
Phosphorus........................ Appendix A.................... ASTM D3231-94.
Lead.............................. Appendix B.................... ASTM D3237-90 (Atomic Absorbance) or
D5059-92 (X-ray).
Volatility:
Alcohol......................... .............................. Consistent with Reformulated Gasoline.
Diesel Sulfur:
Sulfur............................ ASTM D2622-87, or D4294-83.... ASTM D2622-94, or D4294-90 (1995).
Aromatics......................... ASTM D1319-88................. ASTM D5186-96.
Cetane Index...................... ASTM D976-80.................. ASTM D976-91.
Blendstock Tests:
Light Hydrocarbons in Butane...... .............................. ASTM D2163-91.
Sulfur in Butane.................. .............................. ASTM D5623-94.
Benzene and Aromatics in Butane... .............................. GPA 2186-95.
Olefins in Butane................. .............................. Test procedure not specified. Wasson-ECE
383-01 is an example of an acceptable
test procedure.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Sampling Procedures (Proposed
Sec. 80.8)
40 CFR part 80, Appendices D and G, specify sampling procedures for
gasoline and diesel fuel for all motor vehicle fuel programs under 40
CFR part 80, including the programs for unleaded gasoline, gasoline
volatility, diesel sulfur, RFG, and anti-dumping. Today's proposal
would replace the sampling procedures in appendices D and G with the
following ASTM standard practices:
D 4057-95, ``Standard Practice for Manual Sampling of
Petroleum and Petroleum Products;''
D 4177-95, ``Standard Practice for Automatic Sampling of
Petroleum and Petroleum Products;''
D 5842-95, ``Standard Practice for Sampling and Handling
of Fuels for Volatility Measurements;'' and
D 5854-95, ``Standard Practice for Mixing and Handling of
Liquid Samples of Petroleum and Petroleum Products.''
Appendices D and G were adopted from the 1981 version of D 4057.
Over time, however, ASTM has updated D 4057, and these changes are not
reflected in Appendices D and G. For example, appendix D addresses the
collection of samples from a ``tap'' in the shell of a petroleum
storage tank. The current requirement under appendix D, reflective of D
4057-81, requires that taps extend at least three feet into the storage
tank. See, para. 11.3.1.1 of appendix D. However, tap extensions are
necessary only for heavy petroleum products (and not for gasoline and
diesel fuel), and, furthermore, tap extensions are not possible with
floating roof storage tanks that are commonly used today. As a result,
EPA and regulated parties currently agree to waive the tap extension
requirement on a case-by-case basis. Under D 4057-95 sampling tap
extensions are not required for light petroleum products such as
gasoline and diesel fuel, so that if this ASTM procedure were adopted
the tap extension issue would be resolved for all cases.
EPA is proposing to adopt three ASTM methods in addition to D 4057-
95 in order to include procedures that address a broad scope of
sampling situations that are relevant to EPA's motor vehicle fuels
programs. D 4177-95 deals with automatic sampling of petroleum
products, which is relevant under the anti-dumping regulations for
refiners who produce conventional gasoline using an in-line blending
operation where automatic sampling is necessary. Similarly, D 5842-95
deals with sampling and sample handling for volatility measurement,
which is relevant to determining compliance with the volatility
standards in Sec. 80.27 and the RFG standards in Sec. 80.41. Last, D
5854-96 deals with the creation of composite samples, which is relevant
[[Page 37342]]
under the RFG and anti-dumping programs in certain situations involving
imported gasoline where the gasoline from multiple ship compartments is
treated as a single batch.
EPA believes it is appropriate to replace Appendices D and G with
ASTM standard practices. The current ASTM practices reflect up to date
procedures, which if followed would result in improved sample quality
for regulatory purposes. In addition, the adoption of industry standard
procedures would reduce regulatory burden because parties would be able
to follow their customary practices when meeting regulatory
requirements.
III. RFG and Anti-Dumping Standards/Models
A. Standards and Requirements for Compliance (Secs. 80.41 and 80.101)
1. Averaging Per-Gallon Minimum Standards for NOX
(Secs. 80.41 (d) and (f); Sec. 80.68(b)(1)(iv))
Reduction of NOX emissions is a prominent feature of
Phase II of the Reformulated Gasoline Program which goes into effect on
January 1 of 2000 (Phase I provides control at a ``no NOX
increase'' level). The Phase II standard for refiners choosing to
comply on average (requiring a 6.8% reduction from baseline during the
high ozone season) sets the level of NOX emission reduction
required on average by these refiners. Thus, for refiners who choose to
average, the averaging standard effectively controls the overall
environmental benefit contributed to the program by these refiners.
In addition to the average NOX standards, though, there
are also per-gallon minimum reduction standards for refiners that
choose to average (not to be confused with standards for overall
compliance on a per-gallon basis). The averaging minimum standard in
Phase II requires that each gallon (batch) of RFG in the high ozone
season has at least a 3% reduction from the statutory baseline; the
corresponding Phase I standard holds any increase over statutory
baseline for a batch to 2.5%. Less stringent minimum standards apply
outside of the high ozone season in Phase II. The per-gallon minimum
standards are in addition to the year-long average standard of a
refinery's output of a given type of RFG and these minimum standards
set the NOX reduction which must be achieved by each batch
(and therefore each gallon) of RFG.
These NOX per-gallon minimum standards were not put in
place to provide any incremental environmental benefit beyond that
provided by the average standard, but rather to ensure an even
distribution of program benefits from area to area and through time.
This primary reason for the averaging per-gallon minimum standards (for
NOX and other parameters as well) was discussed in the
enforcement section of the preamble to the RFG final rule (Section
VII). An additional but secondary objective of the minimum standard was
to augment the ability of enforcement authorities to detect non-RFG
gasoline being illegally sold in RFG areas. For reasons that will be
discussed more fully below, EPA is proposing to eliminate the per-
gallon minimum standards for NOX and to accomplish the same
objectives that these standards would have accomplished by
substantially expanding the number of area-by-area surveys of RFG
emission performance required to be conducted by refiners choosing to
average. EPA is not proposing any change to the averaging standard for
NOX.
The Problem With the Per-Gallon NOX Minimums
When EPA imposed the per gallon minimum standards, data did not
exist to adequately assess the variability, within refineries' output,
of NOX quality or the factors that affect it across all of
the batches of gasoline produced in a year.
Representatives of the gasoline refining industry (the American
Petroleum Institute (API), the National Petroleum Refiners Association
(NPRA) and representatives of various of their member companies) have
presented data to EPA 1 showing that NOX
performance of actual RFG retail samples varies substantially by octane
grade and from batch to batch 2 within a grade. The
processes involved in gasoline production result in a broad bimodal
3 distribution of NOX quality, with premium
batches showing characteristically lower NOX emissions and
regular batches, with their higher levels of sulfur and olefins,
showing higher NOX emissions. 4 These data on
gasoline produced under the simple model requirements showed a very
substantial proportion of regular grade RFG samples that would have
failed to meet the Phase I minimum reduction standard that applies
beginning in 1998.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Industry representatives met with EPA personnel on January
14, 1997 and presented a graphical analysis which can be found in
the docket for this rulemaking. Docket Number A-97-03, Item Number
II-E-1.
\2\ Since these were retail samples, they could not truly
reflect batch-to-batch variability due to the intermingling of
gasolines from different batches, and even from different sources,
in the distribution system.
\3\ A bimodal distribution here refers to one that has two
distinct frequency peaks or two values around which a large number
of batches will gather.
\4\ Engineering judgment would lead to a conclusion that a broad
distribution of NOX quality differing markedly between
premium and regular gasoline grades would exist in the gasoline
pool. First, NOX quality under EPA's complex model is
primarily a function of sulfur and olefin content in the gasoline.
Thus, differences in either of these properties would result in
differences in NOX quality. Second, in the refinery,
processes which typically contribute large volumes to the regular
gasoline grade are often high in sulfur and olefins, whereas
processes contributing heavily to the premium gasoline pool are
often very low in olefins and sulfur. For example, the fluid
catalytic cracker (FCC) unit in a refinery breaks large molecules
into smaller ones and is the ``workhorse'' of most refineries and
the largest contributor of any refinery unit to the gasoline pool.
The gasoline produced by the FCC unit is highly olefinic, and,
depending upon the crude oil source for the refinery, usually very
high in sulfur. FCC gasoline also possesses octane quality
consistent with regular gasoline. For this reason and since regular
gasoline is typically the highest volume product of U.S. refineries,
most of the product produced by the FCC is used in the production of
regular gasoline. On the other hand, premium gasolines, which differ
from regular grades primarily in the higher octane quality they
possess, contain lower amounts of FCC streams and higher levels of
high-octane aromatic streams produced by catalytic reformers. Such
streams, called reformate, are extremely low in olefins and also
very low in sulfur. Thus, a much lower level of sulfur and olefin
content and therefore, better NOX quality, is found in
the premium pool as compared to the regular pool. (A 1989 study of
blendstocks used to produce U.S. gasoline found FCC blendstocks
possessing an average octane quality of 86.4, an average olefin
content of 29.1 percent, and an average sulfur content of 756 parts
per million (ppm). The same study found that reformate streams,
produced by the reformer, possessed octane quality of 92.6, an
olefin content of less than 1 percent and an average sulfur level of
55 ppm. See ``NPRA Survey of U.S. Gasoline Quality and U.S. Refining
Industry Capacity to Produce Reformulated Gasolines--Part A'',
National Petroleum Refiners Association, 1991 Gasoline Study,
January, 1991, Docket Number A-97-03, Item Number II-B-1.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In order to bring these higher NOX batches of regular
RFG into compliance, the refiners suggested that the industry would
have to incur substantial additional costs in excess of those
calculated in EPA's Regulatory Impact Assessment which EPA relied upon
in adopting the standards for RFG in 1993. That assessment of the costs
of compliance for NOX was based upon the cost of meeting the
average standard, not the per-gallon minimum that applies to refineries
that average, which is the subject of this proposal. They further
argued that in the absence of a substantial enforcement tolerance to
account for the uncertainty of measurement (especially of olefin
levels) in downstream enforcement sampling, the bimodal frequency
distribution would have to be shifted further than would otherwise be
required. While the problem created by the NOX minimum would
already be substantial in Phase I with the 1998 introduction of the
complex model, the
[[Page 37343]]
refiners suggested that Phase II's tighter minimum standard for
NOX in the year 2000 would exacerbate an already very
difficult situation, even given the changes made to refinery processes
in order to be able to comply with the Phase II average standard.
The distribution of retail sample data initially presented by the
refiners in their general meeting with the Agency described the net
result of the product intermingling that occurs in the gasoline
distribution system. By describing all of the nation's gasoline taken
together, these data could suggest the existence of a problem (high
variability with many samples below the minimum reduction standard),
but could not indicate much about how widespread the problem is or show
what types of refineries are likely to be affected. By examining
historical RFG reporting data,5 EPA was able to confirm the
general factual basis of the industry analysis. Specifically, the data
showed a broad distribution of NOX quality with the premium
batches clustered near the high end (high NOX reductions),
while regular batches are more spread out with central tendency nearer
the low end and many batches falling below the Phase I NOX
minimum. Left unanswered by either the industry-supplied information or
EPA's own analysis, was the question of whether refiners could exercise
any control over the variability and shape of the frequency
distribution that was evident in both data sources. In other words, it
was not clear what options were available to refineries to remedy the
problem.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Data on the characteristics of gasoline batches as they are
shipped from the refinery are submitted to EPA as part of the
reporting requirements of the RFG regulations. An aggregated
analysis that protects the confidentiality of individual refiners'
data can be found in the docket for this rulemaking. Docket Number
A-97-03, Item Number II-A-5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To provide additional insights, EPA and a refinery expert from the
Department of Energy met separately with individual refiners in order
to look at batch data from single refineries using differing gasoline
production approaches. The refineries represented by the companies EPA
met with comprised a very diverse group. They varied with regard to
size, general level of technology, control over inputs, historical
product slate, and other characteristics. EPA focused the agenda for
these meetings on three basic questions: (1) For each separate
refinery, what is the batch-to-batch distribution of NOX
quality by grade and season, (2) what are the causes of the variability
that is observed in the historical data--which parameters account for
the variability in NOX, and what caused them to vary the way
they did, and (3) how do refinery managers plan to meet the
NOX minimum standards in the absence of a substantial
enforcement tolerance or regulatory relief.
The general picture of the broad bimodal distribution of gasoline
NOX quality by grade that was developed from overall
industry analyses and examination of our own data was generally
confirmed in these more detailed meetings.
As might be expected, individual facilities varied considerably in
the size of the challenge posed by the NOX minimum standards
and they expected to address that problem with varying strategies. The
pattern that emerged from all of these discussions was that refiners
intend to pursue the least capital-intensive solutions wherever
possible, even to the extent of incurring substantial additional
production costs in the short run. Although the strategies articulated
in these meetings 6 did not precisely conform to the pattern
expected by the industry associations (shifting the entire distribution
of NOX quality), they seemed to lead to the same result
economically--excess costs in producing RFG beyond the costs of making
the refinery's average conform to the average standard. Any major
expansion of the RFG program as a result of areas opting into the
program could further increase the costs of meeting the minimum
standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Some general examples of the approaches which are likely to
be used to bring sub-minimum batches above the standard include:
Finding another use for the poor NOX quality gasoline or
its components (shifting it to conventional gasoline, if that can be
done without violating anti-dumping standards, or shifting it to
other products) and buying conforming RFG on the spot market to take
its place; reblending the poor NOX quality batches with
clean blendstocks purchased from the outside to make them conform to
the minimum; or simply reducing RFG production.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Objectives of the NOX Minimum Standards
The primary purpose of the NOX minimum is to assure an
even temporal and geographic distribution of the program's
environmental benefits. To put this more simply, the minimum is
intended to ensure that no area covered by the RFG program will suffer
from impaired air quality (possibly resulting in an exceedance of the
NAAQS for ozone) as a result of a single refinery's shipping a batch of
high NOX gasoline to an area for which it was a primary
supplier. An additional, though secondary, purpose of the
NOX minimum standards is to provide a tool for detecting the
illegal sale of non-RFG gasoline in areas covered by the program. This
would work by keeping legitimate RFG above the minimum, while illegally
sold non-RFG might fall below the standard.
Avoiding distribution problems. The RFG regulations incorporated
two mechanisms to avoid the unlikely event of an area being
shortchanged on NOX quality due to refinery gate averaging--
the minimum standard and the RFG gasoline quality surveys.7
These surveys were specifically intended to guard against uneven
distribution of benefits. In the event that the surveys find a covered
area to have received less than the intended NOX emission
reduction benefits, the regulations provide for a substantial
tightening of the average standard--an outcome that would be expensive
to the industry and one that it will work hard to avoid. This proposal
includes an increase in the number of surveys to be conducted (an
additional 20 surveys per year) that should improve the surveillance of
gasoline quality on an area-by-area basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ A program of gasoline quality surveys is required to be
conducted by refiners that wish to comply on average rather than on
a per-gallon basis. The surveys must be done by an independent
contractor in accordance with a statistically sound sampling plan
approved by EPA. The location and timing of surveys is determined by
EPA with minimal advance notice to the industry's contractor. If
survey averages fall short of the criteria set out in the
regulations, the average standards and/or the minimum standards are
made more stringent for subsequent years for all of the refineries
that supplied gasoline to the area(s) where the failure occurred.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Detecting non-conforming gasoline. A detailed examination of 1995
and 1996 actual batch-by-batch gasoline quality (NOX
performance) shows that the NOX minimum standard is not a
very useful tool for detecting contamination of RFG by illegally sold
conventional gasoline, since many batches of conventional gasoline,
especially premium grade, are in compliance with the minimum standard.
Minimum standards for other gasoline characteristics (especially oxygen
content and benzene levels) provide far superior capability for
determining if contamination by non-complying gasoline has taken
place.8 The proposed expansion of the survey program would
further enhance these enforcement efforts, since analysis results for
survey samples found to be out of compliance with RFG requirements are
immediately supplied to EPA's enforcement office.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Analysis in support of this conclusion has been placed in
the docket for this rulemaking. Docket Number A-97-03, Item Number
II-A-6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conclusions and Proposed Regulatory Actions
EPA believes, as a result of the investigations discussed above,
that the averaging minimum standards for NOX
[[Page 37344]]
are likely to be costly to the industry as a whole in both phases of
the program, and will make the 1998 complex model implementation
extremely difficult for a portion of existing refineries. With the
additional costs in question, the overall cost of compliance is likely
to exceed the cost upon which the standards were based (the cost of
meeting the average standard) without providing additional
environmental benefits. By increasing the costs of producing RFG, these
standards may contribute to a higher cost differential between RFG and
conventional gasoline and so pose a significant obstacle to smooth
implementation of Phase II of the program. Since the per-gallon minimum
standards for NOX do not increase the environmental benefit
and their purposes can be as easily served by the RFG surveys, EPA
proposes the elimination of these per-gallon minimum standards.
Since the RFG surveys provide an alternative tool for accomplishing
both of the purposes of the NOX per-gallon minimums, it is
important that the survey program remain adequate to perform these
tasks. The regulations at Sec. 80.68(b)(1) currently prescribe 50
surveys beginning in 1998, with adjustments provided for opt-in of
additional programs and/or potential survey failures. EPA believes that
20 additional surveys would provide significant additional protection
of the NOX quality of gasoline in those RFG covered areas
with limited sources of supply. Accordingly, EPA proposes that the
number of surveys in the initial schedule (Sec. 80.68(b)(1)) for each
year beginning in 1998 be expanded by 20. EPA invites comments on this
proposed change.
2. Clarification That Model Limits Constitute Standards (Proposed
Sec. 80.41(h)(3) and Sec. 80.78(a)(1)(vi); Revised Sec. 80.101(b)(3))
Both the simple and the complex models include restrictions on the
range of parameter values that may be used with these models. See
Secs. 80.42(c) and 80.45(f) for the simple model limits and the complex
model limits, respectively. These parameter range limits are included
because the simple and complex models have not been shown to accurately
predict emissions when parameter values outside the range limits are
used. For this reason, Secs. 80.42(c) and 80.45(f) state that the
models may not be used for fuels with parameter values that are outside
the valid range limits. The complex model specifies different valid
range limits for reformulated versus conventional gasoline. Compare
Sec. 80.45(f)(1)(i) (complex model range limits for reformulated
gasoline) with Sec. 80.45(f)(1)(ii) (complex model range limits for
conventional gasoline).
EPA always has considered the valid range limits to constitute
standards that apply to reformulated and conventional gasoline.
Gasoline subject to simple or complex model standards must be evaluated
for compliance with these standards. Where gasoline has property values
outside the valid range limits, it cannot be evaluated and, therefore,
it is unlawful to produce and sell such gasoline.
Today's proposal would clarify that the valid range limits are
standards, by citing the valid range limits along with the other
standards that apply to reformulated and conventional gasoline. In
addition, EPA is proposing to add a provision to the reformulated
gasoline prohibitions under Sec. 80.78(a) that addresses the valid
range limit standards. This prohibition would clarify that the complex
model valid range limits apply not only to reformulated gasoline when
produced or imported, but throughout the distribution system as well.
The complex model valid range limit standards must be applied
downstream of the refinery or importer because complex model standards
apply throughout the distribution system, i.e., the VOC and
NOX minimum per-gallon emissions performance standards. In
order to evaluate reformulated gasoline for compliance with these
downstream standards, the gasoline must have parameter values that are
within the valid range limits.
EPA is proposing to promulgate the revisions contained in this
rulemaking under the authority of both sections 211 (c) and (k) of the
Act, except for the revisions which would include the valid range
limits as standards under Sec. 80.41 and Sec. 80.101. EPA proposes to
promulgate the revisions concerning the valid range limits under the
authority of section 211(k), but not section 211(c). EPA is proposing
to promulgate the valid range limits as standards solely for the
purpose of ensuring that the models will accurately predict emissions,
and not for the independent purpose of achieving emissions reductions
from the range limits themselves. As a result, EPA believes that it is
not necessary to promulgate the valid range limits as standards under
the authority of section 211(c).
3. Effective Dates for Standard Changes Due to Survey Failures
(Sec. 80.41(p))
Section 80.41(p) states that when a minimum or maximum per-gallon
reformulated gasoline standard is changed to be more stringent as a
result of a survey failure, the effective date for the new standard is
ninety days after EPA announces the new standard. EPA now believes that
additional time is necessary in order to ensure an appropriate
transition to a new standard as a result of the lag time between the
date refiners and importers begin producing gasoline to a new standard,
and the date this gasoline displaces the earlier gasoline through the
distribution system.
For this reason, EPA is proposing a staged introduction to a new
per-gallon standard, that results from a survey failure. The dates the
new standard would be required would be expressed in the number of days
after the date EPA announces the new standard: 60 days for gasoline
produced at a refinery or imported by an importer; 120 days for
facilities downstream of the refinery or importer other than retail
outlets and wholesale purchaser-consumers; and 150 days for retail
outlets and wholesale purchaser-consumers. Under the proposed approach
refiners and importers would have about two months to begin meeting the
new standard, downstream parties such as terminal operators then would
have about two months to transition to the new standard after shipments
of gasoline meeting the new standard begin, and retailers and wholesale
users would have about one month to transition after terminals must
begin shipping gasoline meeting the new standard.
EPA believes the times proposed for these stages are consistent
with current industry practice for transitioning to new standards, such
as the transition to meet the summertime high ozone season standards
each spring. For example, terminals supplying RFG must have gasoline
that meets the VOC-control standard beginning on May 1 each year, and
retailers and wholesale purchaser-consumers in RFG areas must meet the
VOC-control standard beginning about one month later, on June 1.
Refiners must begin producing VOC-controlled RFG early enough
before May 1 that the gasoline distribution system through the terminal
level can transition from non-VOC-controlled gasoline to VOC-controlled
gasoline by May 1. The date when particular refiners begin producing
VOC-controlled RFG each year varies depending on factors such as the
time necessary to transport gasoline from the refinery to the
terminals, and the rate of turnover at the terminal. However, EPA
believes that most long-distance distribution systems are able to
transition within 60 days of the date refiners begin shipping gasoline
meeting the new standard.
[[Page 37345]]
EPA is able to enforce the VOC-control standard at refineries based
on the refiners' batch reports to EPA that identify gasoline batches as
either VOC-controlled or non-VOC-controlled; the VOC-control standards
apply only to batches that are identified as VOC-controlled. However,
there is nothing in the refiners' batch reports to EPA that identifies
the per-gallon minimum and maximum standards to which the gasoline is
subject. As a result, EPA must rely on a date certain on which the new
standard applies at the refinery. Moreover, EPA believes this date must
be sufficiently earlier than the date the new standard applies at the
terminals in order to ensure the availability to terminals of gasoline
meeting the new standard for the terminals' transition. EPA also
believes that 60 days is an appropriate length of time for terminal
transitions, based on experience with VOC-control transitions.
B. Complex Model (Sec. 80.45)
1. Proper E300 Value for the Edge Target Fuel for Use in Complex Model
Extrapolation (Sec. 80.45(c)(1)(iv)(C)(6))
The Complex Model as described in Sec. 80.45 includes provisions
for extrapolations beyond the limits of the data upon which the model
was based. The limits of the data define the ``allowable range'' which
represents the range of fuel parameters within which the Complex Model
equations are directly applicable, and outside of which extrapolation
must be used up to the limits of the model.9 These
extrapolations take the form of intricate equations and a series of
conditions for use of those equations. Among other things, the
conditions associated with extrapolation direct Complex Model users to
determine properties for an ``edge target fuel.'' The edge target fuel
is equivalent in all respects to the target fuel, except that no fuel
parameters are allowed to exceed the limits of the allowable range. In
effect, the edge target fuel represents the point in the multi-
dimensional fuel parameter space where extrapolation begins.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ The allowable range of the model is, in fact, a combination
of the limits of the data and additional limitations that may be
imposed by the existence of extreme, or curve turnover points.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Complex Model equation for exhaust volatile organic compounds
(VOC) contained in Sec. 80.45(c)(1) includes a single interactive term.
This term, the product of E300 and aromatics, necessitates that
extrapolations involving E300 include a simultaneous evaluation of the
aromatics level of the target fuel. Thus in paragraph (c)(1)(iv)(C)(6),
Complex Model users are directed to determine whether the mathematical
phrase (80.32 + (-.390xARO)) is greater or less than 94, and to set the
E300 edge target fuel value accordingly. In so doing, users are
determining whether the aromatics-dependent E300 extrema (i.e. curve
turnover) point falls beyond the limits of the available data in the
Complex Model database.
However, the language in paragraph (c)(1)(iv)(C)(6) is misleading.
As currently written, the user is directed to set the E300 value of the
edge target fuel at 94 vol% whenever the value of the phrase (80.32 +
(0.390xARO)) is greater than 94. The Agency's intention, however, was
that this step be taken only if the E300 term is being extrapolated. In
other words, if the target fuel value for E300 falls below the higher
limit for E300 in the allowable range as defined in Table 6,
Sec. 80.45(c)(1)(iv), then E300 is not being extrapolated, and the E300
value of the edge target fuel should be equal to the E300 value of the
target fuel.
To correct this problem, the language in Sec. 80.45(c)(1)(iv)(C)(6)
and its counterpart applicable to Phase II calculations at Sec. 80.45
(c)(1)(iv)(D)(6) would be changed such that Complex Model users will
only set the E300 value of the edge target fuel equal to 94 if the
target fuel value for E300 exceeds the higher limit specified in Table
6, Sec. 80.45(c)(1)(iv).
IV. RFG Compliance Requirements
A. Sampling of Reformulated and Conventional Gasoline (Proposed
Sec. 80.47)
Under Sec. 80.65(e)(1) refiners and importers are required to
collect a representative sample from each RFG batch produced or
imported, and to determine the batch properties based upon analysis of
this sample.10 ``Batch of reformulated gasoline'' is
currently defined in Sec. 80.2(gg) as ``a quantity of reformulated
gasoline which is homogeneous with regard to those properties which are
specified for reformulated gasoline certification.'' Similarly
Sec. 80.101(i)(1)(i)(A) requires refiners and importers of conventional
gasoline to collect a representative sample from each batch produced or
imported, and to determine compliance with the anti-dumping standards
based upon the batch samples.11
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ Under Sec. 80.69(b) oxygenate blenders who meet the oxygen
standard on average also are required to sample and test each batch
of RFG produced using RBOB, and the discussion in this preamble
section applies to such oxygenate blenders in the same manner as for
refiners of RFG.
\11\ EPA is proposing several changes relative to the sampling
of conventional gasoline that are discussed below in section VI.B.
of this preamble. EPA is also proposing to revise the ``batch''
definition in Sec. 80.2(gg) to apply to conventional gasoline and
not just to RFG. EPA also is proposing to require refiners and
importers of conventional gasoline to separately test each batch,
which would eliminate the current option of testing a number of
batches together using a composite sample.
In addition, EPA is proposing a definition for ``previously
certified gasoline'' to mean RFG and conventional gasoline for which
the refiner, oxygenate blender or importer has met applicable
requirements and standards and that the refiner, oxygenate blender
or importer has included or intends to include in the refinery or
importer compliance calculations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As a result, refiners and importers are required to collect a
representative sample of each gasoline batch. However, EPA has not
previously promulgated requirements for determining when a quantity of
gasoline is homogeneous so that it qualifies as a batch. Today EPA is
proposing such requirements for determining batch homogeneity. In
addition, EPA is proposing procedures whereby an importer of
reformulated or conventional gasoline would be able to treat as a
single batch the gasoline contained in multiple compartments of a ship.
It is important that refiners and importers determine compliance
with the reformulated and conventional gasoline standards using samples
collected from quantities of gasoline that are homogeneous in terms of
the properties relative to these standards. If a quantity of gasoline
is not homogeneous, a sample of that gasoline often will not reflect
the overall average qualities of the gasoline. For example, when a
refiner produces gasoline by combining blendstocks having different
volatilities, unless the tank is thoroughly mixed the gasoline often
will be horizontally stratified, with the higher volatile blendstocks
at the top of the tank and the lower volatile blendstocks at the bottom
of the tank. If a sample is collected of the gasoline at any one spot
in such a stratified tank the sample only will reflect the properties
of the gasoline at that strata. Storage tank sampling techniques such
as ``all level samples'' or ``running samples'' tend to compensate for
stratified product, but these techniques do not assure a truly
representative sample.12
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ A ``running sample'' of the product contained in a storage
tank is collected by lowering a sample container from the top of the
product to the bottom and then raising the container to the top, at
such a speed that the container is less than full when removed from
the tank. See, 40 CFR part 80, appendix D, para. 11.2.2.2. An ``all
levels sample'' is collected by lowering a stoppered container to
the bottom of the product in a storage tank, removing the stopper
with a cord or chain, and raising the container to the top at such a
speed that the container is less than full when removed from the
tank. See, 40 CFR part 80, Appendix D, para. 11.2.2.1. In theory,
both of these sampling methods obtain product from all strata in the
storage tank somewhat in proportion to the size of the strata.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 37346]]
In the case of RFG, moreover, certain standards must be met on a
per-gallon basis. If any portion of the RFG in a storage tank violates
an applicable per-gallon standard, this gasoline portion is out of
compliance even if the gasoline in the tank would be in compliance if
fully mixed. For example, consider a refinery storage tank containing
RFG designated as simple model, VOC controlled for Region 2. If the
gasoline is stratified by RVP, and the RVP of the upper strata is
greater than the applicable per-gallon maximum standard of 8.3 pounds
per square inch (psi),the gasoline in this upper strata would violate
the applicable per-gallon standard even if the average RVP of the
gasoline in the tank is less than 8.3 psi.13 A single sample
from such a stratified tank may not reflect the violation. Even an
``all levels'' or ``running'' sample of the gasoline in a stratified
storage tank could yield a test result within the standard because to a
certain extent such a sample ``averages'' across the strata, which
would have the effect of masking the violation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ Per-gallon standards must be met by all portions of the
gasoline contained in a storage tank in part because the different
gasoline portions may be distributed without further mixing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As a result, EPA is proposing that refiners and importers would be
required to establish that each quantity of reformulated or
conventional gasoline that will be treated as a batch is homogeneous
before the batch sample is prepared or analyzed.
EPA is proposing two options by which the homogeneity of the
gasoline in a storage tank could be established. Under the first
option, a refiner would collect three separate samples from the storage
tank--upper, middle, and lower spot or tap samples. These samples would
be analyzed for each parameter relevant to applicable standards, and
the gasoline in the storage tank would be considered homogeneous if the
test results agree within the ranges specified in Sec. 80.65(e)(2)(i).
Under the second option for establishing storage tank homogeneity,
the party would demonstrate that it followed tank mixing procedures
that can be shown to result in homogeneity. For example, a refiner
could meet the homogeneity requirement through records that show the
tank mixing procedures used for a batch (tank size and type, volume of
gasoline, the type of tank mixers, the mode of mixer operation if
appropriate, and the duration of mixer operation), together with
historic sampling and testing records demonstrate these procedures
result in complete mixing.
Under this second storage tank option, success of the mixing
procedure must still be confirmed for each batch. However, instead of
requiring analysis for each parameter relevant to applicable standards,
only API gravity analysis of upper, middle, and lower spot or tap
samples would be required. The gasoline would be considered homogeneous
under this option if the demonstrated mixing procedure was performed,
and the API gravity values for the upper, middle, and lower samples do
not differ by more than 0.3 deg. API. Where the configuration of a
storage tank does not permit the collection of upper, middle, and lower
spot or tap samples, the API gravity analysis to confirm the success of
the mixing procedure would be waived.
EPA also is proposing procedures whereby an importer would be able
to demonstrate the gasoline in multiple compartments of a marine vessel
is homogeneous. The importer would collect a ``running'' sample from
each compartment and analyze the samples for each parameter relevant to
applicable standards. The vessel's gasoline would be homogeneous and
could be treated as a batch if the results agree within the ranges
specified in Sec. 80.65(e)(2)(i).
EPA is proposing that for purposes of establishing homogeneity a
party could use test methods other than the methods specified in
Sec. 80.46. The methods in Sec. 80.46 would still be used to establish
the batch properties for ``certifying'' a batch.
EPA also is proposing that in the case of RFG, the gasoline
contained in a storage tank or marine vessel would not be considered
homogeneous if any sample collected to establish homogeneity has a test
result that exceeds an applicable per-gallon standard. Thus, in the
case of standards a refiner or importer is meeting on a per-gallon
basis no test result could violate the per-gallon standard, and in the
case of standards being met on average no test result could violate an
applicable per-gallon minimum or maximum standard.
EPA is proposing additional options by which an importer could
treat the gasoline imported by marine vessel as a single batch without
determining the homogeneity of the gasoline. RFG contained in multiple
compartments of a marine vessel could be certified as a single batch
using a volume weighted composite of samples collected from the
compartments if the entire contents of these compartments is
transferred into a single shore tank. EPA is proposing this option
because it is likely the gasoline from multiple vessel compartments is
completely mixed, i.e., becomes homogeneous, through the process of
being transferred into a shore tank.
Under today's proposal importers also would be allowed to use
composite samples to certify as a single batch the RFG imported by
marine vessel where the gasoline is off-loaded into multiple shore
storage tanks. Under this option, however, the importer would be
required to demonstrate that the RFG off-loaded into each shore tank
separately meets all applicable per-gallon standards, without regard to
any gasoline contained in the storage tank prior off-loading the
imported gasoline (or, ``heel''). Thus, the importer would be required
to sample and test the tank heel prior to off-loading the imported
gasoline and the tank contents after the imported gasoline has been
added, and to mathematically calculate the properties of the imported
gasoline added to the tank.
EPA is proposing that imported conventional gasoline contained in
multiple compartments of a marine vessel could be tested using a volume
weighted composite of samples collected from the compartments with one
limitation. There are no per-gallon standards associated with
conventional gasoline (other than the complex model limit standards, as
is discussed in section III.A.1. of this Preamble), and, as a result,
there are no proposed requirements to separately test vessel
compartment or shore tanks. However, EPA is proposing that each
separate grade of conventional gasoline on a marine vessel (e.g.,
regular, premium) must be treated as a separate batch. EPA believes
that, in general, there is greater variability in the properties of
gasolines of different grades, than of gasolines of the same grade. The
proposed grade limitation on marine vessel compositing for conventional
gasoline would constitute some limit on the range of gasoline
properties that could be included in a single composite sample, which
EPA believes would improve the quality of composite samples. EPA
requests comment on this proposed limitation on the use of composite
samples of imported conventional gasoline.
C. General Requirements (Sec. 80.65)
1. Assignment of Batch Numbers (Sec. 80.65(d)(3))
Section 80.65(d)(3) requires refiners and importers to assign batch
numbers to batches of RFG, RBOB, conventional gasoline, and certain
blendstock that is included in the refiner's compliance
[[Page 37347]]
calculations. The batch numbers are used to identify batches in batch
reports submitted to EPA under Secs. 80.75(a) and 80.105(a).
EPA is proposing to revise Sec. 80.65(d)(3) to require oxygenate
blenders who meet the oxygen standard on average to assign batch
numbers to RFG batches. This would conform Sec. 80.65(d)(3) with the
current reporting requirement at Sec. 80.74(a), that oxygenate blenders
who meet the oxygen standard on average must submit batch reports to
EPA.
2. Clarifications of Requirement to Test RFG and RBOB
(Sec. 80.65(e)(1))
Section 80.65(e)(1) requires refiners and importers to determine
the properties of each batch of RFG that is produced or imported.
Gasoline that complies with the standards in Sec. 80.41 is deemed
certified (Sec. 80.40(a)), hence this process is commonly considered as
``certifying'' each batch. This determination is required for each
parameter relevant to the RFG standards. EPA is proposing two
clarifications of Sec. 80.65(e).
EPA is proposing to add language to Sec. 80.65(e) to clarify that
this section applies to RBOB as well as to RFG, and to add a cross
reference to the requirement in Sec. 80.69(a)(2) that the certified
properties of RBOB are the properties of the RBOB subsequent to
downstream blending with oxygenate, based on test results of a sample
of the RBOB hand blended in the laboratory with the appropriate
oxygenate type and amount. EPA believes the certification of RBOB
already is implicit in Sec. 80.65(e), and that refiners and importers
have been certifying and reporting the properties of RBOB based on the
analysis results of a hand blend, so that the proposed changes would
not change current practices.
EPA also is proposing to clarify that certification testing for RVP
is necessary only for RFG and RBOB that is designated as VOC
controlled, because RVP test results are relevant only to VOC
controlled gasoline. Under the simple model the RVP standard applies
only to VOC controlled product. RVP test results are an input to the
complex model only for VOC controlled gasoline; in the case of non-VOC
controlled gasoline the complex model uses an RVP value of 8.7 psi
regardless of the actual RVP value of the gasoline. This change to
Sec. 80.65(e) also would change the reporting requirement for RVP, to
apply only to VOC controlled RFG and RBOB, because the parameter
reporting requirement in Sec. 80.75(a)(2)(v)(B) cross references the
requirements in Sec. 80.65.
3. Weight Percent Range for Total Oxygen Content (Sec. 80.65(e)(2)(i))
Section 80.65(e)(2)(i) provides a table with ranges for fuel
properties to be used in comparing the refiner's or importer's test
results to the test results obtained from the independent laboratory.
The table at Sec. 80.65(e), however, currently does not include a range
for total oxygen content. The RFG regulations prescribe a standard for
weight percent oxygen, and refiners and importers of RFG are required
to determine and report the total weight percent of oxygen in each
batch of RFG for compliance purposes. It is appropriate, therefore, to
include a range for total oxygen content in the table at Sec. 80.65(e)
for purposes of comparing the refiner's or importer's test results with
the test results obtained from the independent laboratory. A range for
total weight percent oxygen content was unintentionally omitted in the
final rule. As a result, today's rule proposes to add to the table at
Sec. 80.65(e)(2)(i) a 0.10 wt% range for total oxygen content. This
range would be in addition to, and not instead of, the volume ranges
for oxygenates listed in Sec. 80.65(e)(2)(i).
The 0.10 wt % range for total oxygen was derived by multiplying the
values of the oxygenates in the table in Sec. 80.65(e)(2)(i) by the
weight % of the oxygen in the oxygenates and averaging them. EPA
acknowledges that this approach assumes that the density of these
oxygenates is similar to gasoline, but believes that any difference in
density would result in an insignificant increase in the 0.10 wt %
value. EPA continues to believe that this is an appropriate method of
determining an appropriate range for total oxygen content between the
refiner's laboratory and the independent laboratory.
4. Independent Laboratory Requirements (Sec. 80.65(f); Proposed
Secs. 80.72, 80.74(h), and 80.75(n))
Sections 80.65(e) and (f) contain the independent laboratory
requirements for RFG. Under Sec. 80.65(e)(1) each batch of RFG must be
analyzed, either by the refiner or importer, or by an independent lab.
Section 80.65(f) requires each refiner and importer of RFG to designate
an independent lab that must collect a sample from each batch of RFG.
The refiner/importer then has the option of having the independent lab
meet the analysis requirement for all RFG batches (the 100% analysis
option), or of having the independent lab analyze up to 10% of the
samples collected to be identified by EPA (the 10% analysis option).
The 100% analysis option is most often chosen by importers who do not
operate their own company laboratory.
EPA is proposing two categories of changes to the independent
laboratory requirements. The first category of changes would include in
the regulations the guidance EPA previously has issued regarding the
identification of samples for analysis by independent labs, and the
identification of samples the independent lab would send to EPA. The
second category would slightly narrow the criteria by which a
laboratory is considered independent. In addition, EPA is seeking
comment on whether companies that serve as independent laboratories
under the RFG program should be made directly responsible for properly
completing the functions of sample collection, analysis, record keeping
and reporting.
The first category of changes being proposed relate to the
identification of samples to be analyzed under the 10% analysis option,
and the identification of samples to be supplied to EPA under both the
10% and the 100% analysis options.
Sections 80.65(f)(1)(ii) (B) and (C) state that under the 10%
independent analysis option, EPA will identify which samples the
independent lab must analyze. However, the regulations do not specify
the mechanism by which EPA identifies these specific samples. EPA
subsequently provided this sample-identification guidance in
Reformulated Gasoline and Anti-Dumping Questions and Answers (October
3, 1994), titled ``Reformulated gasoline program protocol for use by
independent labs in selecting samples for analysis under the 10%
independent analysis option, and for identifying samples to ship to
EPA.'' This protocol has been in use since it was issued, and EPA has
received no adverse comments from regulated parties regarding this
protocol. Therefore, EPA proposes to incorporate this protocol in the
RFG regulations. See proposed Sec. 80.72.
EPA believes the protocol is an appropriate mechanism for
identifying samples for analysis by independent labs. The protocol
provides an automated system to randomly identify for analysis 10% of
the samples collected by an independent lab in a way that gives
regulated parties no influence over the sample choice.
In addition to identifying the independent laboratory samples to be
analyzed, the proposed protocol also identifies which samples must be
supplied to EPA, including the minimum sample quantity to supply. The
requirement to forward samples to EPA applies to both the 10% and the
[[Page 37348]]
100% analysis options, and, therefore, the proposed sample-shipment
protocol applies to both options. Further, the regulations would
instruct independent labs to send to EPA any sample that, when tested
by the independent lab, is found to violate a per-gallon standard that
applies to the refiner or importer.
The proposal also would specify the quantity of gasoline that
independent labs would be required to supply to EPA. The batch sampling
methodologies of appendix D, in section 12.2, call for sample
containers of one quart as a minimum. Assuming that a single sample is
collected in a one quart container and that the container is filled
only to the minimum 70% level (appendix D requires samples to be 70-85%
full), this would provide a total of approximately 660mL of gasoline.
EPA believes one-half of this quantity, or 330mL, is sufficient for a
laboratory to complete all the testing requirements of the RFG
regulations. Therefore, where an independent lab analyzes an RFG sample
that also must be supplied to EPA, at least half the original sample
volume, or 330mL, would be available for shipment to EPA. Under the
proposed regulation regarding sample quantity, where the independent
lab has not analyzed a sample the lab would be required to supply EPA
with a one quart sample 70-85% full. In the case of a sample that has
been analyzed by the independent laboratory the lab would be required
to supply EPA with a minimum sample volume of 330mL.
The proposed regulations state that samples supplied to EPA should
be sent to an address to be specified by EPA. This address would be the
following: United States Environmental Protection Agency, National
Vehicle and Fuel Emissions Laboratory (NVFEL), Fuels and Chemical
Analysis Branch 2565 Plymouth Road, Ann Arbor, MI 48105, (313) 668-
4200.
EPA is not proposing to include this address in the regulations in
order to facilitate an address change if it becomes necessary. If there
is an address change for samples shipped to EPA, regulated parties
would be notified through individual letters, a Federal Register
notice, or some other appropriate means.
The second change being proposed would revise one criteria used to
determine if a laboratory is ``independent.'' Section
80.65(f)(2)(iii)(A), and proposed Sec. 80.72(b)(2)(I), specify that in
order to be considered independent a laboratory may ``not be operated
by any refiner or importer * * *.'' EPA now believes this independence
requirement is too stringent, and should apply only in the case of
refiners and importers of RFG.
Laboratories used to satisfy the independent sampling and testing
requirements are required to be independent in order to increase the
credibility of the laboratories' test results, as discussed at 59 FR
7765 (February 16, 1994). The independent sampling and testing
requirement applies only to refiners and importers of RFG, however, and
as a result EPA believes refiners and importers who operate a
commercial laboratory, but who produce or import no RFG, should be
allowed to serve as independent laboratories under the RFG program. EPA
is proposing that this definition of ``independence'' would not apply
if any RFG is produced or imported within a common corporate structure.
Thus, if a parent corporation has a subsidiary corporation that is a
refiner or importer of RFG, no other subsidiary of that parent
corporation could be considered independent.
Finally, EPA is seeking comment on whether companies that serve as
independent laboratories should be made regulated parties under the RFG
program.
Section 80.65(f)(3) describes the sample collection and reporting
procedures, and requires that each refiner or importer shall ``cause
its designated independent laboratory'' to carry out these procedures.
Under these procedures the independent lab collects a representative
sample from the RFG batch, determines the batch volume and other
information about the batch, reports test results to EPA, and supplies
samples to EPA upon request. A refiner or importer whose independent
lab fails to properly carry out these procedures would have failed to
meet the independent lab requirements, which would constitute a
violation of the RFG requirements by the refiner or importer.
EPA requests comments on whether the regulations should be revised
to provide that a laboratory that undertakes to act as an independent
lab under the RFG program becomes responsible to properly carry out the
independent lab requirements, in order to allow better monitoring and
enforcement of the independent lab requirements. For example, currently
there is no requirement for independent labs to retain records, which
creates potential difficulties when EPA attempts to audit and inspect
independent labs.
Under this approach, where an independent lab failed to properly
carry out an independent lab procedure, the independent lab would be
liable for a violation of the RFG regulations. In addition, the refiner
or importer for whom the lab is performing the independent lab function
would have failed to meet the independent lab requirement which would
constitute a violation of the RFG regulations. Under this approach, the
independent lab would also be required to retain records and submit
reports to EPA.
The authority to regulate laboratories that serve as an independent
labs under the RFG program is based on Clean Air Act sections 114(a),
208(a), 211(c), and 211(k). Analysis of RFG by independent laboratories
is critical to enforcement of the RFG standards, for reasons that are
discussed at 59 FR 7765 (February 16, 1994). In order for independent
laboratory sampling and testing to serve a useful purpose, however, the
independent lab must properly perform the procedures. EPA believes
independent labs would be more likely to take the steps necessary to
ensure the required procedures are properly performed if there were
regulatory consequences that applied directly to the independent
laboratory, and not just indirectly through sanctions against the
refiner or importer.
The current regulations state that a lab that is debarred,
suspended, or proposed for debarment pursuant to the Governmentwide
Debarment and Suspension regulations cannot serve as an independent lab
under the RFG program. An independent lab that fails to properly carry
out the required procedures could be the subject of a suspension or
debarment action by EPA. EPA requests comment on whether the suspension
or debarment sanction is adequate to ensure that independent labs
properly perform required procedures, in the absence of regulatory
liability.
In addition, EPA requests comment on whether regulations should be
proposed that would require labs to be accredited in order to carry out
the RFG independent lab requirements. EPA has not previously proposed a
lab accreditation requirement because of the likelihood that refiners
and importers would use only labs the refiners and importers are
convinced are fully capable of properly performing the independent lab
requirements. However, EPA has received comments that an accreditation
requirement could result in greater certainty that labs have the
equipment, training, and internal procedures necessary to properly
carry out the independent lab requirements, that could assist refiners
and importers in selecting independent labs.
Therefore, EPA requests comments on whether lab accreditation would
be appropriate for the RFG program;
[[Page 37349]]
whether accreditation should be performed by EPA or by an independent
body, and which independent body or bodies should be considered; the
accreditation criteria that would be appropriate; the estimated costs
of an accreditation program; and any other considerations EPA should
include as part of a lab accreditation proposal.
5. Compliance Audits (Sec. 80.65(h) and Sec. 80.105(c))
EPA proposes to modify Secs. 80.65(h) and 80.105(c) to make clear
that the attest requirement applies separately to each refinery
operated by a refiner, or the gasoline imported by an importer. The
amended rules clarify EPA's intent that refiners and importers of RFG,
RBOB, and conventional gasoline, and oxygenate blenders who blend RBOB
and meet the oxygen standard on average, must perform a separate attest
engagement for each facility at which such gasoline or product is
produced. In the process of issuing the Final Rule, EPA considered and
rejected the suggestion that parties be able to aggregate multiple
facilities within one attest engagement. Such an aggregation would
adversely skew the effect of the random sampling protocol described in
Sec. 80.127 by increasing the population of batches subject to random
sampling, and by potentially spreading the samples drawn over several
facilities. The effect, therefore, would be to produce less than the
95% confidence level for each facility that the attest engagement is
designed to accomplish.
6. Calculations Involving Previously Certified Gasoline (Sec. 80.65(i);
Sec. 80.78(a); Sec. 80.101(e))
Under Secs. 80.65(i) and 80.101(e)(1) refiners are required to
exclude from a refinery's compliance calculations gasoline that was not
produced at that refinery and gasoline that was produced at that
refinery but was included as part of another batch, sometimes called
``previously certified gasoline,'' or ``PCG.'' These requirements are
included in order to prevent double counting of PCG. Section
80.101(g)(3) provides the procedure by which refiners are required to
calculate the properties of blendstock that are combined with PCG to
produce conventional gasoline. However, the procedure in
Sec. 80.101(g)(3) is appropriate only for the simple model anti-dumping
standards, and there is no procedure specified for excluding PCG from
RFG compliance calculations. As a result, EPA is proposing procedures
for excluding PCG from the complex model compliance calculations for
both RFG and conventional gasoline. In addition, the procedures EPA is
proposing would allow refiners to use conventional gasoline to produce
RFG or RBOB, and to reclassify RFG with regard to VOC control and OPRG.
The procedures EPA is proposing would require refiners to determine
the volume and properties of each batch of PCG used in the refinery
operation, along with the designations of the gasoline: RFG, RBOB or
conventional gasoline; and for RFG, the designations relative to VOC
control and OPRG. The volume and properties of each PCG batch would be
reported to EPA as a negative batch using the same designations as when
received by the refiner. The PCG then would be used by the refiner as
another blendstock in the refinery operation, and any gasoline produced
using the PCG would be sampled and tested and included in compliance
calculations without regard to the PCG content. Gasoline produced using
the PCG could have the same designations as the original PCG batch, or
different designations. Thus, the proposed procedures would allow a
refiner to reclassify conventional gasoline as RFG, or to reclassify
RFG with regard to VOC control and OPRG.
Under the current regulations refiners are prohibited from
reclassifying gasoline in certain ways. For example, Sec. 80.78(a)(10)
prohibits any person from reclassifying conventional gasoline as RFG.
However, EPA understands that prohibitions against reclassifying
gasoline, such as Sec. 80.78(a)(1), constrain the operational
flexibility for regulated parties, and that such prohibitions should be
imposed only where necessary. EPA believes the PCG proposal allows
greater flexibility without compromising the environmental goals or
effective enforcement of the RFG program, and the PCG proposal is
appropriate for this reason.
In the case of standards that are met on average a refiner who uses
PCG would meet each average standard based upon the net average
properties of gasoline in the relevant averaging pool, 14
consisting of the positive volume and properties of all gasoline
produced in that averaging pool and the negative volume and properties
of all PCG in that averaging pool. In addition, each averaging pool
would be required to have a net ``positive'' gasoline volume--each
averaging pool's volume of gasoline produced would have to be greater
than the volume of PCG.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ Compliance with each average standard is based on the
average property or emissions performance of the subset of the
gasoline produced at a refinery that is relevant to that standard,
sometimes called an ``averaging pool.'' For example, the averaging
pool for anti-dumping standards is all conventional gasoline
produced during an averaging period. In addition, certain RFG
standards must be separately met by more than one averaging pool.
For example, under Sec. 80.67(g) the RFG NOx emissions performance
standard must be met by the averaging pool of all RFG and RBOB that
is VOC controlled, and separately by the averaging pool of all RFG
and RBOB that is not VOC controlled.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consider, for example, Refiner A who has elected to meet the VOC
emissions performance standard on average at Refinery X. In this
example a batch of PCG, designated as RFG, VOC controlled for Region 1,
is used to produce RFG at Refinery X. This PCG would be included as a
negative batch in Refinery X's VOC emissions performance compliance
calculations for the ``VOC controlled for Region 1'' averaging pool,
regardless of whether the PCG was used to produce RFG with this or with
another designation. 15 Refiner A nevertheless would be
required to meet the VOC standard for the ``VOC controlled for Region
1'' averaging pool, and the net volume of gasoline in this averaging
pool would have to be greater than zero.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ EPA is proposing that a ``negative'' batch would be
included in the ``Actual Total'' calculation in Sec. 80.67(g)(1)(ii)
by multiplying the ``Vi'' term (the batch volume) times
minus 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In a case where a refiner has elected to meet a parameter or
emissions performance standard on a per-gallon basis, and a batch of
RFG or RBOB is produced using previously certified RFG, the value of
the per-gallon standard the refiner would be required to meet for this
batch would be the more stringent of: (1) The per-gallon standard that
applies to the refinery under Sec. 80.41; or (2) the value for that
parameter or emissions performance for the previously certified RFG
used to produce the batch. If previously certified conventional
gasoline is used, however, use of this PCG would not affect the per-
gallon RFG standards.
Consider again the example of Refiner A, and in this example
Refiner A has elected to meet the benzene standard on a per-gallon
basis at Refinery X. Under Sec. 80.41(c), and in the absence of
applicable survey ratchets, the benzene per-gallon standard is 1.00
volume percent (vol%). Also, in this example the batch of previously
certified RFG has a benzene content of 0.85 vol%. In consequence, any
RFG produced at Refinery X using any amount of this PCG would be
subject to a benzene per gallon standard of the more stringent 0.85
vol%.
Any previously certified conventional gasoline used to produce RFG
or conventional gasoline would be included in the compliance
calculations
[[Page 37350]]
for the gasoline produced. In addition, the previously certified
conventional gasoline would be included, as a negative batch, in the
refinery's anti-dumping compliance calculations.
Finally, any previously certified RFG or conventional gasoline
would be included as a negative volume for purposes of calculating a
refinery's compliance baseline under Sec. 80.101(f).
The proposed approach is summarized in the following table.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gasoline produced standards
Previously certified gasoline (PCG) Gasoline produced type -------------------------------------------------
type Per-gallon Average
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RFG or RBOB.......................... RFG.................... More stringent of: Include PCG in
Sec. 80.41 compliance
per gallon standards; calculations as
or negative batch.
PCG All RFG pool
properties volumes for average
standards must be
positive.
Conventional Gasoline (CG)........... RFG or RBOB............ Sec. 80.42 per gallon Include PCG in
standards. CG compliance
calculations as
negative batch.
CG pool volume
must be positive.
CG \1\............................... CG..................... None................... (Same as above).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Includes RFG used to produce CG, because previously certified RFG may be ``downgraded'' to previously
certified CG.
EPA believes the approach proposed for addressing PCG is
appropriate because it would provide regulated parties with
significantly additional flexibility, with no apparent risk of adverse
environmental consequences. The additional flexibility would result
from the ability for regulated parties to more easily use previously
certified gasoline in refinery operations.
At the time the RFG regulations were promulgated EPA was concerned
that the overall quality of the various gasoline pools could be
degraded if refiners were able to reclassify conventional gasoline into
RFG, or to reclassify certain categories of RFG into other categories.
For example, if a refiner could reclassify conventional into RFG, it
would be possible for a refiner to produce very ``clean'' conventional
gasoline and include this gasoline in its anti-dumping compliance
calculations, and then reclassify this same gasoline into RFG with very
little or no additional blending. This would enable the refiner to meet
the anti-dumping standards using gasoline that, in reality, will be
used as RFG. One effect of this type of ``gaming'' would be to degrade
the quality of the conventional gasoline pool, with consequent adverse
environmental effects.
As a result of these concerns, EPA included provisions in
Sec. 80.78 that prohibit parties from combining certain categories of
gasoline. For example, Sec. 80.78(a)(10) prohibits parties from
combining RFG with conventional gasoline to produce RFG, in part in
order to address the ``gaming'' concern described above.
However, the proposed PCG accounting procedure would allow refiners
to reclassify conventional gasoline into RFG in a manner that avoids
the potential for adverse environmental effects from ``gaming.'' This
is true because reclassifications using PCG may occur only at a
refinery, and the PCG must be included, as a negative batch, in the
refinery's compliance calculations for the gasoline pool that
corresponds to the PCG's designations when first produced. Consider
again the example of ``gaming'' involving very ``clean'' conventional
gasoline, described above. Under the PCG proposal any of the very
``clean'' conventional gasoline used as PCG would have to be included
in the refinery's anti-dumping compliance calculations as a negative
batch, this pool would have to meet the anti-dumping standards, and the
pool volume would have to be positive. This would require the refiner,
in effect, to produce other conventional gasoline that is equal in
quantity and quality to very ``clean'' conventional gasoline used as
PCG, that would offset the loss of this gasoline to the conventional
gasoline pool. Thus, under the proposal there would be no net change in
the quality of the conventional gasoline pool.
This same logic would allow refiners to reclassify RFG with regard
to VOC control and OPRG.
In the case of RFG standards that are met on a per-gallon basis, a
different approach would be used to ensure no degradation in the
quality of the overall RFG pool as a result of the PCG proposal, since
averaging calculations are performed only where standards are met on
average. The approach proposed, as discussed above, would prohibit the
receiving refiner from degrading the quality of any previously
certified RFG batch with regard to any standard the receiving refiner
meets on a per-gallon basis, by setting the per-gallon standard at the
parameter value of the PCG if it is more stringent than the normal per-
gallon standard.
As a result, EPA is proposing to specifically allow refiners to
change the classifications of RFG and conventional gasoline under the
PCG procedures. In addition, EPA is proposing to revise the
prohibitions in Sec. 80.78 to reflect the PCG proposal. In proposed
revisions to Secs. 80.78(a) (5) and (7) parties would be allowed to
combine RFG or RBOB with blendstock under the terms of the PCG
proposal.
Under the proposed PCG procedures it would be important that any
gasoline claimed as PCG actually is used in a refinery's operation--
otherwise, these procedures could cause a degradation in gasoline
quality. For example, consider a refinery that received a batch of
relatively ``dirty'' conventional gasoline. If this gasoline is
classified as PCG, is used in the production and compliance
calculations of conventional gasoline, and is added to the anti-dumping
compliance calculations as a negative batch, there would be no net
effect of the ``dirty'' PCG on the refinery's overall anti-dumping
compliance calculations. If, however, the refiner never used the PCG as
a component for gasoline production, yet included the ``dirty'' PCG as
a negative batch in compliance calculations, the refinery's
conventional gasoline pool would appear ``cleaner'' than it was in
reality.
As a result, EPA is proposing record keeping and attest
requirements that would apply in the case of any refiner who uses the
PCG option, that would include records demonstrating the storage and
movement of the PCG from the time it is received at the refinery until
it is used in the production of gasoline. The proposed attest
procedures would require the auditor to verify that PCG was used to
produce gasoline at the refinery, and that the PCG batch report to EPA
is consistent with the refiner's sampling and testing of the PCG, and
the PCG product transfer documents, when received at the refinery.
[[Page 37351]]
7. Requirements for Imported Gasoline (Sec. 80.65(j))
Section 80.65(j) ``Requirements for imported gasoline,'' is
proposed as an addition to the general requirements of Sec. 80.65(e) to
qualify import certifications. This is in response to importer and
independent laboratory questions regarding certification of import
cargoes. The Agency has received questions regarding where and when
imported gasoline must be certified, and how to treat gasoline destined
for multiple ports. The Agency has issued policy guidance in response
to these questions in Reformulated Gasoline and Anti-Dumping Questions
and Answers. Today's regulatory revision is somewhat more restrictive
than the Reformulated Gasoline and Anti-Dumping Questions and Answers
policy guidance, in that batch certification would have to comply with
the U.S. Customs Service requirements for imported gasoline. The
original intent of the RFG regulation was to follow the normal import
industry practices as regulated by the U.S. Customs Service. Some
allowances were provided in the Reformulated Gasoline and Anti-Dumping
Questions and Answers guidance that may not conform with the U.S.
Customs Service regulations and today's proposal reverses any changes
that may have occurred.
The first requirement proposed in Sec. 80.65(j) is that batch
certification sampling be conducted at the time and place permitted
under U.S. Customs Service regulations, 19 CFR 151.42, and as specified
in the new Sec. 80.47 Sampling of reformulated and conventional
gasoline, which is discussed above. Section 80.47 provides specific
sampling procedures for reformulated and conventional gasoline, and
refers to Sec. 80.8 Sampling Methods for the general sampling
procedures that apply.
This requirement reflects the majority of guidance provided in
Reformulated Gasoline and Anti-Dumping Questions and Answers. For
instance, the guidance provides that when an import vessel off-loads
its cargo at more than one U.S. Customs Service port, then it must
certify the cargoes off-loaded in the separate ports as different
batches. The reason for this is that there is no mechanism for EPA to
enforce or even to find out about possible additions to a certified
batch when a vessel leaves the port where it was sampled. Today's
proposal also requires separate batch certifications for separate entry
ports as governed by the U.S. Customs Service regulations. However, in
Reformulated Gasoline and Anti-Dumping Questions and Answers, an
exception to this guidance is provided for multiple ports within a
given harbor area, such as the New York City harbor area, wherein a
single batch may be off-loaded at multiple Customs ports within the
harbor. Today's proposal will not include this exception because it
does not conform with U.S. Customs Service regulations. EPA relies on
U.S. Customs Service records for enforcement of the EPA fuels
regulations. By following the Customs Service regulations EPA maximizes
the usefulness of this enforcement tool. It also minimizes regulatory
confusion by conforming the EPA requirements with an existing
regulatory requirement of the U.S. Customs Service.
U.S. Customs Service regulations for imported petroleum products
allow for sampling once an import vessel is docked and ready to off-
load its cargo, although under 19 CFR 151.42, Controls on unlading and
gauging, each port director independently establishes the methods of
control. As such, the protocols for sampling an import vessel could
vary from port to port and could also depend on the type of import
vessel (for instance, ship, barge, rail car). EPA requests comments on
the requirement to follow the U.S. Customs Service procedures during
batch certification. EPA will retract any conflicting guidance that
remains in Reformulated Gasoline and Anti-Dumping Questions and Answers
after final revisions to this regulation are promulgated.
The second and final requirement of proposed Sec. 80.65(j) is that
batch size could be no larger than a ``line item,'' or a single item of
merchandise, of an entry summary under U.S. Customs Service
requirements specified at 19 CFR part 141, subparts D, E, and F, and
part 142, subparts A and B. These subparts of the Customs Service
regulations specify the documentation required for import cargoes. This
documentation must differentiate merchandise by listing or invoicing
items subject to different duty rates (19 CFR 141.61(e)), and it must
list or invoice items of varying commercial value separately (19 CFR
141.86). Therefore, it is EPA's understanding that the Customs Service
regulations require quantities of gasoline imported on a single vessel
to be distinguished on the basis of their differences in commercial
values or potential for differences in commercial value. For instance,
different grades (segregated in different tanks) would be entered as
separate line items. Also, gasoline from different sources but of the
same grade, would normally be entered as separate line items due to
their potential for the separate sources not meeting the agreed upon
commercial specifications. Limiting batch size to U.S. Customs Service
entry ``items'' serves two functions: (1) It adjusts the EPA
requirements to fit better with the existing regulatory standards of
the U.S. Customs Service, and (2) it puts a limit on the variations of
RFG property values within a batch (that could lead to inaccurate
sample representation as discussed above in the preamble to Sec. 80.47,
regarding homogeneity determination).
D. Compliance on Average (Sec. 80.67)
1. Transfer of Oxygen and Benzene Credits (Sec. 80.67(h)(1)(iv))
Section 80.67(h)(1)(iv) permits the transfer of credits directly
from the refiner, importer, or blender who generates them to the
refiner, importer, or blender who uses the credits for compliance
purposes. EPA has received several inquiries with regard to whether
transfers within the same company are included in the language of this
section. It is the Agency's intention that the refiner, importer, or
blender may properly transfer legitimate credits within the company or
outside of the company. As a result, EPA is proposing to modify
Sec. 80.67(h)(1)(iv) to clarify that credit transfers may be either
intercompany or intracompany.
E. Compliance Survey Requirements (Sec. 80.68)
1. Method of Computation for Averages in Survey Series (Secs. 80.68
(c)(9)(I)(B) and (ii)(B), (c)(10), (c)(11), (c)(12) and (c)(13))
The RFG surveys were designed to deter and detect situations where
the flexibility afforded refiners through averaging gasoline
characteristics at the refinery gate (as opposed to averaging each
refinery's contribution to the gasoline in a particular covered area)
results in a covered area obtaining gasoline that on average differs in
relevant qualities from the average gasoline quality that would occur
if averaging was required separately for each covered area. The surveys
are conducted by an industry association according to a statistical
sampling plan approved by EPA and involve sampling gasoline from retail
outlets. If the gasoline in an area fails to meet standards set forth
in the regulations for a particular parameter, the standards for that
parameter are made more stringent and the number of surveys that must
be conducted in the following year is increased.
[[Page 37352]]
Some of the gasoline characteristics evaluated by the survey are
chiefly of interest because of their role in causing or contributing to
ambient ozone levels. Surveys for these parameters (e.g., VOC surveys)
are passed or failed based upon the average of results from a week-long
survey. Other parameters (like benzene and toxics) are of concern
because of their cumulative effects over a longer period of time.
Surveys for these latter characteristics are passed or failed based
upon the average of a year-long series of one-week surveys. This
discussion is primarily concerned with how the average of such a series
of one-week surveys should be computed.
Under the current regulations, determining the average for each
survey series 16 involves computation of a simple average
17 of parameter values from each gasoline sample across all
of the samples gathered during the year (without any consideration of
which week-long survey the sample was a part). If all of the individual
week-long surveys had equal sample sizes, this approach to computation
would yield as good a representation of the fuel supply as the timing
and distribution of the week-long surveys throughout the year
permitted.18 Practical considerations involved in the design
and conduct of an efficient overall survey operation, though, dictate
some substantial variations in sample size among the week-long surveys.
One such effect, and probably the most important one, stems from the
fact that high-ozone season surveys for ozone precursors must yield a
confidence interval on the mean small enough to meet the precision
requirements of the regulations (Sec. 80.68(c)(13)(iii)) for each
individual survey. Since practical considerations dictate that surveys
for the various parameters be conducted concurrently (i.e., each
gasoline sample is analyzed for all parameters covered by the survey
program), this situation results in larger-than-necessary sample sizes
in the summer for non-ozone precursor parameters. Outside the summer
ozone season there is no need to maintain precision standards for each
individual survey, but only for the annual series of such surveys. In
the interest of efficiency, the survey manager may be expected to cut
back on sample sizes during these times at the beginning and end of the
calendar year. As a result, the simple average substantially
overrepresents summertime gasoline.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ Sec. 80.68(c)(9)(i)(B) for toxics; (10)(ii) for
NOX; (11) for benzene; and (12) for oxygen.
\17\ In the case of toxics, the computation introduces weights
for the season (high-ozone season or outside of high-ozone season)
since the statistical model used to compute the emissions is
different in the two seasons. The weights substantially correct the
overemphasis on summer that affects other non-ozone-related
parameters, as discussed in the remainder of the text.
\18\ While the design for each of the individual week-long
surveys is probabilistic, a variety of considerations prevent EPA
from distributing the surveys in a perfectly random manner with
respect to time. The overall sampling approach for survey series
thus departs, to some extent, from a purely probabilistic design.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
An additional reason for altering the prescribed approach to
computing averages of series has to do with the weights attached to
each sample to handle either lack of pre-survey information about an
individual retail outlet's throughput or the situation where an outlet
with unusually high throughput is located in a covered area with
relatively few outlets and is consequently selected into the sample
with certainty. For both situations the sample is not self-weighting
and weights must be computed to properly represent the outlet's
gallonage in the sample. The current approach, the simple average,
requires that such weights be computed two different ways, once for the
outlet's inclusion in the week-long survey for ozone-related parameters
and then again for the annual average computation for non-ozone-related
parameters. The latter set of weights cannot be computed until the
year's data collection is complete, leaving some uncertainty up to the
end of the year as to the status of survey results in areas where
throughput data are not available for most outlets. This particular
problem is a characteristic of the sample design approach currently
being used by the industry survey organization, but that approach or
some variant of it is likely to be used in any thorough attempt to meet
the survey requirements in the regulations.
Both the distortion and the difficulty in computing weights, as
discussed above, can be eliminated by changing the method by which the
average of each survey series is computed for a given parameter in a
given RFG covered area. Instead of averaging all of the measurements on
individual gasoline samples in the survey series, we are proposing the
following: (1) That the measurements for each week-long survey in an
area be averaged, regardless of the sample size, to create a set of
means of week-long surveys, and then (2) that all of the resulting
individual survey averages for the area be averaged, themselves, across
all of the surveys in the series. This approach removes a significant
source of distortion, simplifies calculations, and improves the
representativeness of the number that we use to make the important
decision on whether the gasoline in an area has passed or failed a
survey series.
2. Clarification of Applicability of Survey Precision Requirements
(Sec. 80.68(c)(13)(iii))
The intent of the survey precision requirements set forth in the
regulations (Sec. 80.68(c)(13)(iii)) was to ensure that errors (in
either direction) in survey or survey series pass/fail determinations
would be unlikely. Without these requirements survey managers would be
able to trade off risk of inappropriate survey failure against survey
costs, and the environment would not be protected against the increased
risk of errors in the other direction resulting from insufficient
sampling.
Thus the precision requirements should apply to the body of data
that serves as the basis of each pass/fail determination. As currently
written, the regulations attach the precision requirements exclusively
to individual surveys without making it clear that for certain survey
parameters (for example, oxygen under the simple model) the pass/fail
determination is made against a year-long series of surveys rather than
against a single survey. The regulations would therefore be altered to
attach the precision requirements to the appropriate body of data for
each determination--to the individual survey where the parameters being
evaluated are ozone-related and to the survey series for other
parameters.
F. Downstream Oxygen Blending (Sec. 80.69)
1. Refiner ``Hand-Blending'' of RBOB (Secs. 80.69 (a)(2), (a)(8) and
(a)(9))
Under Sec. 80.65(c)(1) refiners and importers are required to meet
all RFG standards for RBOB, except for the oxygen standard. Under
Sec. 80.65(c)(2) the oxygen standard for RBOB is met by the oxygenate
blender. Section 80.69(a)(2) requires refiners and importers to
determine the non-oxygen properties of RBOB by blending the appropriate
type and amount of oxygenate with a sample of the RBOB (sometimes
called a ``hand blend''), and testing the properties of the resulting
RFG. Under Sec. 80.69(a) an RBOB refiner or importer is allowed to hand
blend the amount of oxygenate actually used by the oxygenate blender
only if, inter alia, a quality assurance program is carried out over
the oxygenate blending operation. In the absence of such a quality
assurance program, under Sec. 80.69(a)(8) specified types and amounts
of oxygenate must be hand blended.
EPA is proposing to revise Sec. 80.69(a)(2) to provide additional
guidance regarding the type and amount of oxygenate that must be hand
blended, and to move the hand blending
[[Page 37353]]
instructions from Sec. 80.69(a)(8) to Sec. 80.69(a)(2) in order to
improve the organization of this section. The additional guidance would
apply in the case of ``refiner specified'' RBOB (i.e., neither ``any
oxygenate'' nor ``ether only'') for which the refiner or importer has
specified options for more than one oxygenate type, or for a range of
oxygenate volumes. EPA is proposing that the hand blend for such RFG
must be formulated with the most conservative options. For example,
where an RBOB specification allowed ethanol and other oxygenates, the
hand blend would have to be formulated using ethanol, because ethanol,
as compared with other oxygenates at the same weight percent oxygen,
generally results in RFG with worse emissions performance.
Section 80.69(a)(9) specifies that where RBOB is designated as
``refiner specified'' but the quality assurance program is not
completed, the hand blend must be formulated with 4.0 vol% ethanol. EPA
is proposing to merge this paragraph with Sec. 80.69(a)(2).
2. Deletion of Secs. 80.69 (a)(4) and (a)(10)
Section 80.69(a)(4) requires refiners of RBOB to determine
properties of the RBOB, which would allow downstream parties to
determine if any contamination had occurred and thereby ensure that the
RFG produced using the RBOB would meet applicable standards. Section
80.69(a)(4) was included in the final reformulated gasoline regulation
to facilitate quality assurance programs by downstream parties who
handle RBOB, particularly where RBOB from a specific refinery travels
as a segregated product. However, EPA believes that, in practice, most
RBOB is being transported in a fungible manner. As a result, there is
little value to Sec. 80.69(a)(4) and EPA is proposing to delete this
requirement. EPA believes that downstream parties may conduct fully
adequate quality assurance programs over RBOB by hand blending the
oxygenate type and amount specified for the RBOB and testing the hand
blended sample to determine compliance with applicable standards.
Section 80.69(a)(10) requires refiners and importers of RBOB to
include in the RBOB blending specifications a range of oxygenate types
and amounts for all RBOB. This requirement was included in the RFG rule
because at the time the RFG regulations were promulgated it was not
clear the types of RBOB regulated parties would choose to produce. As a
result, the regulations were structured to accommodate a wide variety
of RBOB types. In practice, however, refiners and importers of RBOB
have chosen to produce only a limited slate of RBOB types, and mainly
only two types: generic ``ether-only'' RBOB, and RBOB with blending
instructions that are specific to the refiner and that is shipped in a
segregated manner. As a result, EPA now believes that Sec. 80.69(a)(10)
creates a burden on refiners and importers of RBOB, yet provides little
or no benefit to oxygenate blenders or to the environment. Accordingly,
EPA is proposing to eliminate this requirement.
3. Refiner Evaluation of RFG Produced by Oxygenate Blender
(Sec. 80.69(a)(7))
In the case of a refiner of RBOB conducting oversight over the RFG
produced at a downstream oxygen blending facility, the refiner of the
RBOB is required to calculate the non-oxygen parameter values for the
RFG produced using the RBOB. To do so, the refiner may use either the
oxygen blending assumptions under Sec. 80.69(a)(2) or the actual oxygen
blending levels if the refiner meets the contractual and quality
assurance testing requirements specified in Sec. 80.69(a)(5) through
(7).
The quality assurance provisions of Sec. 80.69(a)(7) require the
refiner to use sampling and testing to ensure that the RFG produced by
the downstream oxygen blender meets ``applicable standards.'' The
applicable standards are not further specified in that paragraph.
EPA is proposing to amend Sec. 80.69(a)(7) to require the refiner
to evaluate the RFG produced by an oxygenate blender for the oxygenate
type and oxygen amount, but not for other RFG standards. The principal
purpose of the Sec. 80.69(a)(7) oversight program is to ensure that the
oxygenate blender uses the proper type and amount of oxygen, to support
the refiner's RBOB compliance calculations. Other sections of the
regulations address quality assurance sampling and testing for all
standards that apply at all downstream locations, including at
oxygenate blending facilities. See, for example, Sec. 80.79(c), which
requires quality assurance sampling and testing as an affirmative
defense for violations of downstream standards. As a result, EPA
believes it is most appropriate to require sampling and testing only
for oxygenate type and amount under Sec. 80.69(a)(7).
4. Oxygenate Blending Instructions (Sec. 80.69(b)(1))
Under Sec. 80.69(b)(1) oxygenate blenders are required to blend
with RBOB only the type and amount of oxygenate that is specified for
the RBOB. EPA is proposing to amend this section to provide additional
guidance to oxygenate blenders regarding this blending. In addition,
EPA is proposing regulations that would specify the allowed quantity of
de minimis, extraneous, oxygenates that may be present in an oxygenate
blending operation.
EPA is proposing oxygenate blending requirements under
Sec. 80.69(b)(1) that are in accord with the RBOB blending
instructions. In addition, EPA is proposing language that would clarify
that the minimum oxygenate volume that could be used is the minimum
volume specification for the RBOB, and that the oxygenate blender is
free to add additional oxygenate up to the maximum oxygen standard
under Sec. 80.41(g).
EPA understands that when RBOB is blended with oxygenate to produce
RFG at oxygenate blending facilities, the RFG may contain de minimis
amounts of oxygenate other than the principal oxygenate that is
blended. These oxygenates may result, for example, when RBOB is shipped
via pipeline adjacent to RFG (that necessarily would contain
oxygenate), and these products are imperfectly segregated. Also, when
an oxygenate is produced it is normal that de minimis amounts of other
oxygenates also are produced and that remain present in the principal
oxygenate.
EPA believes that de minimis quantities of oxygenate that are in
addition to the principal oxygenate used to produce RFG do not degrade
the quality of RFG beyond a trivial amount. As a result, EPA is
proposing regulations that would specifically allow de minimis amounts
of incidental oxygenate, and that would specify the oxygenate amounts
that would be considered de minimis. However, EPA is also proposing
that these incidental oxygenates could not have been intentionally
blended, because the purpose of this proposed provision is to address
inadvertent oxygenate anomalies and not to provide additional oxygenate
blending options.
5. Every-Batch Sampling and Testing Requirement for Splash Blenders
(Proposed Sec. 80.69(b)(5))
Under Sec. 80.69(b)(4), an oxygenate blender who meets the oxygen
standard on average is required to sample and test each batch of RFG
produced to determine the batch's oxygen content, and assign a number
to the batch for reporting purposes. This every-batch sampling and
testing requirement was intended to be applied regardless of
[[Page 37354]]
whether the oxygenate blending is carried out in a large terminal tank
or through blending in trucks (sometimes called splash blending).
Every-batch sampling and testing is required in order to give the
oxygenate blender the best information with which to calculate the
average oxygen content of RFG produced. EPA believes that oxygenate
blenders, like other parties who produce RFG, should use adequate
procedures to determine, with great certainty, the oxygen content of
RBOB produced. This is particularly true of parties who meet the oxygen
standard (or other standards) on average, because, in part, any errors
in calculating average oxygen content could result in the transfer to
other parties of invalid oxygen credits. Every-batch sampling and
testing provides this certainty.
However, EPA believes that this every-batch sampling requirement
adds significant difficulties in the case of oxygenate splash blenders.
As a result, EPA is proposing to add Sec. 80.69(b)(5) which would allow
oxygenate splash blenders to meet the oxygen standard on average
without conducting every-batch sampling and testing under certain
conditions. These conditions, which are described below, would require
the oxygenate blender to use procedures that give certainty about
oxygen use, and that, taken together, EPA believes are as effective as
every-batch sampling.
a. Computer-controlled oxygenate blending required. Under the
proposal, the oxygenate blending would have to be carried out using
computer-controlled in-line or sequential blending that operates in
such a manner that the volumes of oxygenate and RBOB are automatically
dispensed when a particular grade of gasoline is selected for loading
into a truck, and where no operator instructions are required regarding
the oxygenate-RBOB proportions when an individual truck is loaded.
Thus, this alternative averaging approach would not be available where
the oxygenate and RBOB are separately metered into a truck, regardless
of whether the separate metering occurs at the same terminal or at
different terminals.
b. Oxygenate blender must operate blending equipment. The oxygenate
blender would be required to be the party who operates the computer-
controlled in-line or sequential blending equipment. Thus, this
alternative averaging approach would not be available to a party who
receives delivery of splash blended RFG into trucks at a terminal if
the terminal is not operated by that party, regardless of whether the
receiving party is a registered oxygenate blender.
c. Compliance calculations. The oxygenate blender would be required
to base its compliance calculations on the volumes and properties of
RBOB and oxygenate used during a period no longer than one calendar
month. In calculating the oxygen content of the RFG produced, the
oxygenate blender would be required to use either assumptions regarding
the specific gravities of the oxygenate and RBOB blended, or the
oxygenate blender would be required to measure the measured specific
gravities of all oxygenate and RBOB blended in the blending operation.
Similarly, with regard to the denaturant content of the ethanol (if
used), an oxygenate blender would be required to use a denaturant
content of 5 vol% and to support this value with documents from the
ethanol supplier and a quality assurance program, or the oxygenate
blender would be required to determine the denaturant content of all
ethanol used through sampling and testing.
d. Quality assurance sampling and testing. An oxygenate blender who
meets the oxygen standard on average using these procedures would be
required to conduct a program of quality assurance sampling and testing
of the RFG produced, using the procedures and at the frequencies
specified under Sec. 80.69(e)(2).
e. Attest procedures (Secs. 80.129 and 80.134). Under Sec. 80.65(h)
any oxygenate blender who meets the oxygen standard on average is
required to commission an annual attest engagement, to be conducted
under the terms of subpart F. EPA is proposing to add attest procedures
that would apply in the case of an oxygenate splash blender who meets
the oxygen standard on average under the proposed procedures. In
addition, EPA is proposing record keeping requirements that would apply
to such an oxygenate blender. The records which would be kept are those
EPA believes are necessary to an EPA auditor, or an independent
auditor, to ensure the proposed procedures were properly completed.
G. References to Renewable Oxygenate Requirements (Sec. 80.83)
On August 2, 1994, EPA promulgated regulations that would have
required the use of ``renewable'' oxygenates to meet a portion of the
oxygenate standard for RFG. See, 59 FR 39290 (August 2, 1994). However,
implementation of the renewable oxygenate requirements was stayed
effective September 13, 1994, as a result of a legal challenge filed in
the United States Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit. See, 59 FR 60715
(November 28, 1994). The Court of Appeals ultimately held that the
renewable oxygenate requirements for RFG are invalid, as they are not
authorized under sections 211 (c) or (k) of the Clean Air Act. American
Petroleum Institute v. EPA, 52 F.3rd 1113 (D.C. Cir. 1995).
This proposal would remove the regulatory language covered by that
decision.
The proposed changes relating to renewable oxygenates are shown in
the following table.
Sec. 80.2(ss)............... Current paragraph is deleted because it
applies only to renewable oxygenate
requirements. A new paragraph (ss) is
proposed which would define ``tank
truck.''
Sec. 80.2(tt)............... Paragraph is deleted because it applies
only to renewable oxygenate
requirements.
Sec. 80.2(uu)............... Paragraph is deleted because it applies
only to renewable oxygenate
requirements.
Sec. 80.65(d)(2)(vi) (C) Paragraphs are deleted because they apply
through (E). only to renewable oxygenate
requirements.
Sec. 80.83.................. Current section is deleted because it
applies only to renewable oxygenate
requirements. A new section 80.83 is
proposed which would provide procedures
for handling gasoline treated as
blendstock.
Sec. 80.128(e)(2)........... Paragraph is revised to delete language
that applies only to renewable oxygenate
requirements.
Sec. 80.128(e)(6)........... Paragraph is deleted because it applies
only to renewable oxygenate
requirements.
Sec. 80.129(a).............. Paragraph is revised to delete language
that applies only to renewable oxygenate
requirements.
Sec. 80.129(d)(3)(iii)...... Paragraph is deleted because it applies
only to renewable oxygenate
requirements.
[[Page 37355]]
In certain cases, the deleted text is replaced by regulatory
language discussed elsewhere in this proposal.
H. Covered Areas (Sec. 80.70)
Under Clean Air Act Sec. 211(k)(10)(D), any ozone nonattainment
area that is reclassified as Severe becomes an RFG covered area. This
inclusion in the RFG program occurs one year following the date of
reclassification.
Effective June 1, 1995, the Sacramento, California, ozone
nonattainment area was reclassified from Serious to Severe (60 FR 20237
(April 25, 1995)). Sacramento, therefore, became a covered area as of
June 1, 1996. Today's proposal would update the list of RFG covered
areas in Sec. 80.70 to include Sacramento.
I. Record Keeping Requirements (Sec. 80.74)
1. Clarification of test results record keeping (Secs. 80.74(a) and
80.104(a))
Sections 80.74(a)(2)(iii) and 80.104(a)(2)(i) require regulated
parties to keep the results of tests conducted of reformulated and
conventional gasoline. Parties have asked EPA to clarify this
requirement, and in particular have asked whether these regulations
require parties to keep copies of all documents that contain test
results.
In order to clarify these requirements, EPA is proposing changes to
Secs. 80.74(a)(2)(iii) and 80.104(a)(2)(i), that would specify that
parties are required to keep the original result for each test
performed. Thus, for example, where a test is performed using a testing
apparatus that automatically generates a printed document containing
the test result, this printed document must be kept. Where a test is
performed using an apparatus that does not generate a print out EPA is
proposing that the party would be required to keep the first recorded
test result, such as the chemist's laboratory log book.
In addition, EPA is proposing that parties would be required to
keep any other record that contains a test result that is not identical
to the original result. A non-identical test result could occur where a
party determines that an original test result is in error because of
laboratory error, for example. In such a case, the party would be
required to keep both the original test result and the corrected test
result. This proposed requirement would allow EPA, during the course of
an audit or inspection, to review changes that are made to test
results, to determine if the changes are appropriate.
2. Records To Be Kept by Refiners and Importers (Proposed
Sec. 80.74(b)(7))
EPA is proposing to add Sec. 80.74(b)(7) which would require
retention of records that reflect the physical movement of gasoline
treated as blendstock (GTAB) from the point of importation to the point
of blending to produce reformulated gasoline. (See Preamble Section
V.C. concerning the proposed requirements for GTAB.)
3. Records To Be Kept by Independent Laboratories (Proposed
Sec. 80.74(h))
EPA is proposing to add Sec. 80.74(h) which would require
laboratories serving as independent laboratories under proposed
Sec. 80.72 to retain records as required under Secs. 80.74(a)(2) and
80.72(c)(1).
J. Product Transfer Documentation (Secs. 80.77 and 80.106)
Product transfer documentation (PTD) requirements at Secs. 80.77
and 80.106 are intended to insure that on each occasion that any person
transfers custody or title of any RFG, RBOB or conventional gasoline,
other than when gasoline is sold or dispensed for use in motor vehicles
at a retail outlet or wholesale-purchaser-consumer facility, the
transferor produce, and provide to the transferee, documents that
contain certain information. This information would enable the
transferee to know enough about the gasoline being received to meet the
requirements of the RFG program. In addition, the PTD documents, which
parties are required to keep under Secs. 80.74(a)(1) and
80.104(a)(2)(vi) and (vii), help EPA identify the source of any
gasoline found to violate applicable standards.
EPA today is proposing to amend Secs. 80.77 and 80.106 to clarify
the following PTD requirements.
1. Introductory Text of Secs. 80.77 and 80.106
Section 80.77 requires a transferor to provide PTDs to the
transferee on each occasion involving a transfer of custody or title of
RFG or RBOB. Section 80.77 does not distinguish between transfers of
custody and transfers of title concerning the timing necessary for
transfer of PTD information. EPA, however, believes the two situations
may differ in this regard. In the case of transfers of custody, the PTD
information should be transferred before, during, or immediately
following the actual transfer because the transferee will have custody
of the gasoline in question and must know how to handle it. However,
since transfers of title do not always involve the physical handling of
the gasoline, EPA believes a transferee should have the option to rely
on the custody transferee to properly handle the gasoline (e.g., where
the custody transferee is a common carrier pipeline.) Therefore, in the
case of title transfers, EPA believes there is little need for the
required PTD information to be transferred at the time of the transfer
of the product. Accordingly, EPA is proposing, in the case of title
transfers, to allow up to thirty days in which to transfer the required
information. EPA believes this timing would allow parties to transfer
the required information using documents that are transferred as a part
of normal business dealings, and as a result would ease the burden of
meeting the PTD requirements.
The introductory text of Sec. 80.77 excludes from the PTD
requirements gasoline sold or dispensed for use in motor vehicles at a
retail outlet or wholesale purchaser-consumer facility. Section 80.106
does not contain this exclusion, which EPA believes was an inadvertent
omission when the final rule was promulgated. Accordingly, EPA is
proposing to revise Sec. 80.106 to conform to Sec. 80.77 in this
regard. EPA is also proposing to modify the introductory text of
Sec. 80.77 to clarify that this exclusion applies to gasoline sold or
dispensed at a retail outlet or wholesale purchaser-consumer facility
for use by any ultimate consumer, and not only for use in motor
vehicles.
In addition, EPA now believes that the PTD information is of little
value when conventional gasoline is delivered to a retailer or
wholesale purchaser-consumer in a conventional gasoline area.
Accordingly, EPA is proposing to exclude from the PTD requirements
transfers of conventional gasoline to retailers and wholesale-purchaser
consumers in conventional gasoline areas. Note, however, that the PTD
requirements of Sec. 80.106 would continue to apply for all other
transfers of conventional gasoline. Note also that the PTD requirements
of Sec. 80.77 for RFG and RBOB would continue to apply to all transfers
of RFG and RBOB (other than when the gasoline is sold or dispensed by a
retail outlet or wholesale purchaser-consumer facility for use by
ultimate consumers), including transfers in which RFG is delivered to a
retail outlet or wholesale purchaser-consumer.
2. Identification of the Gasoline (Sec. 80.77(f) and Sec. 80.77(g)(3)).
EPA is proposing to amend Sec. 80.77(f) to delete reference to
conventional gasoline, since the requirements of Sec. 80.77 do not
apply to conventional gasoline. EPA is proposing to amend
[[Page 37356]]
Sec. 80.77(g)(3) to delete reference to RBOB. This section requires
parties to identify whether the product contains ethanol, and RBOB, by
definition, does not contain oxygenate. In addition, EPA is proposing
to add references to RBOB to Secs. 80.77 (c) and (f) to specify that
these PTD requirements apply to RBOB as well as to RFG and conventional
gasoline.
3. Elimination of PTD Requirement for Inclusion of Registration Numbers
(Sec. 80.77(j) and Sec. 80.106(a)(1)(vi))
Sections 80.77(j) and 80.106(a)(1)(vi) require, in the case of
transferors and transferees who are refiners, importers or oxygenate
blenders, that the EPA assigned registration number of those persons be
included on the PTDs. EPA received comments that this requirement is
overly burdensome in certain circumstances, particularly downstream of
the refiner/importer/oxygenate blender where such information may not
be readily available. Based on experience with the program, EPA
believes that this requirement has only limited value as a means of
identifying and tracking the gasoline, and that EPA will be able to
adequately enforce the regulations without inclusion of the assigned
registration number on the transfer documents. As a result, EPA is
proposing to eliminate the requirements to include registration numbers
in PTDs.
4. Use of Product Codes (proposed Sec. 80.77(j))
The petroleum industry historically has used product codes to
identify product type in business transactions involving the transfer
of title or custody of petroleum products. For example, all pipelines
that transport refined petroleum products use codes to identify the
various types of petroleum products that are transported. These product
codes are well-known to persons who operate a pipeline, or who supply
products to or receive products from a pipeline. These pipeline codes
are used as a shorthand for the myriad petroleum products moving
through the distribution system, and make product identification
easier.19 In addition, product codes are used to identify
petroleum products in many of the documents used to memorialize
transfers of title and custody in normal business dealings, in part
because the codes occupy less space on the documents than the full
product names would require.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ For example, Colonial Pipeline product code A1 means:
gasoline; RFG; VOC-controlled for Region 1; non-OPRG; simple model;
87 octane; benzene maximum of 1.18 vol%; oxygen minimum of 1.5 wt%
and maximum of 2.7 wt%; RVP maximum of 7.4 psi; and no heavy metals.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA is proposing to add Sec. 80.77(j) to allow the use of product
codes for certain information required on PTDs to accommodate this
practice, but under conditions that would ensure that the codes would
satisfy the goals of the PTD requirement. In particular, EPA is
proposing that product codes could be used to satisfy PTD requirements
related to identifying the product type (i.e., RFG, RBOB or
conventional gasoline); for RFG and RBOB, the designations and minimum
and maximum standards; and for RBOB, the oxygenate blending
specifications. Product codes, used to meet these PTD requirements
would have to fully reflect the PTD requirements. Thus, a product code
that referred to ``VOC controlled RFG,'' without more, would not meet
the requirement in Sec. 80.77(g)(1)(i) to separately identify RFG that
is VOC controlled for Region 1 and Region 2. Similarly, where product
codes are used to identify minimum and maximum standards, as required
in Sec. 80.77(g)(2), the product codes would have to reflect the actual
numerical value for the minimum and maximum standards.
In addition, EPA is proposing that the codes would have to be
standardized throughout the distribution system in which they are used,
and that transferees would have to be given the information necessary
to know the meaning of the product codes.
EPA is not proposing that product codes could be used to satisfy
PTD requirements unrelated to product types. It is EPA's understanding
that product codes used in normal business practice are limited to
product types. In addition, EPA believes that other PTD information,
such as the name and address of the transferor and transferee, volume
of product, and date of transfer, is included in full text in documents
historically used to memorialize transfers of petroleum products.
In addition, EPA is not proposing that product codes could be used
for transfers of gasoline to truck carriers, retail outlets, or
wholesale purchaser-consumer facilities. EPA believes that these types
of regulated parties may not be sufficiently familiar with product
codes to know their full meaning. This belief is based, in part, on
EPA's experience in enforcing compliance with the RFG requirements by
truck carriers, retailers and wholesale users. EPA has found that in
most cases where codes were used to supply required PTD information to
these parties, the parties did not know the meaning of the product
codes even where the gasoline supplier had previously provided the
information necessary to interpret the product codes.
V. Enforcement
A. Prohibitions (Sec. 80.78)
1. Clarification of Prohibitions (Sec. 80.78(a) (1) through (4))
Sections 80.78(a) (1) and (2) prohibit activities that could result
in the use of non-RFG in RFG covered areas. Specifically, these
sections prohibit the manufacture and marketing of gasoline represented
to be RFG unless the gasoline meets the requirements for federally
certified RFG, and prohibit the distribution and sale of non-RFG for
use by ultimate consumers in RFG covered areas. EPA believes, however,
that the current text of Sec. 80.78(a) should be made clearer with
regard to the scope of these prohibitions. As a result, EPA is
proposing to revise the introductory text of Sec. 80.78(a)(1) and
Sec. 80.78(a)(2), to clarify these prohibitions. In addition, EPA is
proposing to delete Sec. 80.78(a)(3), since this section refers to a
conventional gasoline marker and the regulations currently do not
require a marker for a conventional gasoline. EPA is also proposing to
revise Sec. 80.78(a)(4) for purposes of consistency with the revised
text of Secs. 80.78(a) (1) and (2).
2. Addition of ``Causation'' of Prohibited Activities
(Sec. 80.78(a)(10))
Section 80.78(a) prohibits certain conduct on the part of parties
who are engaged in gasoline industry activities such as gasoline
manufacturing and selling, distributing, dispensing, supplying,
storing, or transporting. Under this subsection, however, parties
currently are liable for ``causing'' prohibited conduct only in the
case of gasoline that is transported in violation of the regulations.
EPA now believes there are other situations where a party may, in
fact, cause another to commit a prohibited act, and in those cases, the
causing party also should be liable for the violation. For example, a
distributor who delivers to a retail outlet reformulated gasoline that
fails to meet one or more standards would have caused the retailer to
sell and offer for sale prohibited gasoline.
As a result, EPA is proposing that parties would be liable not only
for committing prohibited actions, but also for causing another party
to commit a prohibited act.
3. Transition from Simple Model to Complex Model in 1998
Under Sec. 80.41(i), refiners and importers of both reformulated
and conventional gasoline have the option of using either the simple
model or the
[[Page 37357]]
early complex model prior to January 1, 1998. Particularly in the case
of producers of reformulated gasoline, EPA believes that most parties
will elect the simple model standards. Beginning on January 1, 1998,
however, refiners and importers must meet the complex model standards
for all reformulated and conventional gasoline produced or imported. As
a result, in January 1998, it will be necessary for parties to
transition from the simple model to the complex model, yet the current
regulations do not specify how regulated parties should accomplish this
transition. Therefore, EPA now is proposing the manner in which this
transition would occur.
Under the proposal, any gasoline produced or imported during
calendar year 1997, through December 31, 1997, would be subject to the
simple or early complex model standards in the same manner as during
calendar years 1995 and 1996. Thus, any simple or early complex model
standards that are met on an annual average basis for 1997 would be met
for all gasoline produced during calendar year 1997.
Any gasoline produced or imported beginning on January 1, 1998,
would be subject to the complex model standards. Thus, conventional
gasoline produced during calendar 1998 would be subject to the annual
average anti-dumping complex model standards specified in section
101(b)(3), and reformulated gasoline produced during calendar 1998
would be subject to the Phase I complex model standards specified in
Secs. 80.41 (c) and (d).
However, beginning on January 1, 1998, the gasoline located in the
distribution system would be a mixture of gasoline produced to meet the
simple model standards and gasoline produced to meet the complex model
standards. In the case of reformulated gasoline, such a mixture may not
meet certain standards that apply at downstream locations or that are
evaluated under the gasoline quality surveys, i.e., the toxics and
NOX emissions performance standards.20 As a
result, EPA is proposing that gasoline quality surveys conducted during
the period January 1, 1998, through March 31, 1998, will not include
evaluation for toxics or NOX emissions performance. During
this period, however, EPA would continue to enforce the complex model
standards for oxygen and benzene content that apply at downstream
locations, and gasoline quality surveys conducted during this period
would include evaluations for oxygen and benzene content. Beginning on
May 1, 1998, all applicable complex model standards would be enforced
at all locations, and gasoline quality surveys would evaluate with all
complex model standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ There is no simple model NOX standard, so that a
mixture of simple model and complex model gasoline could fail to
meet the complex model NOX standard. Similarly, a mixture
of simple and complex model gasoline could not be evaluated for
compliance with either the simple model or the complex model toxics
emissions performance standards.
The standards for oxygen and benzene content are the same under
the simple and complex models, so that a mixture of simple and
complex model reformulated gasoline could be evaluated for
compliance with these standards. The standards for VOC and
NOX emissions performance are not evaluated for
downstream compliance until the beginning of the high ozone season
on May 1 each year, and as a result should not be affected by the
transition from the simple to the complex model in early 1998.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA believes that the three month period, January through March
1998, would be sufficient time for parties to transition the gasoline
at all locations in the distribution system from gasoline produced to
meet simple model standards to gasoline produced to meet complex model
standards. This transition period is similar to the time necessary to
transition to the VOC-control standards each Spring; i.e., terminals
are able to complete their transition to the new standard about 60 days
after refiners begin producing gasoline to the new standard, and retail
outlets complete their transition during the next 30 days.
4. Amount of Oxygenate Permitted to be Added to RBOB (Sec. 80.78(a)(7))
Section 80.78(a)(7) requires that RBOB may be blended only with
oxygenate of the type and amount, or within the range of amounts,
specified by the refiner or importer at the time the RBOB was produced
or imported. Today's proposal revises Sec. 80.78(1)(7) to clarify that
parties may add oxygenate amounts in excess of the minimum required by
the refiner or importer up to the amount allowed by the oxygen maximum
standard under Sec. 80.41(g).21
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ The amount of oxygen added also may not exceed the maximum
amount allowed under section 211(f) of the Clean Air Act. The
maximum amount allowed under section 211(f) is the amount that is
substantially similar to gasoline used in the motor vehicle
certification process, or allowed under a waiver granted under
section 211(f)(4). In 1991, EPA issued an interpretative rule
increasing the maximum amount of oxygen that EPA believes is allowed
under the substantially similar criteria of section 211(f) from 2.0
to 2.7 wt% oxygen. See 56 FR 5352 (February 11, 1991). Ethanol is
allowed in amounts up to 10% volume pursuant to a waiver granted
under section 211(f)(4). See 44 FR 20777 (April 6, 1979).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. Categories of Gasoline Use within Covered Areas that are Exempt from
RFG Requirements (proposed Sec. 80.78(a)(11))
Section 211(k)(5) of the Clean Air Act describes the scope of the
requirement to use RFG in the reformulated gasoline covered areas:
(5) Prohibition.--Effective beginning January 1, 1995, each of
the following shall be a violation of this section:
(A) The sale or dispensing by any person of conventional
gasoline to ultimate consumers in any covered area.
* * * * *
This statutory prohibition on the sale or dispensing of conventional
gasoline in RFG covered areas is not restricted to gasoline used to
fuel motor vehicles, but rather applies to all gasoline sold or
dispensed within an RFG covered area to any consumer, regardless of the
use. The prohibition, therefore, would include gasoline sold or
dispensed for uses such as in motor vehicles, boats, construction
equipment, recreational vehicles, and lawn and garden equipment.
EPA is proposing to exempt parties from this prohibition in the
following limited situations: gasoline used for research, development
and testing purposes; aviation gasoline sold or dispensed for use in
aircraft, including gasoline that has properties identical to motor
vehicle gasoline that is sold or dispensed solely for use in aircraft;
and gasoline sold or dispensed for use in racing vehicles.
EPA recognizes that there may be facilities located within an RFG
covered area that conduct beneficial research, development, and testing
programs which require the use of conventional gasoline. Today's
proposed rule, therefore, contains provisions for obtaining an
exemption from the prohibitions at Sec. 80.78(a)(1) for persons
distributing, transporting, storing, selling or dispensing conventional
gasoline used for research, development, and testing purposes within
RFG covered areas.
To be exempted from the prohibitions at Sec. 80.78(a)(1) for
research, development or testing under today's proposed rule, the
gasoline: would have to be properly identified in product transfer
documents as conventional gasoline to be used only for research,
development, or testing (as applicable); could not be sold to or from
retail gasoline outlets; could not be sold to or from wholesale
purchaser-consumer facilities unless the wholesale purchaser-consumer
is associated with the research, development, or testing; and would
have to be covered by an
[[Page 37358]]
annual research notification to EPA that includes information that
describes the purpose and scope of the program. EPA believes that these
are the least onerous requirements for industry which also will ensure
that non-RFG gasoline is used only for a legitimate research,
development, and testing purpose. Parties should be aware, however,
that the exemption proposed in today's rule would not exempt gasoline
used for research, development, and testing from complying with any
federal conventional gasoline requirements.
Under today's proposal, any person distributing, transporting,
storing, selling or dispensing aviation and racing gasoline would be
required to clearly identify the gasoline as not reformulated to be
exempted from the prohibitions at Sec. 80.78(a)(1). If any of the
restricted gasoline were used in a manner inconsistent with the
restriction, a violation of the prohibited activity would have
occurred, and any person selling, dispensing, or using the gasoline
would be liable for the violation.
EPA is proposing that the racing vehicle exemption would apply only
in the case of vehicles that are used exclusively as racing vehicles in
races that are sanctioned by generally recognized race sanctioning
bodies. In addition, the exception would apply only in the case of
vehicles that do not meet the definition of ``motor vehicle'' under
Clean Air Act section 216(2) and section 85.1703 22 and that
are not registered or licensed for use on or operated on public roads
or highways. Examples of generally recognized race sanctioning bodies
include the National Association for Stock Car Auto Racing, the Sports
Car Club of America, the National Hot Rod Association, the American
Motorcyclist Association, and the American Power Boat Association. The
racing vehicle exemption applies to use of racing vehicles during
practice and qualifying for, and competition in sanctioned races, and
applies to motorcycles and boats used exclusively in sanctioned races.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ Under Sec. 85.1703 a vehicle is a ``motor vehicle'' if it
is self propelled and capable of transporting a person or materials,
unless the vehicle meets one or more of the following criteria: (1)
A maximum speed of not more than 25 miles per hour; (2) the absence
of features customary for street use, such as a reverse gear, a
differential, and required safety features; or (3) the presence of
features that render the vehicle highly unsuitable for street use,
such as tracks.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The rationale for the proposed exemption for aviation gasoline used
to fuel aircraft is based on safety considerations. Aviation gasoline
must satisfy performance criteria that are relevant to the safe
operation of aircraft, and this safety consideration outweighs the very
limited potential for adverse environmental effects from conventional
gasoline used in this manner. In addition, aircraft emissions normally
would not be confined to the covered area where the aircraft is fueled,
and could occur in significant part outside any RFG covered area. The
rationale for the proposed exemption for racing gasoline is based on
the special performance requirements for true race vehicles and the
limited volumes of gasoline involved. The environmental impact from
these exemptions is trivial or minimal, and the burden from refusing
these exemptions is potentially significant. EPA believes the
exemptions are warranted under these limited circumstances. See Alabama
Power Company v. Costle, 636 F.2d 323, 357 (D.C. Cir.1979).
Nevertheless, EPA requests comments on whether the racing vehicle
exemption would cause increased air pollution in RFG covered areas that
is not trivial, and if so, whether such an environmental effect would
make the racing vehicle exemption inappropriate.
6. Changing Service of Gasoline Storage Tanks (Sec. 80.78(a) (12) and
(13))
Section 80.78(a) requires the segregation of several categories of
gasoline. These categories include the following:
Reformulated gasoline may not be mixed with conventional gasoline and
sold as reformulated gasoline.
Reformulated gasoline blendstock for oxygenate blending (RBOB) may not
be mixed with reformulated gasoline or conventional gasoline, and
RBOB's that have different oxygen requirements must be segregated from
each other.
During the period January 1 through September 15 each year VOC-
controlled reformulated gasoline that is produced using ethanol must be
segregated from VOC-controlled reformulated gasoline that is produced
using any other oxygenate, including at the retail level.
Oxygenated fuels program reformulated gasoline (OPRG) must be
segregated from non-OPRG designated reformulated gasoline.
These segregation requirements preclude the mixing of any amount of
the gasolines that must be segregated.23 Thus, if the type
of gasoline stored in a tank is changed (a change in the tank's
service), and the old gasoline type and the new gasoline type must be
segregated, the new gasoline may not be added unless the tank is
completely free of any amount of the old gasoline type.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ Reformulated gasoline may be mixed with conventional
gasoline, so long as the mixture is classified in the product
transfer documents as conventional gasoline and is used only outside
any reformulated gasoline covered area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A gasoline storage tank's service also may be changed in a manner
that results in some volume of blendstocks being mixed with
reformulated or conventional gasoline. For example, a storage tank's
service could be changed from blendstock (e.g., natural gasoline,
raffinate, naphtha) to reformulated or conventional gasoline, which
would result in mixing some volume of blendstock with the reformulated
or conventional gasoline. Under Secs. 80.65(c), 80.78(a)(5) and
80.101(d)(1) a party who combines any volume of blendstock with
reformulated or conventional gasoline has produced additional volume of
gasoline, which constitutes refining for which the refiner must meet
all standards and requirements that apply to refiners of reformulated
or conventional gasoline.
EPA recognizes that when many gasoline storage tanks are pumped as
low as possible a residual volume of gasoline or blendstock remains in
the tank (called the tank ``heel''), and in the terminal's manifolds
and pipes that serve the tank. It is very difficult but not impossible
to eliminate these residual volumes. As a result, EPA is proposing that
in the limited situation related to changing the service of a gasoline
storage tank, pipe, or manifold for legitimate business reasons that
are unrelated to any goal of mixing dissimilar gasolines or blendstock,
that parties would be allowed to mix products that normally must remain
segregated. Under the proposal, parties changing the service of a
gasoline storage tank, pipe or manifold would have to meet a number of
conditions and constraints that are specified in the proposed
regulations, including measures that would minimize the volumes of
dissimilar gasolines that are mixed. In addition, when any mixture
would be classified as reformulated gasoline the party would be
required to sample and test the gasoline subsequent to mixing to show
the mixture meets all applicable reformulated gasoline standards.
EPA also is proposing an additional option that would apply in the
case of a transition from reformulated gasoline blendstock for
oxygenate blending (``RBOB'') to RFG, and vice versa, at a terminal
where oxygenate is blended in trucks (splash-blended). This option
would be available only in a case where the oxygenate blender is unable
to meet the tank transition requirements discussed above.
[[Page 37359]]
This option is being proposed because in some cases the
requirements for tank transition under the proposed regulatory
revisions are not feasible without risk that a terminal would have to
be closed during at least part of the transition period. For example,
consider a terminal operator who wants to supply RFG containing MTBE
during the summer VOC season, and RFG containing ethanol outside the
VOC season. During the VOC season this party's storage tank would
contain MTBE-based RFG, while outside the VOC season the storage tank
would contain RBOB that would be splash-blended with ethanol at the
terminal. As a result, the party's terminal tank would have to
transition from RBOB to RFG in the spring, and from RFG to RBOB in the
fall. Under the change-of-service requirements described above, in the
spring the storage tank's RBOB content would have to be drawn-down to
the minimum level possible through normal pumping operations before any
RFG could be added to the tank. In order to meet this requirement,
however, the party may have to take the storage tank out of service if
the ``minimum level'' is reached before new product is available to be
transferred into the tank. If the terminal has limited tankage it could
be unable to supply gasoline during the time the storage tank remains
out of service, which could adversely affect gasoline supplies for some
parties. The same difficulty could occur when transitioning from RFG to
RBOB in the fall.
As a result, EPA is proposing an option that would allow a party to
receive RFG in a tank containing RBOB in the Spring prior to the
beginning of the VOC season, and to receive RBOB in a tank containing
RFG in the Fall subsequent to the end of the VOC season. This option is
intended to minimize the likelihood a party would have to take a tank
out of service in order to transition product types.
Under this option, parties could have a mixture of RFG and RBOB in
a storage tank during the transition period. The option would require
parties to ensure that all RFG downstream standards, including the
oxygen standard, are met during the transition. In particular, parties
would be required to adjust the rate of splash-blended oxygenate based
on sampling and testing of the RFG/RBOB mixture and the RFG produced
subsequent to splash blending. In addition, the transition must occur
outside the period VOC control standards apply at the terminal--
normally May 1 through September 15 each year.
B. Liability and Defenses (Sec. 80.79)
1. Branded Refiner Defenses for Violations at Branded Retail Outlets
Directly Supplied by the Refiner (Sec. 80.79(b) (2) and (3))
Section 80.79(b)(2) specifies the affirmative defense elements that
must be shown by a refiner for violations of the reformulated gasoline
standards that are found at branded downstream facilities. As currently
promulgated, this section addresses violations that are caused by a
reseller, distributor, oxygenate blender, or carrier that is supplied
by the refiner, or by a retailer or wholesale purchaser-consumer who is
supplied by one of these parties. The regulation does not specifically
address the case of a branded retailer or wholesale purchaser-consumer
who is supplied directly by the refiner. In addition, the current
regulation is silent regarding the defenses that would apply in the
case of a violation occurring at a facility carrying the brand name of
an importer who is not also a refiner.
EPA believes the defense provisions should address violations that
occur at facilities that display the brand name of an importer that
would parallel the defense elements that apply to branded refiners, as
well as violations that are caused by retailers or wholesale purchaser-
consumers that are directly supplied by a refiner or importer. EPA
believes that the degree of control available to importers over their
branded retail outlets is the same as the degree of control available
to refiners over their branded retail outlets. This control primarily
is available through contractual obligations that the refiner and
importer can impose on distributors and retailers who distribute or
sell gasoline under the brand name. As a result, EPA is proposing
modifications to Sec. 80.79(b)(2) that would make these changes.
2. Truck Carrier Defenses (Sec. 80.79(c)(3); Proposed Sec. 80.2(ss);
Modifications to Secs. 80.28(g)(1)(iii); 80.30(g)(1)(i))
Section 80.79(b) specifies the defenses for violations of the
prohibited activities under the reformulated gasoline program. Section
80.79(b)(1) states that a party, who is presumed liable for a
violation, can avoid liability if it can show: (1) That it did not
cause the violation, (2) the existence of appropriate product transfer
documents for the gasoline in question, and (3) that it conducted an
appropriate quality assurance sampling and testing program.
These defenses apply to all regulated parties, including carriers.
In addition, under Sec. 80.79(b)(1)(iii)(B) a carrier may rely on
properly conducted quality assurance sampling and testing program
conducted by another party. Carrier is defined at 40 CFR 80.2(t) as a
party who stores or transports gasoline without taking title to the
gasoline.
For one category of carriers--truck carriers--sampling and testing
may not always be the most appropriate form of quality assurance. The
purpose of a quality assurance requirement is, first and foremost, to
institutionalize preventive measures as the best way to detect and
avoid violations. The most typical role of truck carriers in the
gasoline distribution system is to transport gasoline from a terminal
to a retail outlet or wholesale consumer. Most violations caused by
truck carriers result when an inappropriate type of gasoline is
delivered. For example, a truck carrier would have caused a violation
if gasoline designated as conventional is delivered by the carrier to a
retail outlet located in a reformulated gasoline covered area. The most
appropriate quality assurance for a truck carrier to implement to avoid
this type of violation would be driver training on the proper types of
gasoline to deliver, and management oversight of product transfer
documents to ensure the proper type of gasoline has been delivered.
It is EPA's understanding that truck carriers almost always load
gasoline into empty truck compartments. To the extent this is true, it
would be very unlikely the carrier could be responsible if the gasoline
loaded into the truck were off-spec for a regulated standard, such as
benzene or oxygen content. As a result, sampling and testing of
gasoline obtained from a truck compartment would not be particularly
effective for detecting violations caused by the carrier. In addition,
EPA has received comments from industry regarding the practicability of
drawing samples from truck compartments during the loading process, or
subsequent to loading. These comments conclude that the technical
aspects of collecting gasoline samples from truck compartments make
such sampling difficult, but not impossible. For example, the sampler
normally would be required to climb onto the top of the truck trailer
in order to gain access to the compartment lid, which could be
difficult particularly in adverse weather conditions.
As a result, EPA is proposing to modify the defense elements under
40 CFR 80.79 as they pertain to truck carriers, to state that an
oversight program by a truck carrier may consist of, instead of
sampling and testing, a program to monitor compliance with the
[[Page 37360]]
requirements related to gasoline transport or storage, such as a
program to properly train truck drivers and review product transfer
documents to ensure that the proper type of gasoline is delivered. In
addition, EPA is proposing to add a definition of tank truck carrier to
40 CFR 80.2.
EPA is not proposing a similar change to the reformulated gasoline
defense provisions for carriers other than truck carriers, such as
pipelines, barge operators, or for-hire terminals. EPA believes
carriers in these other categories are better able to collect gasoline
samples, and samples of the gasoline being transported or stored by
these categories are collected for commercial reasons on a routine
basis in the normal course of business. Nevertheless, EPA requests
comments regarding whether the changes proposed for truck carriers
should also be applied to other types of carriers.
EPA also is proposing similar changes to the defense provisions for
truck carriers in the case of violations of the volatility requirements
at 40 CFR 80.28(g)(1), and violations of the diesel sulfur requirements
at 40 CFR 80.30(g)(1). The rationale for changing the volatility and
diesel sulfur defense provisions for truck carriers is the same as is
discussed above for reformulated gasoline.
C. Gasoline Treated as Blendstock (Proposed Sec. 80.83; Minor Changes
to Sec. 80.74 and Sec. 80.104)
Under 40 CFR 80.65(c) and 80.101(d) an importer must include all
imported product that meets the definition of gasoline in the
importer's compliance calculations for either reformulated or
conventional gasoline. If this imported gasoline is then processed by
blending with additional blendstock, the subsequent blending
constitutes a refinery operation for which all refiner requirements
must be met, including refinery standards, refiner sampling and
testing, independent sampling and testing in the case of reformulated
gasoline, recordkeeping, reporting, and attest engagements. Further,
the reformulated gasoline or anti-dumping standards for such an
operation must be met solely on the basis of the blendstocks used, and
the previously imported (and previously accounted for) gasoline may not
be included. This is true regardless of whether the subsequent
blending-refining is conducted by the original importer of the
gasoline, or by another party.
One consequence of this requirement is that importers are not able
to conduct remedial blending of imported gasoline that is deficient
with regard to a specification (i.e., is ``off-spec'') prior to
certification as reformulated or conventional gasoline. For example,
consider an importer who receives a cargo of gasoline that the importer
intends to import as reformulated gasoline, but that on arrival in the
United States has a benzene content of 1.35 vol%, which is in excess of
the maximum benzene standard of 1.30 vol%. Because this gasoline fails
to meet one of the reformulated gasoline standards it cannot be
imported as reformulated, and the importers only option is to import
the gasoline as conventional. Moreover, the importer cannot import the
gasoline as reformulated and subsequently add blendstock to reduce the
benzene content, and the gasoline cannot be imported as conventional
and converted to reformulated subsequent to remedial blending. The
financial consequences to an importer of downgrading a shipload of
gasoline from reformulated to conventional could be significant.
This constraint on imported gasoline does not apply in the case of
a refinery where gasoline is produced that is off-spec. Consider a
refiner who produces a batch of reformulated or conventional gasoline
and who determines that the gasoline is off-spec prior to the gasoline
leaving the refinery or being fungibly mixed at the refinery. The
refiner can delay designating the gasoline as a batch of RFG, reblend
the batch to correct the off-spec condition, and designate the
reblended gasoline as a batch for refinery compliance calculations.
EPA is proposing changes that would allow importers to treat
imported conventional or reformulated gasoline as blendstocks (termed
``gasoline treated as blendstock,'' or ``GTAB'') in order to conduct
remedial blending of off-spec imported gasoline. An importer's ability
to classify imported gasoline as GTAB would be subject to significant
conditions and constraints, however, that are included in the proposed
regulations. For example, the GTAB could not be sold or transferred by
the importer to another company prior to the completion of remedial
blending. As a result, the company that imports the gasoline and
classifies it as GTAB in its importer capacity also would be required
to conduct remedial blending and report the blended gasoline in its
refiner capacity. This proposed constraint is included in order to
curtail any commerce in gasoline that has not been certified. EPA is
concerned that in the absence of this constraint gasoline could be lost
in the fungible distribution system without ever having been certified.
In addition, for standards that are based on a company's individual
baseline (such as the standards for sulfur, T-90 and olefins for simple
model reformulated gasoline, and all conventional gasoline standards)
the company would be required each year to calculate an adjusted
refinery compliance baseline for the refinery where the GTAB is used to
produce gasoline. This adjusted compliance baseline would be calculated
separately each calendar year averaging period when GTAB is used to
produce gasoline, and would consist of the volume-weighted combination
of the company's importer baseline at the GTAB volume for the year, and
the refinery's individual baseline at refinery's gasoline volume
exclusive of GTAB for the year. This proposed condition is intended to
prevent a company with an individual refinery baseline that is less
stringent than the company's importer baseline from using the GTAB
option as a device to apply the less stringent refinery baseline to
imported gasoline.
EPA has previously allowed use of this GTAB option in guidance
included in Reformulated Gasoline and Anti-Dumping Questions and
Answers (February 6, 1995). EPA experience since this guidance was
issued has been that the GTAB option has been effective in providing
importers appropriate flexibility to correct off-spec imported
gasoline, and that the conditions and limitations have been effective
in preventing compliance difficulties.
D. Treatment of Interface and Transmix (Proposed Sec. 80.84)
When refined petroleum products are transported by pipeline the
products normally are pumped sequentially, but as a continuous flow,
through the pipeline. Thus, for example, the products in a pipeline may
consist of the following in sequence: Premium conventional gasoline,
regular conventional gasoline, premium reformulated gasoline, regular
reformulated gasoline, diesel fuel, number 2 heating oil, jet fuel,
etc. Where there is no mechanical separation of the product types in
the pipeline, and normally there is none, some mixing of adjacent
product types occurs. While the magnitude of this mixing typically is
small, there nevertheless is some amount of mixing.
The petroleum product in a pipeline between two surrounding batches
of petroleum product that consists of a mixture of the two surrounding
batches is called ``interface.'' Where interface product consists of a
mixture of gasoline and distillate (e.g., diesel fuel, heating
[[Page 37361]]
oil, or jet fuel), the interface is called ``transmix.''
It is EPA's understanding that historic pipeline industry practice
regarding interface has been to blend the interface mixture into the
two adjoining products that created the interface. Thus, for example,
half of the interface between premium and regular gasoline is blended
into the premium gasoline and half into the regular gasoline--called a
``fifty percent cut'' or a ``mid-point cut.'' EPA further understands
that certain product types are not mixed with any other product type,
such as jet fuel. As a result, for example, where there is an interface
between jet fuel and heating oil, none of the interface is blended into
the jet fuel, and all of the interface is blended into the heating
oil--called a ``clean cut.''
Lastly, EPA understands that certain types of interface mixtures
cannot easily be blended into either of the adjoining products. This
would be the case where interface consists of a mixture of gasoline and
distillate, commonly called ``transmix.'' EPA's understanding is that
the current pipeline industry practice, when possible, is to transmit
transmix via pipeline or barge to a facility designed to separate the
gasoline and distillate portions--a ``transmix processing'' facility.
Where transmix cannot be transported to a transmix processing facility
the transmix is blended into gasoline in very small amounts, typically
0.25% to 0.5% of the gasoline by volume.
Under 40 CFR 80.78(a) parties are required to segregate certain
categories of gasoline. For example, 40 CFR 80.78(a)(10) states that
``(n)o person may combine any reformulated gasoline with any
conventional gasoline and sell the resulting mixture as reformulated
gasoline.'' Thus, in order to sell gasoline as reformulated the
gasoline cannot have been mixed with any conventional gasoline.
Under 40 CFR 80.2 (h) and (i), 80.65(a), and 80.101 the
reformulated gasoline and antidumping requirements apply at any
facility where gasoline is produced. Gasoline most commonly is produced
at refineries where crude oil is processed into blending components,
that are then combined to create gasoline. Gasoline also is produced at
any other location where blendstocks are combined to create gasoline,
or where blendstocks are added to gasoline to create additional
gasoline volume. Moreover, EPA believes that gasoline is produced when
transmix is separated into gasoline and distillate portions.
EPA now is proposing regulations that would clarify the manner in
which interface product, including transmix, would be treated under the
reformulated gasoline program.
The proposed regulations contain requirements for transmix
processors (parties who separate transmix into diesel and gasoline),
and transmix blenders (parties who blend transmix into gasoline without
first separating it into diesel and gasoline). Further, the
requirements for transmix processors and blenders would be different
depending upon whether the gasoline produced or blended is reformulated
or conventional gasoline.
Transmix processors who classify the gasoline produced as
conventional would be required to exclude this transmix-based product
from anti-dumping compliance calculations. If the transmix processor
used blendstocks other than the transmix-based product, however, the
processor would be classified as a refiner and would have to include
the blendstocks (but not the transmix-based product) in anti-dumping
compliance calculations for the refinery. This approach is being
proposed because the gasoline portion of the transmix would have been
included in the compliance calculations of the refinery that produced
the gasoline, and for the transmix processor also to include the
gasoline would result in double-counting. Any blendstock used in the
operation normally would not previously have been accounted for,
however, and therefore would have to be included in the transmix
processor's accounting.
Transmix processors who classify the gasoline produced as
reformulated, in contrast, would be required to include the transmix-
based product, as well as any other blendstocks used, in the
reformulated gasoline compliance calculations for the refinery. This
difference in treatment for reformulated gasoline produced using
transmix would be appropriate because it is possible the gasoline
produced would not meet all reformulated gasoline standards. This
possibility is avoided if the transmix processor were required to meet
all reformulated gasoline standards.
Parties would be allowed to blend transmix into conventional
gasoline where certain conditions are met: (1) The transmix must result
from normal pipeline operations; and (2) either there must be no means
of transporting the transmix to a transmix processor via pipeline or
water, or there was a historical practice of blending transmix at the
facility before 1995. In addition, the rate of transmix blending would
be limited to the greater of 0.25% by volume, or the demonstrated
blending rate in 1994.
Parties would be allowed to blend transmix into reformulated
gasoline under conditions that are more restrictive than are proposed
for conventional gasoline. The transmix would be required to result
from normal pipeline operations, there could be no means of
transporting the transmix to a transmix processor via pipeline or
water, and the party must be unable to blend the transmix into
conventional gasoline. In addition, the rate of transmix blending would
be limited to a maximum of 0.25% by volume. Lastly, the party would be
required to carry out a program of sampling and testing the
reformulated gasoline subsequent to transmix blending to ensure the
downstream standards are met, at frequencies that are included in the
proposed regulations.
VI. Anti-Dumping Requirements
A. Individual Baseline Determination (Sec. 80.91)
1. Negligible Quantities (Secs. 80.91(d)(3) and 80.91(d)(5)(iii))
The negligible quantities provision in Sec. 80.91(d)(3) was written
to promote simplification of baseline determination and to excuse
testing in certain limited circumstances. Under this provision, if a
refiner can show that a fuel component exists only in negligible
quantities in a blendstock stream, testing that stream for the
component in question is not required, and a value of zero is assigned
to that component. The fuel components to which this provision applies
are aromatics, olefins, benzene, sulfur, and oxygen content. Negligible
quantities are defined as levels which fall below the minimum levels
given in Sec. 80.91(d)(3). This provision is not a requirement, but
rather is an option designed to simplify baseline development for those
refiners who can and choose to take advantage of it.
Although the negligible quantities provision was designed to
simplify baseline determinations, some refiners questioned the use of
zero values for components which existed in negligible quantities.
Instead, they proposed the use of the minimum values given in the
provision. Doing so would negate the original intention of the
provision to simplify baseline determinations, but it would also
recognize that the minimum values represent values below which the
components cannot be measured accurately. Although the use of the
minimum values would result in slightly dirtier (more lenient)
baselines than would result with the use of zero values, EPA is
proposing to revise Sec. 80.91(d)(3) to allow the use of the minimum
values in lieu of zero values
[[Page 37362]]
at the refiner's discretion. In promulgating the negligible quantities
provision, EPA determined that assuming a zero value relative to the
negligible threshold values would not significantly affect emissions.
The same determination applies with regard to allowing the option to
use the minimum values in lieu of zero values.
The negligible quantities provision applies only to Method 3 data
collection for two reasons. First, the provision applies only to
blendstocks, not finished gasoline. Since only Method 2 and 3 data are
blendstock data, the provision cannot apply to Method 1 data. Second,
the primary action of the negligible quantities provision is to excuse
testing in certain cases. The only time a refiner must choose whether
or not to do additional testing is when considering the sufficiency of
its Method 3 data.
The negligible quantities provision reduces the burden placed on
refiners collecting Method 3 data to satisfy the minimum data
requirements. If a refiner can ``show'' that a fuel component exists
only in negligible quantities, testing for the blendstock stream in
question is not required. Instead, a refiner can assume that the level
of a component is zero or, under today's proposal, the minimum value
given in Sec. 80.91(d)(3). Clearly, the showing indicates engineering
judgment or past experience. A showing cannot refer to actual test data
for the blendstock stream in question, because the very purpose of the
negligible quantities provision is to excuse testing. Thus if a refiner
has data on the stream in question, that data must be used in the
determination of the baseline per Sec. 80.91(d)(1)(i)(B).
A refiner could too easily generate a fictitiously more lenient
baseline if EPA allowed test data to be used as a showing of negligible
quantities. Such a refiner could test a given blendstock stream for
components that are found to be essentially absent, and then lay claim
to the minimum values given in the negligible quantities provision. The
EPA has chosen to interpret the negligible quantities provision in a
manner that is consistent with the original intent, provides additional
flexibility, and yet maintains the primary goal of developing baselines
which accurately represent a refiner's actual 1990 production. As a
result, EPA is proposing to revise Sec. 80.91(d)(3) to clarify that a
showing under this section refers to engineering judgment or past
experience and not actual test data.
One caveat on the use of actual data in the baseline determination
should be clarified. If a refiner measures a blendstock stream and
discovers that the measured component level of that stream is below the
applicable range for the test method used, the low end of the
applicable range may be substituted for the actual measured value in
the baseline determination. For example, if a sulfur test method has an
applicable range of .20-200 ppm and a blendstock stream is discovered
to have a sulfur content of 11 ppm with that test method, the stream
can be assumed to contain 20 ppm for the purposes of determining the
baseline. Paragraph (d)(5)(iii) has been added to Sec. 80.91 to codify
this allowance.
2. Closely Integrated Facilities (Sec. 80.91(e)(1))
Section 80.91(e)(1)(i) of the reformulated gasoline regulation
provides for determination of a single set of baseline fuel parameters,
upon petition and approval, for two or more facilities that are
geographically proximate to each other, yet not within a single
refinery gate, and whose 1990 operations were significantly
interconnected in 1990. While the existing provision permits EPA to set
a single baseline that would then apply for each of several refineries,
it does not permit these ``closely integrated facilities'' to be
grouped together for all compliance purposes (including registration,
recordkeeping and reporting). Rather, the provision allows a single
baseline to be set for each facility it represents, and Sec. 80.41(h)
and 80.101(h) require that each refinery comply with this baseline
separately, except where authorized to group refineries for compliance
purposes. 24 Similarly, Sec. 80.91(e)(1)(ii) permits EPA to
set a single baseline for a blending facility which received 75 percent
of its 1990 blendstock from a single refinery, or from one or more
refineries owned by the same refiner and that are part of an aggregate
baseline.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ Combined reports may be submitted for compliance with RFG
baseline-related parameters (sulfur, olefin, and T90) and anti-
dumping. Other reports must be filed by each facility.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA is proposing to amend the RFG and anti-dumping regulations by
adding Sec. 80.91(e)(1)(iii), which would require facilities that have
been determined to be ``closely integrated'' and granted a single
baseline by EPA to demonstrate compliance with all RFG and anti-dumping
requirements as if they were one facility. Furthermore, the ``closely
integrated'' facilities would have a single registration and would file
a single set of compliance reports. EPA believes that this change will
reduce costs (including paperwork costs) to industry without any
significant negative environmental impact.
3. Extending the Valid Range for Sulfur in Conventional Gasoline
(Sec. 80.91(f)(2)(ii))
Under the anti-dumping provisions of the final rule, refiners use
their individual 1990 baselines to determine compliance with the
regulations under both the simple and complex models. To comply with
the anti-dumping regulations, a refiner using the complex model is
subject to valid range limits for oxygen content, sulfur content, RVP,
E200, E300, aromatics content, olefins content, and benzene content.
All of these fuel parameters are represented in the complex model
equations applicable to conventional gasoline.
Section 80.91(f)(2)(ii) allows a refiner to extend the conventional
gasoline valid range for the complex model if the benzene, aromatics,
or olefins values for its individual 1990 baseline fuel falls outside
of the valid range specified in Sec. 80.45(f)(1)(ii). This provision
was clarified in a Direct Final Rulemaking published on July 20, 1994
(59 FR 36944). At the time of this Direct Final Rulemaking, the Agency
had no reason to believe that provisions for the extension of the valid
range for fuel parameters other than benzene, aromatics, and olefins on
either the low or high ends were necessary. Peripheral limitations such
as ASTM specifications and the volatility rule were expected to
eliminate the need for valid range extensions in other cases. Since
publication of the Direct Final Rule, the Agency has determined that,
despite such peripheral limitations, some individual refiner baselines
contained sulfur levels beyond the 1000 ppm valid range limit.
According to the current regulatory requirements, such baseline fuels
cannot be evaluated with the complex model. The Agency has determined
that the provision for extension of the valid range limit, previously
applicable only to benzene, aromatics, and olefins, should also be
applicable to sulfur.
By definition, the valid range limit defines that range of values
for a given fuel parameter within which the complex model is considered
accurate. Extensions of the valid range limits, therefore, cannot be
boundless. If the valid range limit for sulfur is extended, the refiner
in question must still be limited by a valid range to eliminate the
possibility that the complex model will be used for sulfur values that
are very high, which might compromise the primary objective of the
anti-dumping program.
The Agency has determined that the best approach to limiting the
extension of the valid range for fuel benzene,
[[Page 37363]]
aromatics, olefins, or sulfur content is to allow target fuels to have
values at least up to the baseline level. Since the baseline fuel is an
``average'' fuel of sorts, the Agency has also determined that refiners
should be given some flexibility beyond the baseline value. For sulfur
this flexibility will be fixed at a value of 50 ppm. Thus the extended
valid range limit for sulfur would be equal to the individual refiner's
baseline fuel value for sulfur, plus 50 ppm.
The Agency continues to believe that the valid range limits
specified in Sec. 80.45(f)(1)(ii) delineate the range of fuel parameter
values beyond which the accuracy of the complex model is questionable.
Thus the Agency has determined that any extension of the specified
valid ranges for conventional gasoline should incorporate flat-line
extrapolation. Under flat-line extrapolation, the complex model
provides no emissions benefit or detriment when raising the value of
sulfur above 1000 ppm. This flat-line extrapolation will apply to both
the baseline fuel and any target fuels evaluated with the complex model
under the anti-dumping regulations.
B. Anti-Dumping Standards (Sec. 80.101)
1. Application of Compliance Baselines Under the Complex Model
(Sec. 80.101(f) (1) and (2))
Clean Air Act section 211(k)(8), the ``anti-dumping'' section,
requires EPA to promulgate regulations that maintain the quality of
gasoline produced by each refinery, based on each refinery's 1990
gasoline quality, or ``baseline.'' The intent of this section is to
prevent refiners from shifting ``dirty'' blendstocks from RFG
production to conventional gasoline production. This section thereby
prevents the degradation in overall quality of the nation's
conventional gasoline as compared to gasoline quality in 1990.
The anti-dumping regulations, at Subpart E,implement this Clean Air
Act section through conventional gasoline standards that are set in
relation to each refinery's 1990 baseline gasoline
quality.25 See, Sec. 80.101. However, in the case of a
refinery that produces a volume of gasoline during an averaging period
that exceeds the refinery's 1990, or baseline, volume, Sec. 80.101
requires that the excess volume meet anti-dumping standards that are
set in relation to a baseline that reflects average U.S. gasoline
quality in 1990, called the ``statutory'' baseline. Thus, under
Sec. 80.101(f) a refiner who operates a refinery with such excess
gasoline volume during an averaging period is required to calculate a
``compliance baseline'' that adjusts the 1990 baseline to reflect the
excess volume over 1990 levels.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ The discussion in this preamble section, VI.B.1, applies to
importers and the gasoline imported by importers in the same way
that it applies to refiners and the gasoline produced at refineries,
but the text refers only to refiners and refineries for purposes of
drafting economy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The rationale for using compliance baselines is the same for both
simple and complex model standards. See discussion at 57 FR 13488
(April 16, 1992). However, under Sec. 80.101(b) compliance baselines
apply only to simple model standards. EPA believes the absence of a
requirement to use compliance baselines for complex model standards was
an error of omission when Sec. 80.101 was promulgated, and as a result
is now proposing to require use of compliance baselines under the
complex model.
EPA is not proposing to require use of compliance baselines under
the optional complex model, even though the rationale for their use
would apply. The optional complex model may be used only through 1997,
and today's proposed changes will not become final until well into
1997. As a result, EPA believes it is not practical to apply compliance
baselines to the optional complex model at this time.
Section 80.101(f) provides the methodology for calculating a
refinery's compliance baseline. Under this provision, the calculation
is based on a refinery's production volume of conventional gasoline,
reformulated gasoline, RBOB and California gasoline. However,
oxygenates that are blended downstream of a refinery and subsequently
included in the refinery's compliance calculations for conventional
gasoline and oxygenates added to RBOB are not currently included in the
calculation. EPA now believes that such oxygenates should be included
in a refinery's total annual production as it compares to its 1990
volume for the purpose of determining the refinery's compliance
baseline . EPA believes this change is appropriate in order to keep the
various provisions of Sec. 80.101 consistent.
EPA also is proposing to change the organization of Sec. 80.101(f),
in order to make the requirements of this subsection clearer. This
reorganization would not, in itself, change the substantive
requirements of the subsection.
2. Elimination of the Baseline Adjustment by Refiners Who Also Are
Importers (Sec. 80.101(f)(3))
Under the anti-dumping program all domestic refineries have
individual baselines, while almost all imported gasoline is subject to
the statutory baseline. However, Sec. 80.101(f)(3) requires an importer
who also operates one or more refineries to use a baseline for imported
gasoline that is the average of the individual refinery baselines. This
requirement is intended to address a particular ``gaming'' concern:
that a refiner who operates a refinery with a stringent refinery
baseline (a baseline cleaner than the statutory baseline), would
produce conventional gasoline that would be exported and thereby would
be excluded from the refinery's compliance calculations, but that then
would be imported under the less stringent statutory baseline.
EPA now believes the requirement at Sec. 80.101(f)(3) may be
unnecessary. There may be little risk of the form of gaming described
above, in part due to the cost of transporting large volumes of
gasoline out of the United States in order to be exported, and then
transporting the same gasoline back into the United States in order to
be imported. In addition, the current requirement provides a
competitive advantage to refiner/importers who operate refineries with
baselines that are dirtier than the statutory baseline. Further, EPA
now believes the gaming concern could be appropriately addressed by
simply prohibiting parties from exporting and then importing gasoline
for the purpose of obtaining a more favorable baseline for the
gasoline.
As a result, EPA is proposing to eliminate the requirement for
refiner/importers to calculate a special baseline for imported
gasoline, and is proposing to substitute a requirement, as proposed
Sec. 80.101(j), that would prohibit the form of gaming described above.
3. Compliance Calculations for Blendstocks (Sec. 80.101(g)(3))
Under Sec. 80.101(d)(4), and subject to certain conditions,
refiners are allowed to include in a refinery's anti-dumping compliance
calculations oxygenate that is added to the gasoline produced at a
refinery where that oxygenate is blended at a facility downstream from
the refinery. 26 In the case of the simple model standards,
which are based only on volume-weighted parameter averages, the
mechanism for including an oxygenate batch in a refinery's compliance
calculations is straightforward--the oxygenate batch is included based
on its volume and
[[Page 37364]]
measured levels for sulfur, olefins, aromatics, etc.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ These conditions are aimed at ensuring that the oxygenate
is blended with gasoline produced at the specific refinery in whose
compliance calculations the oxygenate is included.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
However, in the case of the complex model's emissions performance
standards the mechanism for including oxygenates in compliance
calculations is less clear, because the emissions performance of an
oxygenate batch cannot be directly calculated using the complex model.
This difficulty results from the valid range limits of the complex
model--the complex model is valid only for fuels with parameter values
that are all within the valid range limits, and most oxygenates have at
least some parameter values that are outside these limits. For example,
pure ethanol has an RVP of 2.5 psi, which is less than the 6.4 psi
minimum valid range limit for RVP.
Section 80.101(g)(3) includes a method for calculating the
emissions performance of blendstocks, including oxygenates, based on
the difference in emissions performance between a baseline gasoline,
and the emissions performance of a hypothetical blend of baseline
gasoline and an appropriate amount of the applicable blendstock.
However, the Sec. 80.101(g)(3) method is of limited use in that it only
applies for refineries that only produce gasoline by adding blendstocks
to finished gasoline at a single facility. It has been brought to EPA's
attention that in the case of a refinery that also includes gasoline
batches in its compliance calculations this method is not appropriate.
27 As a result, EPA is proposing to modify the
Sec. 80.101(g)(3) method in order that blendstock batches may be
included in compliance calculations along with gasoline batches.
28
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ Under the Sec. 80.101(g)(3) method a refiner calculates,
for each blendstock batch, the amount the emissions performance that
the batch differs from the refinery's baseline; the net difference
for all blendstock batches used during an averaging period must be
zero. In effect, the blendstock batches constitute a separate
averaging ``pool'' for compliance calculation purposes, that is not
merged with the compliance calculations for a refinery's gasoline
batches. As a result, for example, the Sec. 80.101(g)(3) method
would not allow a refiner to use the relatively ``clean'' emissions
performance of ethanol blended with a refinery's gasoline at a
downstream terminal, to help meet standards by gasoline produced at
the refinery.
\28\ The proposed compliance calculation method involving
previously certified gasoline (PCG), discussed in Preamble Section
IV.C.6., also would be available to a conventional gasoline refiner.
Under the PCG proposal a refinery's compliance would be based only
on the volume and properties of blendstocks that are blended by
excluding the volume and properties of PCG. However, the PCG method
requires the refiner to sample and test each batch of gasoline
received, and each batch of gasoline produced, which may not be
feasible where oxygenate is blended at a downstream terminal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Under the proposal, a refiner would first determine the volume and
properties of each batch of blendstock used. This determination would
require the refiner to sample and test each batch of blendstock
received. However, in the case of oxygenates and butane the refiner
could use these blendstocks' normal properties instead of sampling and
testing each batch received, provided that the refiner completes
proposed procedures, discussed in Preamble sections IV.F.5 and VI.B.8,
that would confirm the purity of these blendstocks.
The refiner then would determine the blending rate of the
blendstock. Where a blendstock batch is blended into multiple batches
of gasoline, the refiner could use the cumulative blending rate. For
example, consider a refiner who blends reformate into gasoline at a
terminal. 29 If this refiner receives a batch of 25,000
gallons of reformate, and blends this blendstock with 300,000 gallons
of gasoline, the blending rate would be 0.077
(25,000325,000=0.077). This would be true whether the 25,000
gallons of reformate were blended with a single 300,000 gallon gasoline
batch, or with six 50,000 gallon gasoline batches regardless of the
individual blending rates for the six batches.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\29\ The terminal in this situation would be classified as a
``refinery'' because gasoline volume is being produced through the
blending of non-oxygenate blendstocks, and the refiner would be
required to meet the anti-dumping standards based on the volume and
properties of the blendstock used at this refinery. The gasoline
used in the blending operation could not be included in compliance
calculations because it would have been previously certified.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
However, EPA is proposing that a blendstock batch that is used to
produce some gasoline that is classified as ``summer'' and other
gasoline that is classified as ``winter'' would have to be treated as
two separate batches, based on the volumes of blendstock used to
produce gasoline in these two ``seasonal'' categories. In addition, and
subject to this seasonal constraint, EPA is proposing that a refiner
who blends oxygenate or butane at a downstream terminal would be
allowed to treat as a single batch the volume of blendstock received
during a period of up to one month.
Next, the refiner would calculate the properties of a hypothetical
gasoline, that would reflect the properties that would result if
gasoline having the refinery's ``summer'' or ``winter'' baseline
values, as appropriate, were blended with the blendstock at the
blending rate previously determined. These properties would be the
volume weighted average for each property. Although certain properties
such as distillation and RVP do not blend linearly, EPA is proposing
this approach as a reasonable approximation since there is no other
method to more accurately attribute the emissions effect of such
downstream blending operations. Consider again the example of the
refiner blending 25,000 gallons of reformate into 300,000 of gasoline
at a terminal. Assume the terminal-refinery is subject to the statutory
baseline, that the reformate has a benzene content of 2.10 vol%, and
that all of the gasoline produced using the reformate is classified as
``summer.'' Under Secs. 80.91(b)(5)(i) and 80.45(b)(2) the ``summer''
benzene statutory baseline is 1.53 vol%. The benzene content for the
hypothetical gasoline blend (Bh) would be calculated as 1.57
vol% using the following equation:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP11JY97.000
In the case of the calculated values for sulfur and oxygen, the
specific gravities of the blendstock and gasoline would be included in
the calculation. The measured specific gravity of the blendstock would
be used. However, EPA is proposing that refiners would be required to
use a specific gravity value of 0.749 for ``summer'' gasoline and 0.738
for ``winter'' gasoline, because a refiner using the proposed procedure
normally would not have measured the gasoline's specific gravity.
The emissions performance of the hypothetical gasoline then would
be determined using the complex model. Under the complex model, these
are the exhaust toxics and NOX emissions performance, in mg/
mi. Like for other compliance calculations involving the complex model,
the ``summer'' complex model would be used for gasoline blends that are
intended for use in an area subject to an EPA summertime RVP standard
at a time these standards are in effect, and that has an RVP value that
meets this standard. The emissions performance for all other gasoline
blends would be determined using the ``winter'' complex model.
In addition, the refiner would determine the emissions performance
of a gasoline having the refinery's baseline values, using the same
complex model version--``summer'' or ``winter''--that was used to
calculate the emissions performance of the hypothetical gasoline.
Finally, EPA is proposing an equation that would be used to
calculate the emissions performance of the blendstock portion of the
hypothetical gasoline blend, called the ``equivalent emissions
performance.'' The equivalent emissions performance values for the
blendstock, together with the blendstock
[[Page 37365]]
volume, would be included in the refinery's compliance calculations as
a separate batch.
Consider again the example of the terminal-refiner using reformate,
and assume the hypothetical gasoline blend, when evaluated under the
summer complex model, had a NOX emissions performance of
685.6 mg/mi. Using the summer baseline emissions performance for
NOX under Sec. 80.45(b)(3) (660.0 mg/mi) and the blendstock
volume fraction previously calculated (0.077), the blendstock's
NOX equivalent emissions performance (EEP) would be
calculated to be 353.13 mg/mi using the following equation:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP11JY97.001
The refiner in this example would include in the refinery's annual
NOX emissions performance compliance calculations a batch
with a volume of 25,000 gallons (the blendstock volume), and a
NOX emissions performance of 353.13 mg/mi.
EPA is proposing that these changes to the blendstock calculation
method would be effective beginning January 1, 1998. As a result, any
refiner who has elected to use the early complex model and who combines
blendstock with previously certified gasoline during the 1997 averaging
period would use the current calculation method in Sec. 80.101(g)(3).
EPA believes this proposed timing is appropriate because it avoids the
confusion and difficulties of reporting that would result if refiners
used two different calculation methods during the same averaging
period.
EPA also is proposing to change the organization of Sec. 80.101(g),
in order to make the requirements of this subsection clearer. This
reorganization would not, in itself, change the substantive
requirements of the subsection.
4. Classifying Gasoline as Summer or Winter Gasoline
(Delete Secs. 80.101(g) (5) and (6); Proposed Sec. 80.101(g)(3)(ii))
Refiners and importers who are subject to complex model standards
are required to determine the emissions performance of each batch of
gasoline using the ``summer'' or ``winter'' version of the complex
model, as appropriate. Sections 80.101(g) (5) and (6) currently provide
instructions for classifying gasoline as either summer or winter, based
on the RVP of the gasoline. Gasoline with an RVP value that is less
than the value required under the volatility regulations at Sec. 80.27
must be classified as summer gasoline, and all other gasoline must be
classified as winter gasoline. No other criteria is included in the
regulations.
Separate summer and winter complex models are included in the
regulations in order to address the seasonal factors that influence
emission levels.30 As a result, the summer complex model is
appropriate for determining the emissions only for gasoline used during
the summer, which generally corresponds to the high ozone season, and
the winter complex model is appropriate for determining the emissions
only for gasoline used outside the summer. In consequence, EPA believes
the criteria for classifying gasoline as summer versus winter should
include the season when the gasoline is used, and not only the RVP of
the gasoline.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\30\ The principal difference between the summer and the winter
complex models is that the summer model includes evaporative
emissions, while the winter complex model does not. Evaporative
emissions largely are a function of ambient temperatures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Another issue regarding the appropriate seasonal complex model
involves gasoline used outside the continental United States in areas
such as Alaska, Hawaii, Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands. Gasoline is
classified as summer gasoline for baseline purposes, under
Sec. 80.91(d)(1)(i)(A)(1), only when the gasoline is ``produced and
intended for sale to satisfy federal summer volatility standards.'' The
federal summer volatility standards, in Sec. 80.27, apply only to
gasoline used in the continental United States. As a result, the
emissions of all gasoline used outside the continental United States
were calculated using the winter complex model for baseline purposes.
The anti-dumping standards are based on a comparison of the
emissions of a refinery's gasoline during an averaging period with the
refinery's baseline emissions. This comparison is valid only if the
same criteria are used in the baseline and in the averaging period for
classifying gasoline as summer or winter.
As a result, under proposed Sec. 80.101(g)(3)(ii), gasoline would
be classified as summer gasoline only where the gasoline both meets a
federal RVP standard under Sec. 80.27, and is intended for use in an
area subject to the RVP standards during the period these standards are
in effect. Thus, all gasoline produced for use in the continental
United States between May 1 and September 15 each year would be
classified as summer gasoline. In addition, any low RVP gasoline
produced before May that is intended to ``blend-down'' the RVP of
gasoline storage tanks in advance of the RVP season also would be
classified as summer gasoline. Lastly, all gasoline produced for use
outside the continental United States, where the federal RVP standards
do not apply, would be classified as winter gasoline year-round.
5. Adjustment and Aggregation of Refineries That Exchange Ownership and
That Are Not Wholly Owned (Sec. 80.101(h))
Section 80.101(h) provides that refiners who operate more than one
refinery may aggregate their refineries for purposes of achieving
compliance with the anti-dumping standards. However, the regulations
include no instructions regarding whether a refiner may aggregate a
refinery that is operated by more than one refiner. EPA is concerned
that enforcement difficulties could result if refiners were allowed
aggregation of refineries with joint owners. Consider for example,
hypothetical refinery 1, that is jointly owned by refiners A and B and
hypothetical refinery 2 that is jointly owned by refiners A and C. In
this example, refineries 1 and 2 are aggregated and these aggregated
refineries fail to meet the anti-dumping standards. In this situation
both refiners B and C could argue that the violation occurred as a
result of actions that occurred at a refinery with which they were not
involved and consequently should not be liable. In consequence, it
would be difficult to establish the liable party in such a situation.
As a result, EPA believes that aggregation should be available only
for refineries with a single person who meets the definition of
``refiner'' for the refinery, or where the persons who meet the
definition of refiner for multiple refineries are identical, and is
proposing to require this aggregation condition.
Section 80.91(f)(4) provides instructions regarding the adjustment
of aggregate baselines where a refinery that is part of an aggregation
is shut down or is transferred to another owner. This section provides
that where an aggregated refinery is shut down or transferred the
baseline is recalculated to reflect the loss of the shut down or
transferred refinery, and where a refinery is acquired the acquiring
refiner must make an aggregation election regarding the acquired
refinery. However, there are no parallel instructions in Sec. 80.101(h)
regarding compliance for an aggregated refinery that is shut down or
transferred.
EPA believes the baseline requirements and the compliance
requirements regarding aggregated refineries should be consistent.
[[Page 37366]]
Therefore, EPA is proposing to adopt for compliance purposes the
instructions in Sec. 80.91(f)(4). In addition, EPA is proposing to
require that when a refinery is transferred during the course of an
averaging period that each refiner would be responsible for meeting
applicable standards during the period it was the refiner for the
refinery. EPA also is proposing that the aggregation election for an
acquired refinery would have to be made effective at the beginning of
the subsequent averaging period. This timing proposal would minimize
the number of refineries that could be part of different aggregations
during a single averaging period, and the confusion and enforcement
difficulties that result from such a situation.
6. Elimination of Composite Sampling and the Inclusion of Sample
Retention Requirements (Current Sec. 80.101(i)(2); Proposed
Sec. 80.101(i)(1)(iii))
Section 80.101(i), in general, requires that refiners and importers
sample and test every batch of conventional gasoline, and under certain
circumstances blendstocks used to produce conventional gasoline, for
the purpose of demonstrating compliance with the requirements of this
subpart. For the purpose of meeting this requirement, refiners and
importers currently may combine samples from more than one batch of
gasoline for testing purposes in accordance with the specified
protocols under Sec. 80.101(i)(2). It was EPA's initial belief that
since this procedure was permitted for the development of baseline
data, it would be appropriate for demonstrating compliance.
EPA now is concerned that composite sampling may not provide the
accurate results necessary for measuring compliance by refiners and
importers under the anti-dumping program, and may also pose significant
risk with regard to the enforcement and assurance of compliance. EPA's
primary concern is that the accuracy of composite sampling relies on
accurate volumetric proportioning and blending of individual batch
samples. Since these normally will be relatively small volumes of
gasoline, there is a substantial potential for inaccurate proportioning
and blending. For example, one refiner commented to the Agency that the
current compositing option has the potential for causing inconsistent
lab results. EPA now believes this is a difficult process to complete
accurately. Equally significant is EPA's concern that the volume
fractions can readily be altered, either intentionally or
inadvertently, with little or no backup means for EPA to detect or
verify such alterations. Such alterations would render the reported
analyses invalid thus providing little or no assurance of compliance
with this subpart by regulated parties.
Further, compositing of samples has the potential to expand the
effect of any errors in formulating or testing a composite sample.
Compliance with the conventional gasoline standards is calculated using
sample test results weighted for the volume of gasoline represented by
the sample. As a result, any incorrect test result for a composite
sample would apply to the entire volume of gasoline represented by the
composite sample, which could be all gasoline produced during a month,
and not just to the volume of a single gasoline batch.
For the above reasons, EPA believes that composite sampling and
analysis as provided under Sec. 80.101(i)(2) is inappropriate.
Therefore, EPA is proposing to eliminate the sample compositing option
under Sec. 80.101(i)(2). EPA's objective in this proposal is to provide
certainty of the accuracy of reports of conventional gasoline quality
that generally are comparable to the certainty that results from per
batch testing. EPA seeks comments on the cost of this proposal and
other options that would achieve this objective at a reduced burden to
regulated parties.
One alternative option would be to require every-batch testing for
certain parameters, and to allow parties to use composite samples for
other parameters. In order to evaluate this alternative option, EPA
seeks comments on which parameters parties normally test on an every
batch basis, whether for operational or commercial purposes. In
addition, EPA requests comment on any cost savings that would result
from this option as compared to testing all parameters for every batch.
Another alternative option would allow compositing, but with a cap
on the volume of gasoline that could be included in any composite
sample. The objective of this alternative option would be to mitigate
the cost of sampling and testing for refiners, typically small
refiners, who produce a large number of very small batches. As a
result, the volume cap could be set at the typical batch size for a
typical refinery. EPA requests comment on the magnitude of the volume
cap that would be appropriate under this alternative option, and on the
cost savings that would result from this option as compared to every-
batch testing.
In addition, EPA is concerned that since there is no independent
verification of the accuracy of test results of individual batches of
gasoline, EPA has a very limited ability to monitor compliance with the
conventional gasoline requirements. Although the independent sampling
and testing requirement of the reformulated gasoline program is
critical to ensuring compliance with the stringent RFG standards, the
same requirement may be excessive for the anti-dumping program.
However, EPA believes some limited ability to verify the accuracy of
sample analysis results is appropriate as a means of encouraging
quality control and monitoring compliance as a deterrent to cheating.
Therefore, EPA is proposing a new requirement under
Sec. 80.101(i)(1)(iii) that refiners and importers retain samples from
each batch of conventional gasoline produced or imported for a period
of 30 days and provide such samples to EPA upon request. EPA would plan
to periodically request samples from individual refiners, either on a
random basis or when it has reason to be suspect, in order to perform
its own gasoline quality analyses. This requirement would apply to
conventional gasoline, gasoline blendstocks that become conventional
gasoline solely upon the addition of oxygenate and blendstocks required
for compliance calculations purposes under Sec. 80.102(e)(2). The
sample retention requirement would not apply to oxygenates blended
downstream of the refinery or import facility. The Agency believes that
refiners and importers often retain samples for some period for their
own internal quality control purposes and, as a result, this
requirement will not create a significantly increased burden for the
industry. EPA seeks comments on the cost or other impacts of this
proposal. In addition, EPA seeks comment on the cost savings that would
result if the required retention period were reduced to 15 days.
EPA recognizes that some refiners blend conventional gasoline ``in-
line'' and ship directly to the pipeline without transferring completed
batches to a storage tank. In this case, sampling in-line using a
``compositing'' methodology as the batch is being produced is the only
practical means to obtain a representative sample from such batches.
Today's proposal to eliminate composite sampling of multiple batches
would allow continued use of in-line blend compositing within a batch.
Further, EPA does not intend to establish any formal means of
petitioning for conventional gasoline in-line blending as currently
exists for reformulated gasoline blending. Therefore, EPA believes that
refiners
[[Page 37367]]
that blend in-line, without transferring the final blend to a storage
tank, should continue to composite in-line provided they do so in
accordance with the industry established automatic sampling procedures
established by ASTM D 4177-95, ``Standard Practice for Automatic
Sampling of Petroleum and Petroleum Products''. The manual compositing
of samples from an in-line blender creates the same quality and
compliance concerns discussed earlier. Further, EPA believes the
automatic sampling requirements proposed under Sec. 80.8(b), and as
referenced in proposed Sec. 80.47 and revised Sec. 80.101, already
establish the procedures required for refiners in order to continue in-
line blending of conventional gasoline.
One of the issues surrounding the elimination of compositing as a
method for compliance verification by conventional gasoline producers
is the cost of the additional testing. EPA recognizes that the cost of
meeting the additional testing requirements by using an outside
laboratory may pose a significant expense for some refineries and,
therefore, it would be preferable if refiners could meet their testing
requirements internally. Based on the results of recent refinery
compliance monitoring since the beginning of the RFG/Anti-dumping
program, EPA believes that most refiners have equipment required to
perform the regulatory tests at their refinery except for sulfur under
the current regulatory test method ASTM D 2622. In an effort to
minimize the potential cost of the additional testing required through
the proposed elimination of sample compositing, EPA examined cost
effective alternative test methods to ASTM D 2622 available for
determining sulfur content in conventional gasoline. EPA has observed
data that suggests that ASTM D 5453-93 (``Standard Test Method for
Determination of Total Sulfur in Light Hydrocarbons, Motor Fuels and
Oils by Ultraviolet Fluorescence''), when properly calibrated and
correlated to ASTM D 2622, can be used on gasoline samples containing
sulfur in the range typical of commercial gasoline. EPA is, therefore,
proposing that ASTM D 5453-93 be allowed as an alternative test method
for determining sulfur content in conventional gasoline only until
September 1, 1998. This date is being proposed based on EPA's
anticipated completion of a performance based test method rulemaking as
discussed at 61 FR 58305, November 13, 1996. EPA requests comment on
the cost of this equipment and whether this method provides sulfur test
results comparable to the current regulatory method.
7. Imports of Gasoline From Canada by Truck (Sec. 80.101(i)(3))
Under 40 CFR 80.65 (b) and (c), and 80.101(d) and (i), the
requirements that apply to imported gasoline apply to each batch of
imported gasoline regardless of the mode of transportation. The
requirements for each batch include sampling and testing, independent
sampling and testing for reformulated gasoline, record keeping,
reporting and attest engagements. Thus, an importer who imports
gasoline into the United States by truck is required to meet these
requirements, including sampling and testing, for each gasoline batch,
and in such a situation a batch would consist of the gasoline contained
in the truck if homogeneous or in each truck compartment if the truck's
gasoline is not homogeneous.
EPA understands that the every-batch requirements may be difficult
to meet when gasoline is imported by truck, because of the relatively
small batch volumes. As a result, EPA is proposing a limited
alternative method by which certain importers could meet the
requirements for conventional gasoline that is imported into the United
States via truck. This proposed approach would be limited to imported
conventional gasoline, and would not apply in the case of imported
reformulated gasoline, because of the additional level of environmental
concern associated with reformulated gasoline.
This proposed approach would be based on the importer meeting the
conventional gasoline standards on a per-gallon basis, which is
different than the normal approach of meeting conventional gasoline
standards on average. Per-gallon compliance is being proposed because
under this proposal the importer would not be required to sample and
test each truck load--each batch--of imported gasoline, which is
necessary in order to demonstrate compliance with a standard on
average. Rather, the importer would be allowed to rely on sampling and
testing conducted by the operator of the truck loading terminal in
Canada or Mexico to verify that the gasoline meets all conventional
gasoline standards that apply to the importer.
For example, if an importer's gasoline is subject to the statutory
baseline set out at Sec. 80.91(c)(5), under the simple model the
standards for imported conventional gasoline, specified at
Sec. 80.101(b)(1), are the following: sulfur--422.5 ppm; T90--415
deg.F; olefins--13.5 vol%; and exhaust benzene emissions--6.45. Under
Sec. 80.101(a) these conventional gasoline standards are met on average
over each calendar year averaging period. If this importer elected to
import gasoline via truck under the proposed approach, however, the
importer would be required to demonstrate that each gallon of this
gasoline met each of these standards. The environmental consequences of
this proposal would be neutral, because by meeting the average standard
on an every-gallon basis the standard also is being met on average.
The proposal also includes the means by which the importer would be
required to demonstrate the gasoline meets the applicable standards on
an every-gallon basis. The gasoline in the storage tank from which the
importer's trucks are loaded would have to be sampled and tested
subsequent to each receipt of gasoline, and these tests would have to
show the gasoline meets the applicable standards. This sampling and
testing could be conducted by the terminal operator. For each truck
load of imported gasoline the importer would have to obtain from the
terminal operator documents that state the properties of the gasoline.
The importer then would treat each truck load of imported conventional
gasoline as a separate batch for purposes of the record keeping and
reporting requirements.
The terminal operator in most cases would not be subject to United
States laws, so the proposal contains safeguards that are intended to
ensure the gasoline in fact meets the applicable standards. First, the
importer would be required to conduct an independent program of quality
assurance sampling and testing of the gasoline dispensed to the
importer. This sampling and testing would have to be at a rate
specified in the proposed regulations, and the sampling would have to
be unannounced to the terminal operator. In addition, EPA inspectors
would have to be given access to conduct inspections at the truck
loading terminal and at any laboratory where samples collected pursuant
to this proposed approach are analyzed. These inspections could be
unannounced, and would include sampling and testing, and record
reviews.
EPA previously has allowed conventional gasoline to be imported by
truck in a manner that essentially is identical to the option now being
proposed, in guidance included in Reformulated Gasoline and Anti-
Dumping Questions and Answers (October 29, 1994). EPA's experience
since this guidance was issued has been that the approach facilitates
imports of conventional gasoline by truck, and that
[[Page 37368]]
the sampling and testing requirements are appropriate enforcement
safeguards.
EPA requests comment on this proposed approach for parties who
import conventional gasoline via truck. In particular, EPA requests
comment of the proposed provisions that deal with requirements that
apply to persons located outside the United States, and to the need for
EPA inspectors to conduct inspections at terminals located outside the
United States.
8. Butane Blending Issue (Sec. 80.101(i)(4))
The addition of blendstock, including butane, to reformulated or
conventional gasoline constitutes the production of gasoline, with the
result that such a blender is considered a refiner under the
reformulated and conventional gasoline regulations, who is subject to
all standards and requirements that apply to refiners. These
requirements include meeting the standards applicable to reformulated
and conventional gasoline, sampling and testing, record keeping, and
reporting. Under Secs. 80.65(i) and 80.101(e)(1) the reformulated or
conventional gasoline with which the blendstock is blended must be
excluded from the blender-refiner's compliance calculations. In effect,
the reformulated and conventional gasoline standards must be met based
on the blendstock properties alone. Under Sec. 80.101(i)(1)(i),
refiners who produce conventional gasoline by combining blendstock with
previously-certified conventional gasoline may determine compliance
with the anti-dumping standards by sampling and testing the blendstock
following each receipt of blendstock.
EPA understands that butane is a blendstock that historically has
been blended with gasoline, particularly in the wintertime. This butane
blending occurs in part because butane increases the volatility of
gasoline, and the commercial specifications for wintertime gasoline
allows (or requires) higher volatility levels than for summertime
gasoline. In addition, there are economic reasons for blending butane,
because butane generally costs less than gasoline. Butane generally is
not blended with gasoline that will be used during the high ozone
season (May 1 through September 15), because the increased volatility
of gasoline blended with butane could violate the federal or state
volatility standards that apply during that period.
EPA understands that a significant impediment to blending butane
into gasoline outside the high ozone season is the requirement that
refiners must sample each batch of conventional or reformulated
gasoline produced, or in the case of conventional gasoline sampling
each batch of blendstock. This sampling requirement interferes with
butane blending because butane typically arrives at blend terminals,
and is blended in relatively small quantities. As a result, a butane
blending operation would be required to sample at a frequency that
could be restrictive for some parties.
In the case of butane blending into conventional gasoline that
occurs outside the high ozone season, EPA believes there may be little
adverse environmental impact provided that the butane is of sufficient
purity, and that much of the butane used for blending with gasoline is
of such purity. However, ozone is of environmental concern during the
``shoulder'' periods immediately preceding and immediately following
the high ozone season, and the increased RVP from butane that is
blended during the shoulder periods may cause adverse environmental
impacts particularly in ozone non-attainment areas.
Nevertheless, EPA is proposing an alternative sampling and testing
option that would be available to parties who blend butane into
conventional gasoline that is used outside the high ozone season. Under
this proposed option a party who blends butane into conventional
gasoline would continue to be classified as a refiner, and would be
liable for all refiner requirements. However, the blender would have an
additional sampling and testing option. The blender-refiner would be
able to demonstrate compliance with the conventional gasoline standards
on the basis of the butane specifications provided by the butane
supplier, subject to certain conditions that are specified in the
proposed regulations.
EPA is not proposing that parties who blend butane into RFG would
be able to use this relaxed approach to sampling and testing because of
concern for adverse environmental impacts during the shoulder periods.
If butane blending with RFG were made more convenient, as is proposed
for conventional gasoline, an increase in the volatility of RFG during
the high ozone season's shoulder periods could result.
EPA requests comment on the potential for adverse environmental
effects from butane blending with conventional gasoline during the
shoulder periods, particularly at terminals serving non-RFG ozone non-
attainment areas, and whether any such potential would be reason for
EPA to decline to promulgate the proposed regulatory changes to
facilitate butane blending with conventional gasoline. In particular,
EPA requests comment on whether the flexibility for butane blending
with conventional gasoline should be limited to terminals serving areas
that are in attainment for ozone, which would be consistent with the
decision to not propose change to facilitate butane blending with RFG.
In addition, EPA requests comment on whether butane blending with
conventional gasoline should be facilitated only during a period that
is outside the high ozone season plus a shoulder period--for example,
between October 15 through March 31 each year.
EPA previously has allowed butane blending in a manner that
essentially is identical to the option now being proposed, in guidance
included in Reformulated Gasoline and Anti-Dumping Questions and
Answers (October 3, 1994). EPA's experience since this guidance was
issued has been that the approach facilitates butane blending with
conventional gasoline, and that certification mechanisms are
appropriate.
EPA requests comment on this proposal to relax the sampling and
testing associated with blending butane with conventional gasoline. In
addition, EPA requests comment on the proposal that this additional
flexibility not be extended to butane blending with reformulated
gasoline.
C. Controls Applicable to Blendstocks (Sec. 80.102)
Under the anti-dumping program refiners are required to track the
volume of certain blendstocks produced and transferred to others and to
include blendstocks in their compliance calculations if the blendstock
volume exceeds certain thresholds. The purpose of these blendstock
requirements is to prevent a particular form of ``gaming'':
transferring blendstock produced at a refinery with a baseline more
stringent than the statutory baseline to a refinery with the statutory
baseline to be blended into gasoline in order that the blendstock would
be subject to more lenient standards. See the discussion at 59 FR 7801
(February 16, 1994).
As a result of comments received from industry since the anti-
dumping program began, EPA now is proposing several modifications to
the blendstock tracking and accounting requirements.
1. Blendstock Tracking for Refineries With the Statutory Baseline
(Sec. 80.102(f)(1)(i))
Section 80.102(f)(1)(i) exempts a refinery with a baseline less
stringent than the statutory baseline from blendstock tracking.
However, the form of gaming that is the focus of blendstock tracking
also is not possible in the case
[[Page 37369]]
of a refinery with a baseline that is equal to the statutory baseline,
and EPA believes the omission of such refineries from the
Sec. 80.102(f)(1)(i) exemption was an error at the time this section
was promulgated. As a result, EPA is proposing to add refineries with
the statutory baseline to the Sec. 80.102(f)(1)(i) exemption.
2. Products That May Be Excluded From the Blendstock Tracking
Requirements (Sec. 80.102(a))
Categories of blendstock that are unlikely to be involved in the
blendstock gaming scenario are exempt from the blendstock tracking
requirements. Thus, for example, the list of applicable blendstocks
that must be tracked under Sec. 80.102(a) is limited to blendstocks
that adversely impact air quality; Sec. 80.102(d)(3) excludes from
blendstock tracking those blendstocks that are not likely to be used
for conventional gasoline blending; and Sec. 80.102(f) exempts certain
parties with limited blendstock production volume from blendstock
accounting.
EPA now believes that the blendstock tracking requirements could be
further limited without jeopardizing the environmental purpose of this
section. The proposed changes relate to petroleum products that would
be unlikely candidates for conventional gasoline blending. EPA believes
that petroleum products with an initial boiling point less than 75
deg.F or an end point greater than 450 deg.F are not suitable for
gasoline blending and, therefore, could be excluded from the category
of blendstocks that refiners must track. As a result, EPA is proposing
to exclude products with these boiling ranges from blendstock tracking.
EPA also now believes that certain highly refined or pure grade
petroleum products are unlikely to be used for gasoline blending, and
that these products can be identified by price or tendered volume. For
example, EPA believes that where a petroleum product is sold at a price
that is 100% above the market price of regular conventional gasoline it
is unlikely the purchaser will use the product for blending gasoline.
Similarly, EPA believes that products tendered in volumes less than
1,000 gallons are unlikely to be used in gasoline blending. Therefore,
EPA is proposing to exempt products that meet either of these criteria
from the blendstock tracking requirements. Further, blendstocks for
which the refiner has evidence are used to produce RFG need not be
included in the ratio calculations. EPA is proposing that such products
also be excluded under Sec. 80.102(d)(3).
3. Inclusion of Products in the Blendstock to Gasoline Ratio
Calculations (Sec. 80.102(d) (1) and (2))
As discussed previously under the compliance baseline calculations,
oxygenates added to either conventional gasoline or RBOB had been
previously excluded from such calculations. EPA now believes such
products are significant to the total volume considerations of a
refiner and for consistency should be included in the blendstock to
gasoline ratio calculations as well. EPA, therefore, is proposing in
Secs. 80.102(d) (1) and (2) that oxygenates blended downstream into
conventional gasoline under Sec. 80.101(d)(4)(ii) and oxygenates added
to RBOB, as determined under Sec. 80.65(e)(1)(ii), be included in the
denominator of the compliance year ratio calculations.
4. Exclusion of Products From the Blendstock Accounting Requirements
(Sec. 80.102(d)(3)).
Section 80.102(d)(3) exempts certain categories of petroleum
products from the blendstock tracking requirements, where the product's
use makes blendstock tracking inappropriate. For example, petroleum
products are exempt from blendstock tracking if the products are
exported, are used as a refinery feedstock, or are transferred between
aggregated refineries. Under Sec. 80.102(e) a party that has exceeded
certain blendstock volume thresholds is required to include all
blendstocks in its compliance calculations, and the exemptions under
Sec. 80.102(d)(3) are not applied.
EPA now believes the exemptions in Sec. 80.102(d)(3) also should
apply to the blendstock accounting requirements, under the same
rationale that justifies these exclusion under blendstock tracking, and
is proposing this change to the blendstock accounting requirements
under Sec. 80.102(e).
5. Attest Engagements Involving Aggregated Refineries (Sec. 80.102
Introductory Text and Secs. 80.102 (b) and (c); Subpart F)
Section 80.101(h)(2)(iii) states that the aggregation election
applies to the blendstock tracking requirements, and
Sec. 80.102(d)(3)(iv) exempts from blendstock tracking the blendstocks
that are transferred between aggregated refineries. However, EPA
believes that for purposes of conducting attest engagements under
subpart F, the attest engagements should be conducted separately for
each refinery, but this refinery-specific approach to blendstock
tracking attest procedures is not clear in Sec. 80.102 or in subpart F.
The attest requirements are organized around individual refineries,
and it would create unnecessary complications to require a different
organization only for the purpose of reviewing compliance with the
blendstock tracking requirements. As a result, EPA is proposing to
clarify the attest procedures in Subpart F to clarify that blendstock
tracking attest procedures must be conducted separately for each
refinery. In the case of aggregated refineries the blendstock tracking
attest procedures would be separately performed for each refinery,
taking into account the blendstock transfers to refineries in the same
aggregation. If each refinery in an aggregation separately satisfies
the blendstock tracking requirements, then EPA believes the aggregated
refineries would have satisfied these requirements overall.
D. Record Keeping Requirements (Sec. 80.104)
EPA is proposing to modify Sec. 80.104 to clarify that batch
information must be kept for oxygenate blended downstream of a refinery
where the oxygenate is included in the refinery's compliance
calculations.
In addition, EPA is proposing record keeping requirements that
would apply in the case of imported GTAB, that would reflect the
physical movement of GTAB to the point of blending to produce gasoline.
(See Preamble Section V.C. concerning requirements for GTAB generally.)
E. Reporting Requirements (Sec. 80.105)
1. Modification of Information That Must Be Reported
(Sec. 80.105(a)(5)(iv))
Section 80.105 requires refiners and importers to report various
information regarding each batch of conventional gasoline produced or
imported during the averaging period. This includes the grade of the
gasoline produced. Sec. 80.105(a)(5)(iv). EPA now believes it is
unnecessary to include this grade information in reports to EPA, and is
proposing to eliminate this reporting requirement.
In addition, EPA now believes that in the case of ethanol batches
it is unnecessary to include the ethanol properties in the batch report
to EPA, because the properties of a pure compound, such as ethanol, are
known. Therefore, EPA is proposing to eliminate the requirement that
parties report the properties of ethanol.
[[Page 37370]]
2. Date for Submission of Attest Engagement Reports (Sec. 80.105(c))
Section 80.105(c) requires that attest engagement reports involving
conventional gasoline must be submitted by May 30 each year. However,
Sec. 80.75(m) requires that attest engagement reports for RFG must be
submitted by May 31 each year. This inconsistency in reporting
deadlines was inadvertent when these sections were promulgated, and, as
a result, EPA is proposing to conform the dates by adopting May 31 as
the deadline for submitting conventional gasoline attest reports.
VII. Attest Engagements
Under Secs. 80.65(h), 80.75(m), and 80.105(c) refiners and
importers, and reformulated gasoline oxygenate blenders who achieve
compliance on average, are required to commission an audit each year to
review compliance with certain requirements of the reformulated
gasoline and anti-dumping program. The audit requirements are specified
in 40 CFR part 80, subpart F. Under these regulations the auditor
evaluates compliance with the specified requirements by completing
audit procedures, called ``agreed upon procedures,'' that are included
in the regulations for each requirement--the auditor ``attests'' to the
results of the agreed upon procedures. As a result, the overall audit
is called an ``attest engagement.''
EPA now is proposing a number of changes to the attest engagement
requirements.
1. Modified Agreed Upon Procedures (Secs. 80.128 and 80.129; Proposed
Secs. 80.133 and 80.134))
The agreed upon procedures for refiners and importers are specified
in Sec. 80.128, and for oxygenate blenders in Sec. 80.129. In addition,
the headnotes of Sec. 80.128 allow parties to satisfy the attest
engagement requirement using other agreed upon procedures if the party
obtains prior approval from EPA.
EPA received comments from industry, and from auditors who
conducted attest engagements under this program, that the agreed upon
procedures in Secs. 80.128 and 80.129 should be modified in order to be
more efficient. Moreover, a group of auditors who were working in this
area convened under the auspices of the American Institute of Certified
Public Accountants (AICPA) to develop new attest procedures. This group
submitted modified attest procedures to EPA in January 1996, and asked
EPA to approve these procedures for use. On March 15, 1996, EPA
approved use of the attest procedures AICPA submitted, with certain
modifications, under the authority of Sec. 80.128. EPA now is proposing
to include these modified attest procedures in the regulations.
The modified attest procedures do not differ significantly in
substance from the procedures in Secs. 80.128 and 80.129. The principal
difference between the modified attest procedures and the procedures in
Secs. 80.128 and 80.129 is that the modified procedures includes
criteria for identifying when certain attest procedures, or categories
of attest procedures, are unnecessary for a particular attest
engagement. For example, attest procedures address the blendstock
tracking requirements under Sec. 80.102. Under Sec. 80.128, the auditor
is required to complete a full slate of attest procedures that
scrutinize each category of blendstocks relevant to the Sec. 80.102
requirements. Under the modified attest procedures for blendstock
tracking, however, the procedures are arranged in a sequence that
allows the auditor to identify categories of blendstock tracking attest
procedures that are unnecessary, and to avoid conducting these
procedures.
These modified attest procedures were used successfully by numerous
auditors for attest engagements for the 1995 reporting period.
The modified attest procedures also include definitions not
included in the original procedures, but these definitions do not
change the substance of the original procedures. However, in today's
version of the modified attest procedures, EPA is proposing a new
definition for ``laboratory analysis'' that would constitute a
substantive change.
Under both the original and modified attest procedures, auditors
are required to review laboratory analysis results of various types,
and, inter alia, compare the results with reports to EPA. The form of
the laboratory analysis results that an auditor must review has not
been specified, however. EPA has learned that, as a result, auditors
often review only a company's laboratory analysis results as
transcribed into the computer system used to calculate compliance with
standards. EPA has found through its own audits of refiners and
importers, however, that the original laboratory results and the
results recorded in a computer system sometimes are different. These
differences often result from simple data entry errors, although on
occasion the reason for the difference is less benign. As a result, EPA
is proposing that where attest procedures call for the review of a
laboratory analysis result, the auditor would be required to review the
original laboratory result. Thus, for example, in the case of a testing
apparatus that generates a printout of the test results, only review of
this printout would satisfy an attest procedure that calls for review
of the laboratory result, or where test results are first recorded in
the chemist's laboratory log book, only review of this log book would
satisfy the requirement. Review of a transcribed version of these
original test results would not suffice.
This proposed definition of laboratory analysis is consistent with
the proposed change to the record keeping requirement dealing with
laboratory analyses, discussed above, that requires parties to keep
copies of original test results.
EPA is proposing that the original attest procedures in
Secs. 80.128 and 80.129 would continue to be available as alternatives
to the attest procedures now being proposed, but only through the
attest for the 1997 reporting period. Under this proposal, only the
attest procedures in proposed Secs. 80.133 and 80.134 could be used to
meet the attest engagement requirements beginning with the attest
engagements for the 1998 reporting period.
EPA is proposing to phase out the original attest procedures
because we believe the modified attest procedures are superior, and
ultimately should be used for all attest engagements. In addition, EPA
believes oversight of the attest requirement, including reviews of
attest reports, would be more efficient if all attest engagements were
based on the same agreed upon procedures. Nevertheless, EPA requests
comment on whether the original attest procedures should be available
for use indefinitely.
In addition, EPA is proposing that during the period when both the
original and the modified attest procedures are available parties would
be required to use either the original attest procedures for refiners
and importers under Sec. 80.128 in its entirety, or the modified attest
procedures for refiners and importers under Sec. 80.133 in its
entirety. A party would not be allowed to use a mixture of attest
procedures from Sec. 80.128 and Sec. 80.133. Similarly, an oxygenate
blender would be required to use the attest procedures in Sec. 80.129
or in Sec. 80.134, and could mix attest procedures from both sections.
The reason for this constraint is that the different attest procedure
sections contain different requirements that are organized differently,
and, at least in part, the logic of the sections would be lost if these
sections are not completed in their entirety.
[[Page 37371]]
2. Agreed Upon Procedure Reports (Sec. 80.130(a))
Section 80.130 requires the CPA or CIA who conducts an attest
engagement to issue a report that summarizes the procedures performed
and findings. The regulations do not specify greater detail of what
must be included in an attest report, however. EPA now believes it is
necessary to specify certain items of information that should be
included in each attest engagement report. This conclusion by EPA
results from its review of the first attest engagement reports, for the
1995 reporting period, that were submitted to EPA at the end of May,
1996. These attest reports varied significantly in the amount of detail
that was included, but many reports were too scant to allow any
meaningful review by EPA. In fact, some attest reports stated simply
that the attest engagement had been conducted, and nothing more.
The purpose of the attest engagement reports is, at least in part,
to enable the regulated party, and EPA, to gauge whether the attest
engagement was properly performed through a review of the report, and
in the case of findings, to put those findings into perspective
including whether the findings raise issues regarding compliance by the
refiner or importer. Where the attest report includes none of the
details of the procedures completed, this review is not possible. As a
result EPA now is proposing certain information about each attest
engagement that must be included in all attest engagement reports.
Initially, EPA is proposing that attest engagement reports would
have to identify who conducted the attest engagement, and give a
telephone number of the auditor. This would allow EPA to easily contact
the auditor in case questions arise. In addition, the report would have
to identify the company and facility that was the subject of the audit.
More substantively, attest engagement reports would be required to
include the volumes of gasoline, and the number of batches, ascertained
during the engagement in various categories. Auditors are required to
verify the volume and batch number information, so this information is
easily available to the auditor for inclusion in the report. EPA
believes the required volume and batch information could be included in
the report in the form of a simple table, which would require little
effort to prepare.
In numerous instances the attest procedures require the auditor to
obtain listings of all documents in various categories, and to review
in more detail a random sampling of the documents. The procedures for
selecting these samples are specified in Sec. 80.127. EPA is proposing
that for each occasion when such a sample is selected, the audit report
would be required to include certain details of this sampling process,
including the size of the population being sampled, the size of the
sample selected, and the method used to ensure the sample was randomly
selected. Inclusion of these details would enable EPA to verify that
the sampling was properly completed, and to put in better perspective
any findings that result from the auditor's review of the sample.
3. Attest Engagement Document Retention (Sec. 80.130(b))
Section 80.130(b) currently requires CPAs and CIAs who conduct
attest engagements to retain ``all records pertaining to the
performance of each agreed upon procedure and pertaining to the
creation of the agreed upon procedures report* * *.'' EPA's normal
practice when conducting an enforcement audit of a refiner, importer or
oxygenate blender is to include an audit of the attest engagement, to
ensure the engagement was completed as required. These audits of attest
engagements require EPA to review the auditor's audit records.
During the course of conducting these enforcement audits, however,
EPA discovered that many auditors retained a scant record of the
conduct of their attest engagements. This absence of more comprehensive
documentation made EPA's audits of the attest engagements more
difficult.
As a result, EPA is proposing more specific regulatory requirements
regarding the documents that auditors would be required to retain. The
first category would be documents the auditor reviews that are created
by the company that is the subject of the attest engagement. These
company-created documents include laboratory analyses, inventory
reconciliations and product transfer documents. The second category
would be documents prepared by the auditor during the course of the
attest engagement that summarize the conduct and work product of the
attest engagement, commonly called ``work papers.'' The third category
would include computer data and/or the input, output and results of
computer programs used by the auditor to conduct the audit. The last
category would be correspondence between the auditor and the company
being audited on the subject of the attest engagement.
EPA believes the proposed record retention requirements would not
expand the current record retention requirements, which apply to
``all'' records pertaining to attest engagements. The proposed
requirements merely clarify that certain records are in the scope of
the records EPA intends that auditors should retain.
4. Attest Procedures for GTAB (Proposed Sec. 80.131)
EPA is proposing procedures by which importers may treat imported
gasoline as blendstock (``gasoline treated as blendstock'' or ``GTAB'')
in proposed Sec. 80.83. As a result, EPA also is proposing attest
procedures that would apply in the case of an importer who utilizes the
GTAB option. The proposed GTAB attest procedures follow the general
model of the attest procedures included in Secs. 80.128, 80.129, 80.133
and 80.140. In particular, the attest procedures proposed for GTAB
would instruct the auditor to track the movement of a portion of the
GTAB batches to ensure the movement and subsequent use of the GTAB is
consistent with the GTAB requirements.
5. Attest Procedures for Refiners With In-Line Blending Waivers From
Independent Sampling and Testing (Sec. 80.65(f); Proposed Sec. 80.132)
Under Sec. 80.65(f) refiners and importers of reformulated gasoline
are required to carry out a program of independent sampling and
testing, with one exception. This exception applies in the case of a
refiner who has obtained an EPA-approved waiver from the independent
sampling and testing requirements on the basis of producing
reformulated gasoline using an appropriately sophisticated computer-
controlled in-line blending operation (an ``in-line blending waiver'').
See, Sec. 80.65(f)(4). In addition, under Sec. 80.65(f)(4)(ii) any
refiner with an in-line blending waiver is required to carry out an
independent audit of each batch produced using the in-line blending
operation. These audits constitute a check on the reported gasoline
properties for in-line blended gasoline, which is a surrogate for the
independent sampling and testing required for gasoline not produced
under an in-line blending waiver.
The current regulations do not adequately describe the scope of in-
line blending audits, however, and EPA is concerned that the in-line
blending audits refiners have conducted have not been sufficiently
comprehensive. As a result, EPA is proposing attest procedures that
would have to be
[[Page 37372]]
conducted for any refiner with an in-line blending waiver.
All in-line blending waivers that EPA has granted require the
refiner to collect a volumetrically proportional composite sample of
each batch of in-line blended gasoline. This sample is collected using
an automatic sampling apparatus that collects a portion of the gasoline
being produced during the entire blending period, that is proportional
to the volume of gasoline being produced any time. The refiner is
required, by the terms of its waiver, to use the analysis of this
composite sample as the basis of the report to EPA of the batch
properties, i.e., as the ``certification'' analysis, or the ``primary
analysis result.''
In-line blending waivers also require the refiner to obtain
secondary analysis results for each regulated parameter, for use during
the in-line blending audit to corroborate the primary analysis results.
These confirmatory analysis results are of three general types: (1)
Results from analyzers that automatically collect and analyze samples
from the blend on a continuous or very frequent basis, called ``on-
line'' analysis results; (2) results from samples that are collected
from the batch on a less frequent basis and analyzed at a separate
laboratory, sometimes called ``grab samples'' or ``off-line'' analysis
results; and (3) results from samples of the blendstocks used to
produce the batch, together with the proportions of the blendstocks
used.
The attest procedures proposed for in-line blending waiver
situations are divided into two broad parts. First, the auditor would
review the EPA-approved in-line blending waiver, to identify the
requirements regarding the collection, analysis and recording of the
primary analysis result, and all confirmatory analysis results. In the
second part of the procedures, the auditor would compare the primary
analysis result with the confirmatory analysis results for each
regulated parameter. Detailed attest procedures are proposed for these
primary/confirmatory comparisons.
In the case of parameters that are confirmed using on-line analysis
results, the auditor would identify the on-line analysis results that
correspond to twelve discrete times during the blend. These twelve
confirmatory results then would be compared with the primary result.
In the case of parameters confirmed using off-line analysis
results, the auditor would compare the primary result with a randomly
selected portion of the confirmatory results.
For parameters confirmed using blendstock analysis results, the
auditor would, for twelve discrete times during the blend, identify the
proportions of the different blendstocks being used, and the analysis
results for these blendstocks. The confirmatory analysis result for the
parameter at issue for each discrete time then would be calculated as
the volume-weighted total of the blendstock analysis results for that
parameter.
Under the proposed attest procedures, each confirmatory analysis
result would be evaluated in several ways. First, the auditor would
determine if the confirmatory sample was collected, analyzed and
recorded in accordance with the petition as approved by EPA. Second,
the confirmatory analysis result would be compared with the primary
analysis result. EPA understands that there normally will be some
difference between the primary and confirmatory analysis results.
Nevertheless, the magnitude and direction of the differences would give
the auditor, the refiner, and EPA important information relevant to
whether the primary analysis result is accurate.
The third evaluation of the confirmatory analysis result would
address compliance with per-gallon standards. The per-gallon standards
are oxygen and benzene under the complex model--the per-gallon minimum
or maximum where the standard is being met on average, or the per-
gallon standard where the standard is being met per gallon. In
addition, and as discussed above in preamble section III.A.1, the
complex model valid range limits are per-gallon standards for all
parameters. Under Sec. 80.41, each of these standards must be met on a
per-gallon basis, and no portion of in-line blended gasoline may
violate these standards even if a blend meets the standards overall.
The auditor would report as a finding any analysis result that violates
an applicable per-gallon standard.
EPA is proposing that the in-line blending waiver attest engagement
initially would review a random sample of the in-line blended batches.
This would be a departure from the current requirement that each batch
of in-line blended gasoline must be audited. Under the proposal, if any
primary/confirmatory comparison differed by an amount greater than the
ranges specified in Sec. 80.65(e) for independent sampling and testing
analysis comparisons, or if any sample violated a per-gallon standard,
this random sample would be expanded.
Under Sec. 80.65(f)(4)(ii)(C), reports for attest engagements must
be submitted by February 28 each year for the prior calendar year. This
attest reporting deadline is significantly earlier than the May 31
deadline for other attest reports. EPA now believes that the overall
attest engagement activity, and the reports for those attest
engagements, would benefit if the dates were harmonized. As a result,
EPA is proposing that the in-line blending waiver attest reports would
be submitted by May 31 each year for the prior calendar year's
activity. As a result of this proposed timing change, EPA believes that
refiners would be able to commission a single attest engagement that
would address all refinery activities, including the proposed in-line
blending waiver attest procedures, and to submit reports for all attest
engagement work at the same time.
EPA requests comment on this proposal to harmonize the reporting
date for attest engagements, and the requirement that a single report
be submitted that reflects all attest engagement work for a calendar
year reporting period.
EPA also requests comment on the proposed in-line blending waiver
attest procedures in general. In particular, EPA requests comment on
whether each batch of in-line blended gasoline should be audited in
every case, as opposed to the statistical sampling approach being
proposed. In addition, EPA requests comment on an option of auditing a
portion of the batches of each grade of in-line blended gasoline. The
rationale for requiring grade-specific sampling is that for any
particular refinery the diversity in gasoline quality between grades is
likely to be greater than the diversity in quality between batches of
the same grade.
VIII. Environmental and Economic Impacts
The environmental impacts of today's proposal would be minimal, if
any. Most of the revisions proposed today are the result of a
determination that certain regulatory requirements may be relaxed
without detriment to the environment. Economic impacts would be
generally beneficial to affected parties due to the additional
flexibility proposed in today's notice. Anti-competitive effects would
not be expected. The environmental and economic impacts of the
reformulated gasoline program are described in the Regulatory Impact
Analysis supporting the December 1993 rule, which is available in
Public Docket A-92-12 located at Room M-1500, Waterside Mall (ground
floor), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M Street, SW.,
Washington, DC 20460.
IX. Public Participation
EPA desires full public participation in arriving at its final
decisions and solicits comments on all aspects of this proposal.
Wherever applicable, full
[[Page 37373]]
supporting data and detailed analysis should also be submitted to allow
EPA to make maximum use of the comments. All comments should be
directed to the EPA Air Docket, Docket A-97-03 (See ADDRESSES). See the
DATES section for the deadline for submission of comments.
Today's rule proposes a variety of modifications to the standards
and requirements for reformulated and conventional gasoline. While many
of the proposed modifications would reduce compliance burdens on
industry, a few modifications may have the effect of restricting
compliance flexibility. EPA specifically solicits comments on the need
to take the actions that would reduce this flexibility, including
comments on whether there are less restrictive measures that EPA may
take.
Any proprietary information being submitted for the Agency's
consideration should be markedly distinguished from other submittal
information and clearly labeled ``Confidential Business Information.''
Proprietary information should be sent directly to the contact person
listed above, and not to the public docket, to ensure that it is not
inadvertently placed in the docket. Information thus labeled and
directed shall be covered by a claim of confidentiality and will be
disclosed by EPA only to the extent allowed, and by the procedures set
forth in 40 CFR part 2. If no claim of confidentiality accompanies a
submission when it is received by EPA, it may be made available to the
public without further notice to the commenter.
X. 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.
I certify that this action will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities. The proposed
revisions contained in today's action would affect small business
refiners, importers, oxygenate blenders, distributors, wholesale
purchaser-consumers, and retailers of gasoline. In addition, this
action would affect small business laboratories that serve as
independent laboratories for purposes of fulfilling the independent
sampling and testing requirement for reformulated gasoline. However,
for the following reasons, EPA has determined that this action would
not have an adverse economic impact on these entities.
In the case of small business oxygenate blenders, distributors,
wholesale purchaser-consumers and retailers of gasoline, the proposed
revisions would provide greater flexibility and clarity with regard to
existing requirements and would not have an adverse impact on these
entities. However, the revision which would disallow the use of
composite sampling of conventional gasoline would impose an additional
burden on small refiners and importers that do not have the laboratory
capability to test for all parameters and must send samples to other
laboratories for testing. Composite sampling allows refiners and
importers to demonstrate compliance based on the testing of fewer
gasoline samples. EPA believes, however, that the increased flexibility
created by the relaxation and deletion of other refiner and importer
requirements under today's action would more than offset any burden
created by disallowing composite sampling. Today's action, for example,
proposes provisions which would: Allow importers to treat finished
gasoline as blendstock to provide flexibility to correct off-spec
imported gasoline; allow refiners to use conventional gasoline to
produce RFG, which is currently prohibited; modify the sampling and
testing requirements for refiners who produce gasoline by blending
butane; eliminate the requirement for refiners of conventional gasoline
who also import gasoline to calculate a special baseline for their
imported gasoline; modify the requirements for every-batch testing of
gasoline imported by truck; make the requirements for the accounting of
blendstocks for conventional gasoline less restrictive; make the attest
engagement procedures more efficient; and modify the reporting
requirements for conventional gasoline to delete the requirements to
report the grade of gasoline and include ethanol properties in the
batch report. Other provisions would aid refiners and importers by
clarifying and providing additional guidance with regard to existing
requirements. EPA is also proposing provisions which would minimize the
effect of disallowing composite sampling by allowing an alternative
test method for sulfur content. EPA believes that most refiners have
the equipment required to perform the regulatory tests at their
refinery except for sulfur under the current regulatory test method.
Today's action would allow the use of a cost effective alternative test
method for sulfur until September 1, 1998, the date on which EPA
anticipates completion of a performance based test method rulemaking.
With regard to small business laboratories, there would be no
increase in economic burden as a result of today's action. This action
proposes to impose regulatory liability on entities serving as
independent laboratories for failure to perform the duties necessary to
fulfill the independent sampling and testing requirement (i.e.,
following prescribed procedures, retaining records, reporting to EPA).
However, there would be no additional costs to either the laboratories
or the refiners or importers who contract for the laboratory services,
since the refiners and importers would continue to contract and pay for
these services as they do under the current regulations. In addition,
this action is not expected to affect a substantial number of small
business laboratories, as the total number of laboratories currently
registered with EPA is well under 100.
The EPA prepared a Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (RFA) for the
final rule establishing standards for reformulated and conventional
gasoline (59 FR 7716 (February 16, 1994)), which includes an analysis
of the impact of these regulations on small refiners. The RFA is in the
docket for that rulemaking: EPA Air Docket A-92-2.
XI. Executive Order 12866
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735 (October 4, 1993)), the
Agency must determine whether the regulatory action is ``significant''
and therefore subject to OMB review and the requirements of the
Executive Order. The Order defines ``significant regulatory 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 affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the
economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public
health or safety, or State, local or tribal governments or communities;
(2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an
action taken or planned by another agency;
(3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants,
user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients
thereof; or
(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in
the Executive Order.
It has been determined that this rule is not a significant action
under the
[[Page 37374]]
terms of the Executive Order 12866, and is therefore not subject to OMB
review.
XII. Paperwork Reduction Act
The information collection requirements in this proposed rule have
been submitted for approval to the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. An
Information Collection Request (ICR) document has been prepared by EPA
(ICR No. 1591.09) and a copy may be obtained from Sandy Farmer, OPPE
Regulatory Information Division; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(2137); 401 M St., SW., Washington, DC 20460 or by calling (202) 260-
2740.
Although many of the revisions proposed in today's rule will have
the effect of reducing the information collection requirements of the
RFG/anti-dumping regulations, the proposed deletion of the composite
sampling provision will mean that refiners and importers of
conventional gasoline will be required to test each batch of gasoline
rather than test a composite sample comprised of samples of two or more
batches of gasoline. As discussed in Preamble Section VI.B.6., EPA is
proposing this revision because EPA believes that composite sampling
may not provide the accurate results necessary for measuring compliance
by refiners and importers under the anti-dumping program, and may pose
a significant risk with regard to the enforcement and assurance of
compliance.
The EPA estimates that refiners and importers currently spend
approximately 1.67 hours of information collection per batch for
compliance testing of conventional gasoline pursuant to the
reformulated gasoline and anti-dumping final rule. This is the
estimated burden above the hours refiners had expended on testing prior
to promulgation of the rule. Most refiners had been testing every batch
of conventional gasoline for some of the same properties for which
testing is required under the rule.
Under the current rule, samples of conventional gasoline may be
composited over a period up to one month. At a rate of one test per
month, the number of hours spent per refiner/importer per year would be
20.04 hours. EPA estimates that there are approximately 230 refiners
and importers subject to this rule. If all of these refiners and
importers were to base their compliance on one composite sample per
month, the total burden on industry would be 4,609.20 hours per year.
EPA believes, however, that many refiners and importers currently
conduct tests on every batch of gasoline rather than on composite
samples, or test composite samples comprised of fewer batches than are
produced over a one-month period. EPA believes, therefore, that, in
practice, the number of hours currently spent on testing by industry is
likely to be much greater than this figure.
EPA estimates that, without the composite sampling option, refiners
and importers would test an average of approximately 158 batches of
conventional gasoline per refiner/importer per year. Applying the
estimate of 1.67 hours per batch, the total number of hours per
refiner/importer per year would be 263.86 hours, or a total of
60,687.80 hours industry-wide. If all 230 refiners and importers
currently were basing compliance on one composite sample per month, the
incremental burden of this action on industry would be 56,078.60 hours.
At an estimated cost of $53.31 per test for information collection, the
total incremental cost of the additional testing burden to industry
would be approximately $1,790,150. However, as discussed above, most
refiners conducted every-batch testing of some properties prior to
promulgation of the final rule, and many refiners currently test every
batch for compliance purposes rather than base compliance on the
testing of composite samples. Therefore, EPA believes that the
incremental burden of this proposed action on industry would be much
smaller.
This action also proposes to eliminate the per-gallon
NOX minimum standards for complex model averaged RFG, and
increase the number of compliance surveys required beginning in 1998
and thereafter from 50 to 70. EPA is proposing to eliminate the
NOX per-gallon minimum standards because these standards may
impose substantial costs in producing RFG without commensurate benefits
to the environment. (See Preamble Section III.A.1.). The NOX
per-gallon minimum standards were included in the final rule as a tool
to assure an even distribution of NOX benefits from area to
area. However, EPA believes that a less costly alternative, an increase
in the number of required surveys, would achieve a similar level of
assurance of even distribution of NOX benefits. EPA
estimates that the incremental cost burden of these additional surveys
will be roughly $1,100,000 industry-wide (20 additional surveys at
approximately $55,000 each), or about $7,333 per RFG refiner or
importer ($1,100,000 150 refiners/importers). The increased cost burden
due to the additional survey requirement, however, would be more than
offset by the elimination of the burden on industry imposed by the per-
gallon NOX minimum standards.
Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources
expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or
provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time
needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize
technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and
verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and
disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to
comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements;
train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information;
search data sources; complete and review the collection of information;
and transmit or otherwise disclose the information.
An Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's
regulations are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR Chapter 15.
Comments are requested on the Agency's need for this information,
the accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested
methods for minimizing respondent burden, including through the use of
automated collection techniques. Send comments on the ICR to the
Director, OPPE Regulatory Information Division; U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (2137), 401 M St., SW., Washington, DC 20460; and to
the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management
and Budget, 725 17th St., NW., Washington, DC 20503, marked
``Attention: Desk Officer for EPA.'' Include the ICR number in any
correspondence. Since OMB is required to make a decision concerning the
ICR between 30 and 60 days after July 11, 1997, a comment to OMB is
best assured of having its full effect if OMB receives it by August 11,
1997. The final rule will respond to any OMB or public comments on the
information collection requirements contained in this proposal.
XIII. Unfunded Mandates Act
Under section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
(``Unfunded Mandates Act''), signed into law on March 22, 1995, EPA
must prepare a budgetary impact statement to accompany any proposed or
final rule that includes a Federal mandate that may result in
expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, in the
[[Page 37375]]
aggregate; or by the private section, of $100 million or more. Under
section 205, EPA must select the most cost-effective and least
burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives of the rule and is
consistent with the statutory requirements. Section 203 requires EPA to
establish a plan for informing and advising any small governments that
may be significantly or uniquely impacted by the rule.
EPA has determined that the action proposed today does not include
a Federal mandate that may result in estimated costs of $100 million or
more to either State, local or tribal governments in the aggregate, or
to the private sector. This action has the net effect of reducing
burdens of the reformulated gasoline program on regulated entities.
Therefore, the requirements of the Unfunded Mandates Act do not apply
to this action.
XIV. Statutory Authority
The statutory authority for the actions proposed today is granted
to EPA by sections 114, 211 (c) and (k), and 301 of the Clean Air Act,
as amended; 42 U.S.C. 7414, 7545 (c) and (k), and 7601.
List of Subject in 40 CFR Part 80
Environmental Protection, Air pollution control, Fuel additives,
Gasoline, Motor vehicle pollution, Incorporation by reference,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Dated: June 24, 1997.
Carol M. Browner,
Administrator.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, part 80 of title 40 of the
Code of Federal Regulations 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)).
2. Section 80.2 is amended by removing and reserving paragraphs
(y), (z), (tt) and (uu), and revising paragraphs (w), (ee), (gg) and
(ss) to read as follows:
Sec. 80.2 Definitions.
* * * * *
(w) Previously certified gasoline means reformulated or
conventional gasoline or RBOB that has been produced by a refiner or
oxygenate blender, or imported by an importer, in accordance with
applicable standards and requirements, and that the refiner, oxygenate
blender or importer has included or will include in the compliance
calculations for reformulated or conventional gasoline.
* * * * *
(ee) Reformulated gasoline means any gasoline whose formulation has
been certified under Sec. 80.40, and which meets each of the standards
and requirements prescribed under Sec. 80.41.
* * * * *
(gg) Batch of gasoline means a quantity of gasoline that is
homogeneous with regard to those properties that are specified for
conventional or reformulated gasoline.
* * * * *
(ss) Tank truck means a truck and/or trailer used to transport or
cause the transportation of gasoline or diesel fuel, that meets the
definition of motor vehicle in section 216(2) of the Act.
* * * * *
3. Section 80.3 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 80.3 Test methods.
(a) Lead content. Lead content shall be determined in accordance
with American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) standard method
D 3237-90, entitled ``Standard Test Method for Lead in Gasoline by
Atomic Absorption Spectroscopy'', or ASTM standard method D 5059-92,
entitled ``Standard Test Method for Lead in Gasoline by X-Ray
Spectroscopy''.
(b) Phosphorus content. Phosphorus content shall be determined
using ASTM standard method D 3231-94, entitled ``Standard Test Method
for Phosphorus in Gasoline''.
(c) Reid vapor pressure (RVP). Reid Vapor Pressure (RVP) shall be
determined using the test method specified in Sec. 80.46(c).
(d) Oxygen and oxygenate content. Oxygen and oxygenate content,
including ethanol content in percentage by volume, shall be determined
using the test methods specified in Sec. 80.46(g). The volume per-cent
ethanol in fuel shall be calculated using the following equation:
VEtoh(%) = (WtEtoh(%)) * (Dfuel/
0.7939)
Where:
Vetoh = Concentration of Ethanol by Volume.
WtEtoh = Concentration of Ethanol by Weight.
Dfuel = Relative Density of Fuel under Study @ 60 deg.F.
(e) Cetane index. The cetane index of diesel fuel shall be
determined using ASTM standard method D 976-91, entitled ``Standard
Methods for Calculated Cetane Index of Distillate Fuels.''
(f) Sulfur content. Sulfur content shall be determined using the
test method specified in Sec. 80.46(a). ASTM D 4294-90 may be used as
an alternative method for determining the sulfur content in diesel
fuel.
(g) Aromatic content of diesel fuel. The aromatic content of diesel
fuel shall be determined using ASTM standard method D 5186-96, entitled
``Standard Test Method for Determination of Aromatic Content of Diesel
Fuel by Supercritical Fluid Chromatography.'' Mass per-cent diesel
aromatics shall be converted to volume per-cent diesel aromatics using
the following equation:
Vol% = (Mass% * 0.916) + 1.33
Where Mass% refers to the output from D 5186-96.
(h) Incorporations by reference. ASTM standard test methods, D
3237-90, D 5059-92, D 3231-94, D 976-91, and D 5186-96 are incorporated
by reference. These incorporations by reference were approved by the
Director of the Federal Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and
1 CFR part 51. Copies may be obtained from the American Society for
Testing and Materials, 100 Barr Harbor Dr., West Conshohocken, PA
19428. Copies may be inspected at the Air Docket Section (LE-131), room
M-1500, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Docket No. A-97-03, 401 M
Street, SW, Washington, DC 20460, or at the Office of the Federal
Register, 800 North Capitol Street, NW, suite 700, Washington, DC.
4. Section 80.8 is added to subpart A to read as follows:
Sec. 80.8 Sampling methods for gasoline and diesel fuel.
The sampling methods specified in this section shall be used to
collect samples of gasoline and diesel fuel for purposes of determining
compliance with the requirements of this part.
(a) Manual sampling. Manual sampling of tanks and pipelines shall
be performed according to the applicable procedures specified in
American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) method D 4057-95,
entitled ``Standard Practice for Manual Sampling of Petroleum and
Petroleum Products.''
(b) Automatic sampling. Automatic sampling of petroleum products in
pipelines shall be performed according to the applicable procedures
specified in ASTM method D 4177-95, entitled ``Standard Practice for
Automatic Sampling of Petroleum and Petroleum Products.''
(c) Sampling and sample handling for volatility measurement.
Samples to be analyzed for Reid Vapor Pressure (RVP)
[[Page 37376]]
shall be collected and handled according to the applicable procedures
in ASTM method D 5842-95, entitled ``Standard Practice for Sampling and
Handling of Fuels for Volatility Measurement.''
(d) Sample compositing. Composite samples shall be prepared using
the applicable procedures in ASTM method D 5854-96, entitled ``Standard
Practice for Mixing and Handling of Liquid Samples of Petroleum and
Petroleum Products.''
(e) Incorporations by reference. ASTM standard practices D 4057-95,
D 4177-95, D 5842-95, and D 5854-96, are incorporated by reference.
These incorporations by reference were approved by the Director of the
Federal Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
Copies may be obtained from the American Society for Testing and
Materials, 100 Barr Harbor Dr., West Conshohocken, PA 19428. Copies may
be inspected at the Air Docket Section (LE-131), room M-1500, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Docket No. A-97-03, 401 M Street, SW,
Washington, DC 20460, or at the Office of the Federal Register,
National Archives and Records Administration, Washington, DC 20408,
(202) 523-4534.
5. Section 80.27 is amended by revising paragraph (b) and the first
three sentences of paragraph (d)(2) to read as follows:
Sec. 80.27 Controls and prohibitions on gasoline volatility.
* * * * *
(b) Determination of compliance. Compliance with the standards
listed in paragraph (a) of this section shall be determined using the
sampling methods specified in Sec. 80.8, and the testing method
specified Sec. 80.3(c).
* * * * *
(d) * * *
(2) In order to qualify for the special regulatory treatment
specified in paragraph (d)(1) of this section, gasoline must contain
denatured, anhydrous ethanol. The concentration of the ethanol,
excluding the required denaturing agent, must be at least 9% and no
more than 10% (by volume) of the gasoline. The ethanol content of the
gasoline shall be determined using the test method specified in
Sec. 80.3(d). * * *
* * * * *
6. Section 80.28 is amended by adding paragraph (g)(1)(iii) to read
as follows:
Sec. 80.28 Liability for violations of gasoline volatility controls
and prohibitions.
* * * * *
(g) * * *
(1) * * *
(iii) An oversight program under paragraph (g)(1)(ii) of this
section need not include periodic sampling and testing of gasoline in a
tank truck operated by a common carrier, but in lieu of such tank truck
sampling and testing, the common carrier shall demonstrate evidence of
an oversight program for monitoring compliance with the volatility
requirements of Sec. 80.27 relating to the transport or storage of
gasoline by tank truck, such as appropriate guidance to drivers on
compliance with applicable requirements and the periodic review of
records normally received in the ordinary course of business concerning
gasoline quality and delivery.
* * * * *
7. Section 80.29 is amended by revising paragraph (b) to read as
follows:
Sec. 80.29 Controls and prohibitions on diesel fuel quality.
* * * * *
(b) Determination of compliance. (1) Any diesel fuel that does not
show visible evidence of being dyed with either 1,4-dialkylamino-
anthraquinone (which has a characteristic blue-green color in diesel
fuel) or dye solvent red 164 (which has a characteristic red color in
diesel fuel) shall be considered to be available for use in diesel
motor vehicles and motor vehicle engines, and shall be subject to the
prohibitions of paragraph (a) of this section.
(2) Compliance with the standards listed in paragraph (a) of this
section shall be determined using the applicable sampling methods
specified in Sec. 80.8, and the testing methods specified in Sec. 80.3.
* * * * *
8. Section 80.30 is amended by revising paragraph (g)(1)(i) to read
as follows:
Sec. 80.30 Liability for violations of diesel fuel control and
prohibitions.
* * * * *
(g) * * *
(1) * * *
(i) Evidence of an oversight program conducted by the carrier, for
monitoring the diesel fuel stored or transported by that carrier, such
as periodic sampling and testing of the cetane index and sulfur
percentage of incoming diesel fuel. Such an oversight program need not
include periodic sampling and testing of diesel fuel in a tank truck
operated by a common carrier, but in lieu of such tank truck sampling
and testing the common carrier shall demonstrate evidence of an
oversight program for monitoring compliance with the diesel fuel
requirements of Sec. 80.29 relating to the transport or storage of
diesel fuel by tank truck, such as appropriate guidance to drivers on
compliance with applicable requirements and the periodic review of
records normally received in the ordinary course of business concerning
diesel fuel quality and delivery; and
* * * * *
9. Section 80.41 is amended by revising paragraphs (d) and (f),
introductory text the tables in paragraphs (d) and (f); adding
paragraph (h)(3); and revising paragraph (p) to read as follows:
Sec. 80.41 Standards and requirements for compliance.
* * * * *
(d) Phase I complex model averaged standards. The Phase I ``complex
model'' standards for compliance when achieved on average are as
follows:
Phase I Complex Model Averaged Standards
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
VOC emissions performance reduction (percent)Gasoline
designated for VOC-Control Region 1:
Standard.............................................. 3
6.6
Per-Gallon Minimum.................................... 3
2.6
Gasoline designated for VOC-Control Region 2:
Standard.............................................. 1
7.1
Per-Gallon Minimum.................................... 1
3.1
Toxics air pollutants emissions performance reduction
(percent)................................................ 1
6.5
NOX emissions performance reduction (percent)............. 1
.5
Oxygen content (percent, by weight)
Standard.............................................. 2
.1
Per-Gallon Minimum.................................... 1
.5
Benzene (percent, by volume):
Standard.............................................. 0
.95
[[Page 37377]]
Per-Gallon Maximum.................................... 1
.30
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
(f) Phase II complex model averaged standards. The Phase II
``complex model'' standards for compliance when achieved on average are
as follows:
Phase II Complex Model Averaged Standards
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
VOC emissions performance reduction (percent) Gasoline
designated for VOC-Control Region 1:
Standard.................................................. X emissions performance reduction (percent).................
Gasoline designated as VOC-Controlled......................... VOC(t) shall be defined for
Phase I:
YVOC(t)=100% x 0.52 x [exp(v1(et))/
exp(v1(b))-1]
+100% x 0.48 x [exp(v2(et))/exp(v2(b))-1]
+{100% x 0.52 x [exp(v1(et)) /exp(v1(b))]
x [{[(0.0002144 x E200et) -0.014470] x
E200}
+{[(0.0008174 x E300et)-0.068624
-(0.000348 x AROet)] x E300}
+{(-0.000348 x E300et)+0.0323712 x ARO}]}
+{100% x 0.48 x [exp(v2(et))/exp(v2(b))]
x [{[(0.000212 x E200et)-0.01350] x
E200}
+{[(0.000816 x E300et)-0.06233
-(0.00029 x AROet)] x E300}
+{[ (-0.00029 x E300et) +0.028204] x ARO}]}
(2) For Phase II:
YVOC(t)=100% x 0.444 x [exp(v1(et))/
exp(v1(b))-1]
+100% x 0.556 x [exp(v2(et))/
exp(v2(b))-1]
+{100% x 0.444 x [exp(v1(et))/exp(v1(b))]
x [{[(0.0002144 x E200et) -0.014470] x
E200}
+{[(0.0008174 x E300et)-0.068624
-(0.000348 x AROet)] x E300}
+{[(-0.000348 x E300et) + 0.0323712] x
ARO}]}
+{100% x 0.556 x [exp(v2(et))/exp(v2(b))]
x [{[(0.000212 x E200et)-0.01350] x
E200}
+{[(0.000816 x E300et)-0.06233
-(0.00029 x AROet)] x E300}
+{[(-0.00029 x E300et) +0.028204] x ARO}]}
* * * * *
(C) * * *
(6) If [80.32+(0.390 x ARO)] exceeds 94 for the target fuel, and
the target fuel value for E300 exceeds 94, then the E300 value for the
``edge target'' fuel shall be set equal to 94 volume percent.
* * * * *
(D) * * *
(6) If [79.75+(0.385 x ARO)] exceeds 94 for the target fuel, and
the target fuel value for E300 exceeds 94, then the E300 value for the
``edge target'' fuel shall be set equal to 94 volume percent.
* * * * *
(12) If the E300 level of the target fuel is less than 72 percent,
then E300 shall be set equal to (E300-72 percent).
(13) If the E300 level of the target fuel is greater than 94 volume
percent and (79.75 + (0.385 x ARO) also is greater than 94, then
E300 shall be set equal to (E300-94 volume percent)* * *
* * * * *
(d) * * *
(1) * * *
(iv) * * *
(B) For fuels with SUL, OLE, and/or ARO levels outside the ranges
defined in Table 7 of paragraph (d)(1)(iv)(A) of this section,
YNOX(t) shall be defined as:
(1) For Phase I:
YNOX(t)=100% x 0.82 x [exp(n1(et))/
exp(n1(b))-1]
+100% x 0.18 x [exp(n2(et))/exp(n2(b))-1]
+{100% x 0.82 x [exp(n1(et))/exp(n1(b))]
x [{[(-0.00000133 x SULet)+0.000692] x
SUL}
x {[(-0.000238 x AROet)+0.0083632] x
ARO}
+{[(0.000733 x OLEet)-0.002774] x OLE}]}
[[Page 37378]]
+{100% x 0.18 x [exp(n2(et))/exp(n2(b))]
x [{0.000252 x SUL}
+{[(-0.0001599 x AROet)+0.007097] x ARO}
+{[(0.000732 x OLEet)-0.00276] x OLE}]}
For Phase II:
* * * * *
(f) * * *
(1) * * *
(i) * * *
For reformulated gasolines:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fuel property Acceptable range
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oxygen.................................... 0.00--4.0 weight percent.
Sulfur.................................... 0.0--500.0 parts per million
by weight.
RVP....................................... 6.4--10.0 pounds per square
inch.
E200...................................... 30.0--70.0 evaporated
percent.
E300...................................... 70.0--100.0 evaporated
percent.
Aromatics................................. 0.0--55.0 volume percent.
Olefins................................... 0.0--25.0 volume percent.
Benzene................................... 0.0--2.0 volume percent.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
11. Section 80.46 is amended by revising paragraphs (a) through (e)
(f)(3), (g) and (h); and adding paragraph (i) to read as follows:
Sec. 80.46 Measurement of reformulated and conventional gasoline fuel
parameters.
(a) Sulfur. (1) Sulfur content shall be determined using American
Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) standard method D 2622-94,
entitled ``Standard Test Method for Sulfur in Petroleum Products by X-
Ray Spectrometry.''
(2) Alternative test method for conventional gasoline.
(i) Prior to September 1, 1998, any refiner or importer may
determine sulfur content in conventional gasoline using standard method
ASTM D 5453-93, entitled ``Standard Test Method for Determination of
Total Sulfur in Light Hydrocarbons, Motor Fuels and Oils by Ultraviolet
Fluorescence'', provided that
(ii) the test result is correlated with the method specified in
paragraph (a)(1) of this section.
(b) Olefins. Olefin content shall be determined using ASTM standard
method D 1319-95a, entitled ``Standard Test Method for Hydrocarbon
Types in Liquid Petroleum Products by Fluorescent Indicator
Adsorption.''
(c) Reid vapor pressure (RVP). (1) Reid Vapor Pressure (RVP) shall
be determined using ASTM standard method D 5191-96, entitled ``Standard
Test Method for Vapor Pressure of Petroleum Products (Mini Method),''
provided that--
(2) The RVP equivalent is calculated using the following equation:
RVP (PSI) = (0.956 * x) - 0.347
or
RVP (kPa) = (0.956 * x) - 2.39
Where:
x = The total measured pressure in PSI or kPa
(d) Distillation. (1) Distillation parameters shall be determined
using ASTM standard method D 86-96, entitled ``Standard Test Method for
Distillation of Petroleum Products;'' except that
(2) The figures for repeatability and reproducibility given in
degrees Fahrenheit in Table 9 in the ASTM method are incorrect, and
shall not be used.
(e) Benzene. Benzene content shall be determined using either:
(1)(i) ASTM standard method D 3606-96, entitled ``Standard Test
Method for Determination of Benzene and Toluene in Finished Motor and
Aviation Gasoline by Gas Chromatography;'' except that
(ii) Instrument parameters must be adjusted to ensure complete
resolution of the benzene, ethanol and methanol peaks because ethanol
and methanol may cause interference with ASTM standard method D 3606-96
when present; or
(2) The gas chromatography method specified in paragraphs (f) (1)
and (2) of this section.
(f) * * *
(3)(i) Prior to September 1, 1998, any refiner or importer may
determine aromatics content using ASTM standard method D 1319-95a,
entitled ``Standard Test Method for Hydrocarbon Types in Liquid
Petroleum Products by Fluorescent Indicator Adsorption,'' for purposes
of meeting any testing requirement involving aromatics content;
provided that
(ii) The refiner or importer test result is correlated with the
method specified in paragraph (f)(1) of this section.
(g) Oxygen and oxygenate content. (1) Oxygen and oxygenate content
shall be determined using ASTM standard method D 5599-95, entitled
``Standard Test Method for Determination of Oxygenates in Gasoline by
Gas Chromatography and Oxygen Sensitive Flame Ionization Detection.''
(2)(i) Prior to September 1, 1998, and when the oxygenates present
are limited to MTBE, ETBE, TAME, DIPE, tertiary-amyl alcohol, and
C1 to C4 alcohols, any refiner, importer, or
oxygenate blender may determine oxygen and oxygenate content using ASTM
standard method D 4815-94a, entitled ``Standard Test Method for
Determination of MTBE, ETBE, TAME, DIPE, tertiary-Amyl Alcohol and
C1 to C4 Alcohols in Gasoline by Gas
Chromatography,'' for purposes of meeting any testing requirement;
provided that
(ii) The refiner or importer test result is correlated with the
method set forth in paragraph (g)(1) of this section.
(h) Butane test methods. (1) Sulfur content in butane shall be
determined using ASTM D 5623-94, entitled ``Standard Test Method for
Sulfur Compounds in Light Petroleum Liquids by Gas Chromatography and
Sulfur Selective Detection.''
(2) Light hydrocarbon content in butane shall be determined using
ASTM D 2163-91, entitled ``Standard Test Method for Analysis of
Liquefied Petroleum (LP) Gas and Propene Concentrates by Gas
Chromatography.''
(3) Benzene and aromatic content of butane shall be determined
using the Gas Producers Association (GPA) method 2186-95, entitled
``Tentative Method for the Extended Analysis of Hydrocarbon Liquid
Mixtures Containing Nitrogen and Carbon Dioxide by Temperature
Programmed Gas Chromatography.''
(i) Incorporations by reference. ASTM standard methods D 3606-96, D
1319-95a, D 4815-94a, D 2622-94, D 5453-93, D 86-96, D 5191-96, D 5599-
95, D 5623-94, D 2163-91, and GPA 2186-95 are incorporated by
reference. These incorporations by reference were approved by the
Director of the Federal Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and
1 CFR Part 51. Copies of the ASTM standard methods may be obtained from
the American Society of Testing Materials, 100 Barr Harbor Dr., West
Conshohocken, PA 19428. Copies of GPA method 2186-95 may be obtained
from the Gas Producers Association, 6526 East 60th Street, Tulsa, OK
74145. Copies may be inspected at the Air Docket Section (LE-131), room
M-1500, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Docket No. A-97-03, 401 M
Street SW., Washington, DC 20460 or at the Office of the Federal
Register, National Archives and Records Administration, Washington, DC
20408, (202) 523-4534.
12. Section 80.47 is added to subpart D to read as follows:
Sec. 80.47 Sampling of reformulated and conventional gasoline and
RBOB.
(a) Sample collection, handling, and compositing procedures. Any
person who samples reformulated or conventional gasoline, or
blendstocks used to produce reformulated or conventional gasoline, in
order to meet any requirement of subparts D or E shall follow the
procedures specified in Sec. 80.8.
[[Page 37379]]
(b) Determination of homogeneity for reformulated and conventional
gasoline. Homogeneity of the gasoline shall be determined prior to
preparation of, or analysis of, the sample used to establish the batch
properties for purposes of Secs. 80.65(e), 80.72 and 80.101(i).
Homogeneity shall be determined as follows.
(1) Where the gasoline contained in a single tank or compartment is
to be treated as a single batch:
(i) By collecting, at a minimum, upper, middle, and lower spot or
tap samples following the procedures referenced in Secs. 80.8 (a) and
(c); or
(ii)(A) By following procedures for tank mixing that result in
complete tank homogeneity, that the party is able to demonstrate
through historic sampling and testing data for the same types of
blendstocks, storage tank configuration, mixing apparatus, and mixing
protocol; and
(B) By collecting, at a minimum, upper, middle, and lower spot or
tap samples of the batch, analyzing these samples for gravity, and
demonstrating that the gravity values do not differ by more than
0.3 deg. API, unless it is not possible to collect spot or tap samples
from the storage tank.
(2) Where the product contained in a marine vessel with multiple
compartments is to be treated as a single batch, by collecting a sample
from each compartment using the running sample collection procedure
referenced in Secs. 80.8 (a) and (c).
(3) The samples collected under paragraphs (b)(1)(i) and (b)(2) of
this section shall be analyzed for each parameter for which the batch
is subject to, or that is used to calculate an emissions performance
for which the batch is subject to, a standard specified in Sec. 80.41
or Sec. 80.101.
(4) The analyses under paragraph (b)(3) of this section shall use
the test methods specified in Sec. 80.46, or alternative test methods
for which the party is able to demonstrate correlation to the values
obtained by the methods specified in Sec. 80.46.
(5)(i) For gasoline to be considered homogeneous, the maximum
difference in the analytical results of samples collected under
paragraphs (b)(1)(i) and (b)(2) of this section shall be no larger than
the range specified in Sec. 80.65(e)(2)(i) for each parameter; however
(ii) In no case may any sample violate a per-gallon minimum or
maximum standard under Sec. 80.41 that is applicable to the batch.
(6) If the gasoline meets the criteria to be considered
homogeneous, it may be treated as a batch pursuant to Sec. 80.2(gg).
(c) Additional sampling options for imported gasoline. (1) In the
case of imported reformulated gasoline, the gasoline contained in
marine vessels with multiple compartments may be treated as a single
batch of reformulated gasoline and the properties may be based on a
volume weighted composite sample prepared using the procedures
referenced in Sec. 80.8(d) provided that:
(i) All of the gasoline contained in the multiple compartments is
transferred to a single shore tank; or
(ii) The gasoline from the vessel is transferred to multiple shore
tanks and is determined for each tank separately to meet all per-gallon
minimum or maximum standards under Sec. 80.41 that are applicable to
the batch, using the following procedure:
(A) The gasoline contained in the storage tanks prior to the
transfer of any gasoline from the vessel (the ``heels'') shall be
sampled and tested using the test methods specified in Sec. 80.46, or
alternative test methods for which the party is able to demonstrate
correlation to the values obtained by the methods specified in
Sec. 80.46;
(B) The gasoline contained in the storage tanks subsequent to the
transfer of all gasoline from the vessel shall be sampled and tested
using the test methods specified in Sec. 80.46, or alternative test
methods for which the party is able to demonstrate correlation to the
values obtained by the methods specified in Sec. 80.46; and
(C) The volume and properties of the heels shall be subtracted from
the volume and properties of the filled tanks to determine the volume
and properties of the gasoline from the vessel only.
(iii) RVP is determined using the volume weighted average of the
individual compartment sample results, analyzed prior to preparation of
the batch composite sample.
(2) In the case of imported reformulated gasoline, the gasoline
transferred to shore tanks from marine tank vessels may be certified
based on shore tank sampling following the procedures of paragraphs
(c)(1)(ii) (A) through (C) of this section, except that testing must be
performed using only the methods specified in Sec. 80.46.
(3) In the case of imported conventional gasoline the gasoline
contained in marine vessels with multiple compartments may be treated
as a single batch, provided that gasolines of different octane grades
(e.g., premium, mid-grade and regular) are treated as separate batches.
(d) Requirements for RBOB. Each requirement of this section that
applies to reformulated gasoline also applies to RBOB.
13. Section 80.49 is amended by revising the paragraph (a)
introductory text, the entry for ``New Parameter'' in the table in
paragraph (a)(1), paragraph (a)(3), introductory text, and the first
three sentences in paragraph (b), introductory text, to read as
follows:
Sec. 80.49 Fuels to be used in augmenting the complex emission model
through vehicle testing.
* * * * *
(a) Seven fuels (hereinafter called the ``addition fuels'') shall
be tested for the purpose of augmenting the complex emission model with
a parameter not currently included in the complex emission model. The
properties of the addition fuels are specified in paragraphs (a)(1) and
(2) of this section. The addition fuels shall be specified with at
least the same level of detail and precision as in Sec. 80.49(a)(5)(i),
and
(1) * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fuels
Fuel property -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
New Parameter\1\...................................... C (C+B)/2 B C B C B
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ C = Candidate level, B = Baseline level.
* * * * *
(3) The addition fuels shall be specified with at least the same
level of detail and precision as in Sec. 80.49(a)(5)(i), and this
information shall be included in the petition submitted to the
Administrator
[[Page 37380]]
requesting augmentation of the complex emission model.
* * * * *
(b) Three fuels (hereinafter called ``extention fuels'') shall be
tested for the purpose of extending the valid range of the complex
emission model for a parameter currently included in the complex
emission model. The properties of the extension fuels are specified in
paragraphs (b)(2) through (4) of this section. The extension fuels
shall be specified with at least the same level of detail and precision
as in Sec. 80.49(a)(5)(i), and * * *
* * * * *
14. Section 80.50 is amended by revising paragraph (a)(2) to read
as follows:
Sec. 80.50 General test procedure requirements for augmentation of the
emission models.
(a) * * *
(2) Toxics emissions must be measured when testing the extension
fuels per the requirements of Sec. 80.49(b) or when testing addition
fuels 1, 2, or 3 per the requirements of Sec. 80.49 (a).
* * * * *
15. Section 80.65 is amended by:
a. Revising paragraphs (d)(2)(vi)(A), (B), and (C); removing
paragraphs (d)(2)(vi)(D) and (d)(2)(vi)(E); and revising paragraph
(d)(3);
b. Revising paragraph (e)(1); to adding an entry for ``total oxygen
content'' in the table in paragraph (e)(2)(i), and revising the first
sentence of paragraph (e)(2)(ii)(B);
c. Revising paragraphs (f), (g), (h), and (i); and
d. Adding paragraph (j), to read as follows:
Sec. 80.65 General requirements for refiners, importers, and oxygenate
blenders.
* * * * *
(d) * * *
(2) * * *
(vi) * * *
(A) Any oxygenate;
(B) Ether only; or
(C) Oxygenate of a type and amount that is specified by the refiner
or importer.
(3)(i) The requirements of this paragraph (d)(3) apply to each
batch of:
(A) Reformulated or conventional gasoline, or RBOB, produced by a
refiner, or imported by an importer;
(B) Reformulated gasoline produced by an oxygenate blender who
meets the oxygen standard on average;
(C) Oxygenate added to conventional gasoline downstream of the
refinery where the oxygenate is included in refinery compliance
calculations under Sec. 80.101(g); and
(D) Each batch of blendstock produced or imported and transferred
if blendstock accounting is required under Sec. 80.102(e).
(ii) Each batch identified in paragraph (d)(3)(i) of this section
shall be assigned a number (the ``batch number''), consisting of the
EPA-assigned refiner, importer or oxygenate blender registration
number, the EPA-assigned facility registration number, the last two
digits of the year in which the batch was produced, imported or
blended, and a unique number for the batch, beginning with the number
one for the first batch produced, imported or blended each calendar
year and each subsequent batch during the calendar year being assigned
the next sequential number (e.g. 4321-54321-95-0000001, 4321-54321-95-
0000002, etc.).
(e) Determination of volume and properties. (1) Each refiner or
importer shall for each batch of reformulated gasoline or RBOB produced
or imported determine the volume, and the value of each of the
properties specified in paragraph (e)(2)(i) of this section, except
that the value for RVP must be determined only in the case of
reformulated gasoline or RBOB that is VOC-controlled. These
determinations shall:
(i) Be based on a representative sample of the reformulated
gasoline or RBOB that is:
(A) Collected from a quantity of gasoline or RBOB that has been
determined to be homogeneous as specified in Sec. 80.47(b);
(B) Collected using the methodologies specified in Sec. 80.8; and
(C) Analyzed using the methodologies specified in Sec. 80.46;
(ii) In the case of RBOB, follow the oxygenate blending
instructions specified in Sec. 80.69(a)(2);
(iii) Be carried out either by the refiner or importer, or by an
independent laboratory, as part of an independent analysis program
under Sec. 80.72 ; and
(iv) Be completed prior to the gasoline or RBOB leaving the
refinery or import facility for each parameter that is subject to, or
that is used to calculate an emissions performance that is subject to,
a minimum or maximum standard specified in Secs. 80.41 (a) through (f).
* * * * *
(2) * * *
(i) * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fuel property Range
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
Total oxygen content..................... 0.10wt%.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(ii)* * *
(B) The refiner or importer shall have the gasoline analyzed for
the property at one additional independent laboratory.* * *
(f) Independent analysis requirement. (1) Any refiner or importer
of reformulated gasoline or RBOB shall meet the independent analysis
requirements specified under Sec. 80.72; except that
(2) Any refiner that produces reformulated gasoline using computer-
controlled in-line blending equipment is exempt from the independent
sampling and testing requirements specified in paragraphs (f)(1) of
this section, provided that such refiner:
(i) Obtains from EPA an exemption from these requirements. In order
to seek such an exemption, the refiner shall submit a petition to EPA,
such petition to include:
(A) A description of the refiner's computer-controlled in-line
blending operation, including a description of:
(1) The location of the operation;
(2) The length of time the refiner has used the operation;
(3) The volumes of gasoline produced using the operation since the
refiner began the operation or during the previous three years,
whichever is shorter, by grade;
(4) The movement of the gasoline produced using the operation to
the point of fungible mixing, including any points where all or
portions of the gasoline produced is accumulated in gasoline storage
tanks;
(5) The physical lay-out of the operation;
(6) The automated control system, including the method of
monitoring and controlling blend properties and proportions;
(7) Any sampling and analysis of gasoline that is conducted as a
part of the operation, including on-line, off-line, and composite, and
a description of the methods of sampling, the methods of analysis, the
parameters analyzed and the frequency of such analyses, and any
written, printed, or computer-stored results of such analyses,
including information on the retention of such results;
(8) Any sampling and analysis of gasoline produced by the operation
that occurs downstream from the blending operation prior to fungible
mixing of the gasoline, including any such sampling and analysis by the
refiner and by any purchaser, pipeline or other carrier, or by
independent laboratories;
(9) Any quality assurance procedures that are carried out over the
operation; and
[[Page 37381]]
(10) Any occasion(s) during the previous three years when the
refiner adjusted any physical or chemical property of any gasoline
produced using the operation downstream from the operation, including
the nature of the adjustment and the reason the gasoline had properties
that required adjustment; and
(B) A description of the independent audit program of the refiner's
computer-controlled in-line blending operation that the refiner
proposes will satisfy the requirements of this paragraph (f)(2); and
(ii) Carries out an attest engagement of the refinery's computer-
controlled in-line blending operation for each calendar year reporting
period, as follows:
(A) The audit shall follow the in-line blending attest procedures
specified in Sec. 80.132;
(B) The results of the in-line blending attest engagement shall be
reported as specified in Sec. 80.130, and shall be included in the
attest report submitted to EPA no later than May 31 of each year; and
(C) The attest engagement shall be carried out by an auditor who
meets the criteria specified in Sec. 80.125; and
(iii) Complies with any other requirements that EPA includes as
part of the exemption.
* * * * *
(g) [Reserved]
(h) Compliance audits. Any refiner or importer of reformulated
gasoline or RBOB, and any oxygenate blender of any RBOB who meets the
oxygen standard on average, shall have the reformulated gasoline and
RBOB it produced, imported or blended during each calendar year audited
for compliance with the requirements of this subpart D, in accordance
with the requirements of subpart F, at the conclusion of each calendar
year. This audit requirement must be met separately for each refinery
and for each importer.
(i) Exclusion of previously certified gasoline. Any refiner who
combines blendstock with previously certified reformulated or
conventional gasoline to produce reformulated gasoline or RBOB shall
exclude the previously certified gasoline for purposes of demonstrating
compliance with the standards under Sec. 80.41. This exclusion shall be
accomplished separately by the refiner for each refinery as follows.
(1)(i) Determine the volume and properties for each batch of
previously certified gasoline received that is used to produce
reformulated gasoline or RBOB, using the procedures in paragraph (e)(1)
of this section and in Sec. 80.66, and the independent analysis
requirements in paragraph (f) of this section in the case of previously
certified reformulated gasoline.
(ii) (A) In the case of previously certified reformulated gasoline
determine the emissions performances for toxics and NOX, and
VOC for VOC-controlled reformulated gasoline, and the designations for
VOC control and OPRG.
(B) In the case of previously certified conventional gasoline
determine the exhaust toxics and NOX emissions performances.
(2) The volume and properties of any batch of gasoline produced
using previously certified gasoline shall be determined without regard
to the previously certified gasoline content.
(3) In the case of any parameter or emissions performance standard
that has been designated by the refiner, for the refinery, to be met on
a per-gallon basis under paragraph (d)(2)(v) of this section, the per-
gallon standard that applies to any batch of reformulated gasoline or
RBOB produced:
(i) Using any previously certified reformulated gasoline shall be
the more stringent of:
(A) The per-gallon standard that applies to the refinery under
Sec. 80.41; or
(B) the most stringent value for that parameter or emissions
performance for any previously certified reformulated gasoline used to
produce the batch; or
(ii) Using any previously certified conventional gasoline shall be
the standard that applies to the refinery under Sec. 80.41.
(4) In the case of any parameter or emissions performance standard
that has been designated by the refiner, for the refinery, to be met on
average under paragraph (d)(2)(v) of this section, any previously
certified gasoline shall be excluded from the refinery's compliance
calculations as follows.
(i) The volume and properties of any batch of previously certified
reformulated gasoline received at the refinery that is used to produce
reformulated gasoline or RBOB shall be included in compliance
calculations for the standard under Sec. 80.67(g):
(A) As a negative batch, by multiplying the term Vi in
Sec. 80.67(g)(1)(ii) (i.e., the batch volume) times negative 1;
(B) In the averaging categories that correspond to the designations
regarding VOC control and OPRG of the previously certified gasoline
batch when received; and
(C) The net volume of gasoline in the refinery's compliance
calculations shall be positive in each of the following categories
where the standard is being met on average:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gasoline category that must have net
Standard positive volume
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oxygen....................... All RFG.\1\
RFG that is non-OPRG.
Benzene...................... All RFG and RBOB.
VOC emissions performance.... RFG and RBOB that is VOC-controlled for
Region 1.
RFG and RBOB that is VOC-controlled for
Region 2.
Toxics emissions performance. All RFG and RBOB.
NOX emissions performance.... All RFG and RBOB.
RFG and RBOB that is VOC-controlled.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ ``RFG'' is an abbreviation for reformulated gasoline.
(ii) The volume and properties of any batch of previously certified
conventional gasoline received at the refinery that is used to produce
reformulated gasoline or RBOB:
(A) Shall be included in the refinery's anti-dumping compliance
calculations under Sec. 80.101(g) as a negative batch; and
(B) The net volume of gasoline in the refinery's anti-dumping
compliance calculations shall be positive.
(5) Any refiner, but no other person, may use the procedures
specified in this paragraph (i) to combine previously certified
conventional gasoline with reformulated gasoline, to reclassify
conventional gasoline into reformulated gasoline, or to change the
designations of reformulated gasoline with regard to VOC control and
OPRG.
(6) Nothing in this paragraph (i) prevents any party from combining
[[Page 37382]]
previously certified reformulated gasolines from different sources in a
manner that does not violate the prohibitions in Sec. 80.78(a).
(j) Importer certification of marine tank vessels. Importers shall
sample each batch of imported RFG, RBOB, and conventional gasoline:
(1) At the time and place that is allowed by the U.S. Customs
Service under 19 CFR 151.42 Controls on unlading and gauging; and
(2) Following the sampling requirements in Sec. 80.47; however, in
no case shall the volume of a single batch be larger than the volume
reported as a single item of merchandise in the U.S. Customs Service
entry for summary documentation as specified by 19 CFR part 141,
Subparts D, E, and F, and 19 CFR part 142, subparts A and B.
16. Section 80.67 is amended by adding paragraph (g)(1)(iii) and
revising paragraph (h)(1)(iv) to read as follows:
Sec. 80.67 Compliance on average.
* * * * *
(g) * * *
(1) * * *
(iii) Where the product being evaluated is RBOB, the Vi
term under paragraphs (g)(1) (i) and (ii) of this section shall be the
volume of reformulated gasoline that will result when the RBOB is
blended with the type and amount of oxygenate specified for the RBOB
under Sec. 80.69(a)(2)(i).
* * * * *
(h) * * *
(1) * * *
(iv) The credits are transferred, either through inter-company or
intra-company transfers, directly from the refiner, importer, or
oxygenate blender that creates the credits to the refiner, importer, or
oxygenate blender that uses the credits to achieve compliance;
* * * * *
17. Section 80.68 is amended by:
a. Revising paragraphs (b)(1)(iv) and (b)(2)(ii);
b. Revising paragraphs (c)(4)(i) and (c)(4)(ii);
c. Revising paragraphs (c)(9)(i)(B) and (c)(9)(ii)(B);
d. Revising paragraph (c)(10)(ii), and adding paragraphs
(c)(10)(iii), (c)(10)(iv) and (c)(10)(v);
e. Revising paragraph (c)(11);
f. Revising paragraph (c)(12); and
g. Revising paragraphs (c)(13)(iii) (A) and (B), to read as
follows:
Sec. 80.68 Compliance surveys.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(1) * * *
(iv) 70 surveys shall be conducted in 1998 and thereafter.
(2) * * *
(ii) In the event that any covered area(s) fails a survey or survey
series according to the criteria set forth in paragraph (c) of this
section, the annual decreases in the numbers of surveys prescribed by
paragraph (b)(1) of this section, as adjusted by paragraph (b)(2)(i) of
this section, shall be adjusted as follows in the year following the
year of the failure. * * *
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(4) * * *
(i) An oxygen and benzene survey series shall consist of all
surveys conducted in a single covered area during a single calendar
year, and a toxics survey series shall consist of all surveys conducted
in a single covered area during a single calendar year except for
surveys conducted during the period January 1, 1998 through April 30,
1998.
(ii) A NOX survey series shall consist of all surveys
conducted in a single covered area during the periods January 1 through
May 31 (except for surveys conducted during the period January 1, 1998
through April 30, 1998), and September 16 through December 31 during a
single calendar year.
* * * * *
(9)(i) * * *
(B) The annual average of the toxics emissions reduction
percentages for all samples from a survey series shall be calculated
according to the following formula 31:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\31\ The formula requires, first, that the toxic reductions of
samples taken in each one-week survey be averaged to obtain an
average for each such survey. Then these survey averages are,
themselves, averaged separately for high-ozone and non-high-ozone
season surveys, to obtain two overall averages. These overall
averages are each to be multiplied by a seasonal weight (0.468 for
high-ozone season and 0.532 for non-high ozone season) and the
resulting products added together to obtain the average annual toxic
emission reduction.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP11JY97.002
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Where:
AATER=the annual average toxics emissions reduction
TER1,j=the toxics emissions reduction for sample j of
gasoline collected during the high ozone season
TER2,j=the toxics emissions reduction for sample j of
gasoline collected outside the high ozone season
n1=the number of gasoline samples collected during a one-
week survey conducted within the high ozone season
s1=the number of one-week surveys conducted within the high
ozone season
n2=the number of gasoline samples collected during a one-
week survey conducted outside the high ozone season
s2=the number of one-week surveys conducted outside of the
high ozone season
* * * * *
(ii) * * *
(B) The annual average of the toxics emissions reduction
percentages for a
[[Page 37383]]
survey series shall be calculated according to the formula specified in
paragraph (c)(9)(i)(B) of this section; and
* * * * *
(10) * * *
(ii) The average NOX emission reduction percentage for
each single week-long NOX survey shall be calculated as the
average of all NOX emission reduction percentages from the
survey.
(iii) The covered area shall have failed a NOX survey if
the average NOX emissions reduction percentage for all
survey samples is less than the applicable Phase I or Phase II complex
model per-gallon standard for NOX emissions reduction.
(iv) The average NOX emission reduction percentage for a
NOX survey series shall be calculated according to the
following formula:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP11JY97.003
Where:
ANER=the average NOX emission reduction percentage for a
NOX survey series,
n=the number of gasoline samples taken in the course of a week-long
NOX survey,
NERj=the NOX emissions reduction percentage for
gasoline sample j determined according to the appropriate methodology
at Sec. 80.45, and
S=the number of week-long NOX surveys conducted during the
year
(v) The covered area shall have failed a NOX survey
series if the average NOX emissions reduction percentage for
the series, as computed in paragraph (c)(10)(iv) of this section, is
less than the applicable Phase I or Phase II complex model per gallon
standard for NOX emissions reduction.
(11)(i) The results of each benzene content survey series conducted
in any covered area shall be determined according to the following
formula:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP11JY97.004
Where:
AABC = the annual average benzene content for a benzene content survey
series,
n = the number of gasoline samples taken in the course of a week-long
benzene content survey,
BCj = the benzene content for gasoline sample j taken in the
course of a week-long benzene content survey, and
S = the number of week-long benzene content surveys conducted during
the year.
(ii) If the annual average benzene content computed in paragraph
(c)(11)(i) of this section is greater than 1.000 percent by volume, the
covered area shall have failed a benzene content survey series.
(12)(i) The results of each oxygen content survey series conducted
in any covered area shall be determined according to the following
formula:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP11JY97.005
Where:
AAOC = the annual average oxygen content for an oxygen content survey
series,
n = the number of gasoline samples taken in the course of a week-long
oxygen content survey,
Ocj = the oxygen content for gasoline sample j taken in the
course of a week-long oxygen content survey, and
S = the number of week-long oxygen content surveys conducted during the
year.
(ii) If the annual average oxygen content computed in paragraph
(c)(12)(i) of this section is less than 2.00 percent by weight, the
covered area shall have failed an oxygen content survey series.
* * * * *
(13) * * *
(iii) Include procedures such that the number of samples included
in each survey or survey series (whichever is applicable) assures that:
(A) In the case of simple model surveys or survey series, the
average levels of oxygen, benzene, RVP, and aromatic hydrocarbons are
determined with a 95% confidence level, with error of less than 0.1 psi
for RVP, 0.05% for benzene (by volume), and 0.1% for oxygen (by
weight); and
(B) In the case of complex model surveys or survey series, the
average levels of oxygen, benzene, RVP, aromatic hydrocarbons, olefins,
T-50, T-90 and sulfur are determined with a 95% confidence level, with
error of less than 0.1 psi for RVP, 0.05% for benzene (by volume), 0.1%
for oxygen (by weight), 0.5% for olefins (by volume), 5 deg. F. for T-
50 and T-90, and 10 ppm for sulfur; or an equivalent level of precision
for the complex model-determined emissions parameters; and
* * * * *
18. Section 80.69 is amended by:
a. Revising paragraphs (a)(2), (a)(6)(iv), and the introductory
text of (a)(7);
b. Removing and reserving paragraph (a)(4), and removing paragraphs
(a)(8), (a)(9), and (a)(10);
c. Revising paragraph (b)(1), and adding paragraph (b)(5); and
d. Revising (paragraph (e), introductory text, paragraphs
(e)(2)(i)(A) and (e)(2)(v) to read as follows:
Sec. 80.69 Requirements for downstream oxygenate blending.
* * * * *
(a) * * *
(2) * * *
(i) Adding oxygenate to a representative sample of the RBOB, as
follows:
(A) Where the RBOB is designated as any-oxygenate, add ethanol so
that the resulting reformulated gasoline has a maximum oxygen content
of 2.0 wt%;
(B) Where the RBOB is designated as ether-only, add MTBE so that
the resulting reformulated gasoline has a maximum oxygen content of 2.0
wt%; or
(C) Where the RBOB has oxygenate blending instructions other than
``any-oxygenate'' or ``ether-only'' and where the refiner or importer
meets the contractual and quality assurance requirements in paragraphs
(a)(5) through (a)(7) of this section:
(1) Add the oxygenate specified for the RBOB, or if more than one
oxygenate is allowed, from the following list of oxygenates add the
first that is specified: Ethanol, MTBE, ETBE, any other specified
oxygenate; and
(2) Add the volume of oxygenate specified for the RBOB, or if a
range is specified, add the minimum vol%; or
(D) Where the RBOB has oxygenate blending instructions other than
``any-oxygenate'' or ``ether-only,'' and where the refiner or importer
fails to meet the contractual and quality assurance requirements in
paragraphs (a)(5) through (a)(7) of this section, add 4.0 vol% ethanol;
and
(ii) Determining the properties and characteristics, including the
oxygen and oxygenate content, of the resulting
[[Page 37384]]
gasoline using the methodology specified in Sec. 80.65(e).
* * * * *
(4) [Reserved]
* * * * *
(6) * * *
(iv) Carry out the quality assurance sampling and testing
requirements for oxygenate blenders specified in Sec. 80.69(e)(2);
(7) Conduct a quality assurance sampling and testing program to be
carried out at the facilities of each oxygenate blender who blends any
RBOB produced or imported by the refiner or importer with any
oxygenate, to determine whether the reformulated gasoline which has
been produced through blending contains the oxygen type and oxygen
amount specified by the refiner or importer, and complies with the
standard for oxygen specified in Sec. 80.41. The testing shall use the
oxygen and oxygenate test method specified in Sec. 80.46(g).
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(1) Add oxygenate as follows.
(i) For RBOB designated as ``any oxygenate'' add any oxygenate.
(ii) For RBOB designated as ``ether-only'' add an ether oxygenate
(e.g., MTBE, ETBE, TAME, or butanol).
(iii) For RBOB designated as either ``any-oxygenate'' or ``ether-
only'' add an amount of oxygenate that:
(A) Is equal to or greater than the minimum oxygen or oxygenate
content specified for the RBOB, or the amount of oxygenate necessary
for the resulting reformulated gasoline to meet the applicable oxygen
minimum standard, whichever is greater; and
(B) Does not exceed the applicable oxygen maximum content
requirement.
(iv) For RBOB not designated ``any-oxygenate'' or ``ether-only''
add oxygenate of the type specified for the RBOB, and in an amount that
is equal to or greater than the minimum amount specified for the RBOB
and that is equal to or less than the oxygen maximum standards in
Sec. 80.41.
(v) In addition to the oxygenates specified in paragraphs (b)(1)(i)
through (b)(1)(iv) of this section, the RFG produced using RBOB may
contain an amount of other oxygenate, provided that the other
oxygenate:
(A) Has a maximum volume of:
(1) 0.4 volume % ethanol; or
(2) 0.6 volume % MTBE, ETBE, TAME or butanol; or
(3) 0.2 volume % methanol; and
(B) Was not added intentionally.
* * * * *
(5) Oxygenate blenders who blend oxygenate in trucks are not
subject to the requirements of paragraph (b)(4) of this section,
provided that the following requirements are met:
(i) The oxygenate blending shall be carried out using computer-
controlled in-line or sequential blending that operates in such a
manner that the volumes of oxygenate and RBOB are automatically
dispensed when a particular grade of gasoline is selected for loading
into a truck, and no operator instructions are required regarding the
oxygenate-RBOB proportions when an individual truck is loaded.
(ii) The oxygenate blender shall be the party who operates the
computer-controlled in-line or sequential blending equipment.
(iii) The oxygenate blender shall base its compliance calculations
on the volumes and properties of RBOB and oxygenate used during a
period not longer than one calendar month.
(iv)(A) In calculating the oxygen content of for each batch of RFG
produced, the oxygenate blender shall use the following equation:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP11JY97.006
Where:
Wo=weight percent oxygen in blend from oxygenate
Vo=volume percent oxygenate
do = density of oxygenate (g/ml)
Oo=weight fraction oxygen in oxygenate
Vg=volume of gasoline
dg=density of gasoline
(B) And where the densities and weight fractions of oxygen are
used:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Density at Weight
Oxygenate 60 deg.F fraction
(gm/ml) oxygen
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ethanol....................................... 0.7939 0.3473
ethyl t-butyl ether (ETBE).................... 0.7452 0.1566
ethyl t-amyl ether (ETAE)..................... 0.7452 0.1566
methanol...................................... 0.7963 0.4993
methyl t-butyl ether (MTBE)................... 0.7460 0.1815
t-amyl methyl ether (TAME).................... 0.7758 0.1566
diisopropyl ether (DIPE)...................... 0.7282 0.1566
t-butyl alcohol............................... 0.7922 0.2158
n-propanol.................................... 0.8080 0.2662
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(v) In determining the volume % ethanol to use in paragraph
(b)(5)(iv) of this section, the denaturant content of ethanol (if
used), shall be either:
(A) 5 vol%, provided that the oxygenate blender conducts a program
of quality assurance sampling the ethanol used, as follows:
(1) The frequency of the sampling and testing shall be at least one
sample every month;
(2) In the event an ethanol sample from this quality assurance
program has an oxygenate purity level of less than 92.1%, the oxygenate
blender must:
(i) Use the greater denaturant content for all oxygen compliance
calculations for the ethanol that was tested, and;
(ii) Increase the frequency of quality assurance sampling and
testing to one sample every two weeks, and must maintain this frequency
until four successive samples show an ethanol purity content that is
equal to or greater than 92.1%.
(3) The formula for calculating denaturant content based upon
ethanol purity is the following:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP11JY97.007
Where:
DC=denaturant content, in vol%
OP=measured ethanol purity, expressed as decimal or
(B) The measured denaturant content for each batch of oxygenate
used to produce RFG.
(vi) During each oxygen averaging period, the oxygenate blender
shall use only the assumed denaturant content of ethanol (if used) or
only the measured denaturant content for all compliance
[[Page 37385]]
calculations for an oxygenate blending facility.
(vii) The oxygenate blender shall conduct a program of quality
assurance sampling and testing the RFG produced using the procedures
and at the frequencies specified under Sec. 80.69(e)(2).
* * * * *
(e) Additional requirements for oxygenate blenders who blend
oxygenate in trucks. Any oxygenate blender, other than a terminal
storage tank blender specified in Sec. 80.69(c), shall:
* * * * *
(2) * * *
(i) * * *
(A) Prior to combining the resulting gasoline with any other
gasoline; or
* * * * *
(v) In the event the testing results for any sample indicate the
gasoline does not contain the specified type and amount of oxygenate
(within the ranges specified in Sec. 80.65(e)(2)(i)):
* * * * *
19. Section 80.70 is amended by adding paragraph (l) to read as
follows:
Sec. 80.70 Covered areas.
* * * * *
(l) The Sacramento, California, ozone nonattainment area,
redesignated as a severe ozone nonattainment area effective June 1,
1995, is a covered area for purposes of subpart D, beginning on June 1,
1996. The Sacramento, California ozone nonattainment area is comprised
of:
(1) All portions of El Dorado County except that portion of El
Dorado County within the drainage area naturally tributary to Lake
Tahoe including said Lake. (See 40 CFR 81.275)
(2) All portions of Placer County except that portion of Placer
County within the drainage area naturally tributary to Lake Tahoe
including said Lake, plus that area in the vicinity of the head of the
Truckee River described as follows: commencing at the point common to
the aforementioned drainage area crest line and the line common to
Townships 15 North and 16 North, Mount Diablo Base and Meridian
(M.D.B.&M.), and following that line in a westerly direction to the
northwest corner of Section 3, Township 15 North, Range 16 East,
M.D.B.&M., thence south along the west line of Sections 3 and 10,
Township 15 North, Range 16 East, M.D.B.&M., to the intersection with
the said drainage area crest line, thence following the said drainage
area boundary in a southeasterly, then northeasterly direction to and
along the Lake Tahoe Dam, thence following the said drainage area crest
line in a northeasterly, then northwesterly direction to the point of
beginning. (See 40 CFR 81.275)
(3) That portion of Solano County which lies north and east of a
line described as follows. Description of boundary in Solano County
between San Francisco and Sacramento: Beginning at the intersection of
the westerly boundary of Solano County and the \1/4\ section line
running east and west through the center of Section 34; T. 6 N., R. 2
W., M.D.B.&M., thence east along said \1/4\ section line to the east
boundary of Section 36, T. 6 N., R. 2 W., thence south \1/2\ mile and
east 2.0 miles, more or less, along the west and south boundary of Los
Putos Rancho to the northwest corner of Section 4, T. 5 N., R. 1 W.,
thence east along a line common to T. 5 N. and T. 6 N. to the northeast
corner of Section 3, T. 5 N., R. 1 E., thence south along section lines
to the southeast corner of Section 10, T. 3 N., R. 1 E., thence east
along section lines to the south \1/4\ corner of Section 8, T. 3 N., R.
2 E., thence east to the boundary between Solano and
(4) The southern portion of Sutter County described as follows.
South of a line connecting the northern border of Yolo County to the
southwest tip of Yuba County and continuing along the southern Yuba
County border to Placer County.
(5) The northern portion of Sutter County described as follows:
North of a line connecting the northern border of Yolo County to the
southwest tip of Yuba County and continuing along the southern Yuba
County border to Placer County.
20. Section 80.72 is added to subpart D to read as follows:
Sec. 80.72 Independent analysis requirements.
(a) Independent sampling and analysis required. Any refiner or
importer of reformulated gasoline or RBOB shall carry out a program of
independent sample collection and analyses for the reformulated
gasoline it produces or imports, which meets the requirements of one of
the following two options:
(1) Option 1. The refiner or importer shall, for each batch of
reformulated gasoline or RBOB that is produced or imported, have the
gasoline sampled and tested by the designated independent laboratory
according to the requirements specified in this section.
(2) Option 2. The refiner or importer shall have a periodic
independent testing program carried out for all reformulated gasoline
or RBOB produced or imported, which shall consist of the designated
independent laboratory sampling each batch of reformulated gasoline or
RBOB, and analyzing each sample identified under paragraph (d) of this
section, according to the requirements specified in this section.
(b) Designation of independent laboratory. (1) Any refiner or
importer shall designate one independent laboratory for each refinery
or import facility at which reformulated gasoline or RBOB is produced
or imported, and shall identify this laboratory to EPA under the
registration requirements of Sec. 80.76.
(2) In order to be considered independent:
(i) The laboratory shall not be operated by any refiner or importer
who produces or imports reformulated gasoline or RBOB, or by any
refiner or importer that is part of a corporate organization that
includes a refiner or importer of reformulated gasoline or RBOB,
including subsidiary corporations, parent corporations and subsidiaries
thereof, and employees of any of these corporations;
(ii) The laboratory shall be free from any interest in any refiner
or importer; and
(iii) The refiner or importer shall be free from any interest in
the laboratory; however
(iv) Notwithstanding the restrictions in paragraphs (b)(2)(i)
through (iii) of this section, a laboratory shall be considered
independent if it is owned or operated by a gasoline pipeline company,
regardless of ownership or operation of the gasoline pipeline company
by refiners or importers, provided that such pipeline company is owned
and operated by four or more refiners or importers.
(3) Use of a laboratory that is debarred, suspended, or proposed
for debarment pursuant to the Governmentwide Debarment and Suspension
regulations, 40 CFR part 32, or the Debarment, Suspension and
Ineligibility provisions of the Federal Acquisition Regulations, FAR 48
subpart 9.4, shall be deemed noncompliance with the requirements of
this section.
(4) Any laboratory that fails to comply with the requirements of
this section shall be subject to debarment or suspension under
Governmentwide Debarment and Suspension regulations, 40 CFR part 32, or
the Debarment, Suspension and Ineligibility regulations, Federal
Acquisition Regulations FAR 48 subpart 9.4.
(c) Sampling and reporting. For all samples collected or analyzed
pursuant to the requirements of this section, the
[[Page 37386]]
refiner or importer shall have the independent laboratory:
(1) Collect a representative sample from the batch of reformulated
gasoline following the sampling procedures specified in Sec. 80.47;
(2) Determine which standards are being met on a per-gallon basis
and which standards are being met on average, and obtain the refiner's
or importer's assigned batch number for the batch being sampled;
(3) Determine the volume of the batch;
(4) Determine the identification number of the gasoline storage
tank or tanks in which the batch was stored at the time the sample was
collected;
(5) Determine the date and time the batch became finished
reformulated gasoline, and the date and time the sample was collected;
(6) Determine the grade of the batch (e.g., premium, mid-grade, or
regular); and
(7) In the case of reformulated gasoline produced through computer-
controlled in-line blending, determine the date and time the blending
process began and the date and time the blending process ended, unless
exempt under Sec. 80.65(f)(2);
(8) Retain each sample for a period of 30 days, except that this
period shall be extended to a period of up to 180 days upon request by
EPA; and
(9) Supply to EPA any sample collected or a portion of any such
sample, according to the requirements of paragraph (f) of this section.
(d) Selecting samples for analysis. A refiner or importer shall
have any laboratory serving as the independent laboratory under the
periodic independent analysis option of paragraph (a)(2) of this
section, for each refinery or importer, analyze gasoline samples
identified as follows:
(1) General instructions. (i) Samples must be selected for analysis
for each two week period. Each two-week period begins on Sunday night
at midnight, and lasts for the subsequent two weeks. The first two-week
period begins at midnight on August 7, 1994, the second two-week period
begins at midnight on August 21, 1994, etc.
(ii) EPA may issue special instructions for selecting samples for
analysis for any specific refiner, refinery, importer, or independent
lab that differ in whole or in part from the instructions contained in
this paragraph (d), and if such special instructions are issued they
must be followed instead of the instructions contained in this
protocol.
(2) Identify samples for the current analysis cycle. (i) Identify
each sample of RFG or RBOB collected during the preceding two-week
period, and the refiner or importer assigned batch identification
number for each sample.
(ii) Add any samples carried over from a prior analysis cycle, from
paragraphs (d)(3)(i) and (ii) of this section.
(iii) Order the samples from the preceding two-week period, plus
any carry over samples, in chronological order using the batch
identification number for each sample.
(3) Determine the number of samples to be analyzed.
(i) The number of samples that must be analyzed for the current
analysis cycle is the number of samples identified under paragraph
(d)(2) of this section that is evenly divisible by ten.
(ii) Any remainder from this division is the number of samples that
must be carried over to the subsequent analysis cycle. Any carry over
samples must be those with the largest batch identification numbers.
Example. If the number of samples identified under paragraph
(d)(2) is thirty seven, with batch numbers 4321-54321-95-002534
through 4321-54321-95-002570, the number of samples that must be
analyzed in the current analysis cycle is three, and seven samples
must be carried over to the subsequent analysis cycle. The specific
samples that must be carried over are those seven with the largest
batch identification numbers, or samples 4321-54321-95-002564
through 4321-54321-95-002570.
(iii) To the extent any sample carry over would result in a sample
being retained by the independent lab for more than 30 days, this
sample shall be retained by the independent laboratory until the sample
is not carried over to a subsequent analysis cycle, but for a maximum
of 180 days.
(iv)(A) If the number of samples identified under paragraph (d)(2)
of this section is less than ten, then all samples should be carried
over to the subsequent analysis cycle.
(B) If the number of samples identified under paragraph (d)(2) of
this section is less than ten, and any sample carry over would result
in a sample being retained for more than 180 days, then one sample must
be analyzed from the number, and none of the samples would be carried
over to the subsequent analysis cycle.
(4) Identify which samples to analyze. (i) Identify the beginning
point for using the Random Number Table at paragraph (d)(4)(ii) of this
section for the current analysis cycle.
(A) Identify the last two digits from the closing point for the Dow
Jones Industrial Average as reported in the Wall Street Journal for the
first day the New York Stock Exchange is open following the close of
the preceding two-week period.
Example. For the two-week period ending at midnight on Sunday,
August 20, the relevant two digits would be the last two digits for
the close for the Dow Jones Industrial Average for Monday, August
21, as reported in the Wall Street Journal for Tuesday, August 22.
If this Dow Jones Industrial Average close is 3,741.06, the relevant
two digits would be 06.
(B) The beginning point for the Random Number Table at paragraph
(d)(4)(ii) of this section for the current analysis cycle is the row
number (from Column A of the Random Number Table) that corresponds to
the number identified under paragraph (d)(4)(i)(A) of this section.
Using the example from paragraph (d)(4)(i)(A) of this section, the
applicable row number would be 06, and the first random number would be
27.
(ii) Random Number Table:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Column
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
A B
------------------------------------------------------------------------
00............................................................. 60
01............................................................. 77
02............................................................. 38
03............................................................. 16
04............................................................. 45
05............................................................. 39
06............................................................. 27
07............................................................. 93
08............................................................. 97
09............................................................. 37
10............................................................. 06
11............................................................. 18
12............................................................. 98
13............................................................. 05
14............................................................. 92
15............................................................. 72
16............................................................. 71
17............................................................. 87
18............................................................. 20
19............................................................. 41
20............................................................. 00
21............................................................. 78
22............................................................. 33
23............................................................. 61
24............................................................. 75
25............................................................. 25
26............................................................. 54
27............................................................. 80
28............................................................. 32
29............................................................. 17
30............................................................. 15
31............................................................. 63
32............................................................. 04
33............................................................. 21
34............................................................. 90
35............................................................. 68
36............................................................. 58
37............................................................. 13
38............................................................. 47
39............................................................. 91
40............................................................. 95
41............................................................. 01
42............................................................. 02
43............................................................. 76
44............................................................. 79
[[Page 37387]]
45............................................................. 19
46............................................................. 11
47............................................................. 88
48............................................................. 73
49............................................................. 43
50............................................................. 74
51............................................................. 12
52............................................................. 31
53............................................................. 85
54............................................................. 94
55............................................................. 35
56............................................................. 40
57............................................................. 55
58............................................................. 86
59............................................................. 34
60............................................................. 22
61............................................................. 46
62............................................................. 89
63............................................................. 70
64............................................................. 50
65............................................................. 03
66............................................................. 09
67............................................................. 67
68............................................................. 42
69............................................................. 82
70............................................................. 84
71............................................................. 96
72............................................................. 28
73............................................................. 66
74............................................................. 49
75............................................................. 23
76............................................................. 26
77............................................................. 81
78............................................................. 65
79............................................................. 29
80............................................................. 64
81............................................................. 57
82............................................................. 59
83............................................................. 83
84............................................................. 10
85............................................................. 52
86............................................................. 53
87............................................................. 30
88............................................................. 48
89............................................................. 69
90............................................................. 24
91............................................................. 62
92............................................................. 99
93............................................................. 51
94............................................................. 56
95............................................................. 36
96............................................................. 08
97............................................................. 14
98............................................................. 07
99............................................................. 44
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(iii) For each sample for the current analysis cycle under
paragraph (d)(2) of this section, excluding any samples carried over to
the subsequent analysis cycle under paragraphs (d)(3)(ii) or
(d)(3)(iv)(A) of this section, identify the last two digits of the
batch identification number. This process is illustrated in the
following table:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The last
If the batch number is: two digits
are:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
4321-54321-95-002533....................................... 33
4321-54321-95-002593....................................... 93
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(iv) Compare the two digit number from Column B of the Random
Number Table at the beginning point identified under paragraph
(d)(4)(ii) of this section (the first random number) with each of the
two digit sample numbers identified under paragraph (d)(4)(iii) of this
section.
(v) If the first random number matches any sample number, this
sample is identified as a sample for analysis. If the random number
matches more than one sample number, only the sample with the lowest
batch identification number is identified as a sample for analysis.
(vi) If the first random number does not match any sample number,
then move to the next number in the Random Number Table, and repeat the
process described under paragraph (d)(4)(v) of this section. In the
example under paragraph (d)(4)(iii) of this section, there is no match
for the first random number (27), but there is a match for the second
random number (93), and sample number 4321-54321-95-002593 would be
identified for analysis.
(vii) Continue this process until the number of samples identified
for analysis equals the number under paragraphs (d)(3)(i) or (d)(4)(ii)
of this section.
(e) Analysis of samples. (1) Any independent laboratory who
analyzes a sample under the requirements of this section shall use the
analysis methodologies specified in Sec. 80.46.
(2) If a sample to be analyzed is of RBOB, the sample first must be
blended with oxygenate as follows:
(i) If the RBOB is designated as any-oxygenate, ethanol shall be
blended at a volume that results in 2.0 wt% oxygen;
(ii) If the RBOB is designated as ether-only, MTBE shall be blended
at a volume that results in 2.0 wt% oxygen;
(iii) If the RBOB is other than any-oxygenate or ether-only, the
RBOB shall be blended with the oxygenate specified for the RBOB, or if
more than one oxygenate is allowed, from the following list of
oxygenates the first that is allowed by the refiner's instructions:
Ethanol, MTBE, ETBE, any other specified oxygenate. The volume of
oxygenate shall be the volume specified in the refiner's instructions,
or if a range is specified, the minimum volume specified.
(f) Shipment of samples to EPA.--(1) Quality assurance samples. Any
laboratory serving as the independent laboratory under this section
shall, for each refinery or importer, supply certain gasoline samples
to EPA according to the following requirements. Notwithstanding the
gasoline samples identified in this paragraph (f), EPA may specify a
different frequency for sending samples to EPA for any refiner,
refinery, importer, or independent lab, and if such different frequency
is specified it must be followed.
(2) Refiners and importers using the periodic independent analysis
option. (i) In the case of samples identified for analysis under
paragraph (d) of this section, for each thirty-third sample that is
analyzed for each refinery or importer a portion of the sample must be
sent to EPA.
(ii) In the case of samples that are not identified for analysis
under paragraph (d) of this section, each thirty-third sample that is
collected for each refinery or importer but that is not analyzed by the
independent laboratory must be sent to EPA.
(3) Refiners and importers using the 100% independent analysis
option. In the case of refiners and importers using the 100%
independent analysis option of paragraph (a)(1) of this section, for
every thirty-third sample that is analyzed for each refinery or
importer, a portion of the sample must be sent to EPA.
(4) Samples that violate applicable standards. (i) The remaining
portion of each sample that violates an applicable per-gallon standard
must be labeled as such and shipped to EPA.
(ii) The applicable standards are those specified under Sec. 80.41.
In the case of standards being met on a per-gallon basis, the per-
gallon standards are the applicable standards. In the case of standards
being met on an average basis,
[[Page 37388]]
the per-gallon minimums and maximums are the applicable standards.
Beginning on January 1, 1998, per-gallon standards include the complex
model range limits specified under Sec. 80.41(h)(3).
(5) Sample shipping procedures. (i) Each sample sent to EPA must be
sealed in containers and transported in accordance with the procedures
specified in Sec. 80.8, and identified with the independent lab's name
and registration number and the sample information specified in
paragraphs (e)(1) through (7) of this section.
(ii) The quantity of sample that must be sent is: in the case of
samples that have been analyzed by the independent lab, the entire
volume remaining following the laboratory analysis which should be a
minimum of 330mL; and in the case of samples that have not been
analyzed by the independent lab, a minimum of 70% of one quart.
(iii) Samples identified for shipping to EPA must be sent via an
overnight package service or a comparable means to the address and
following procedures specified by EPA.
21. Section 80.74 is amended by revising paragraphs (a)(2)(iii),
(b)(2), (b)(5) and (b)(6), and adding paragraphs (b)(7), (b)(8),
(b)(9), and (h) to read as follows:
Sec. 80.74 Recordkeeping requirements.
* * * * *
(a) * * *
(2) * * *
(iii) (A) The results of the test as originally printed by the
testing apparatus, or where no printed result is generated by the
testing apparatus, the results as originally recorded by the person who
performed the tests; and
(B) Any record that contains results for the test that are not
identical to the results recorded in paragraph (a)(2)(iii)(A); and
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(2) The information specified in Sec. 80.47(b) used to establish
gasoline homogeneity;
* * * * *
(5) In the case of any refinery or importer subject to the simple
model standards, the calculations used to determine the 1990 baseline
levels of sulfur, T-90, and olefins, and the calculations used to
determine compliance with the standards for these parameters;
(6) In the case of any refinery or importer subject to the complex
model standards before January 1, 1998, the calculations used to
determine the baseline levels of VOC, toxics, and NOx
emissions performance;
(7) In the case of any imported GTAB, records that reflect the
storage and physical movement of the GTAB from the point of importation
to the point of blending to produce reformulated gasoline; and
(8) In the case of any gasoline classified as previously certified
gasoline under the terms of Sec. 80.65(i):
(i) Results of the tests to determine the properties and volume of
the previously certified gasoline when received at the refinery; and
(ii) Records that reflect the storage and movement of the
previously certified gasoline within the refinery to the point the
previously certified gasoline is used to produce reformulated gasoline.
(9) In the case of any transmix blended with gasoline, records that
reflect the volumes of gasoline and transmix that are blended.
* * * * *
(h) Independent laboratories. The refiner or importer shall have
any laboratory serving as an independent laboratory under Sec. 80.72
keep the records specified in paragraphs (a)(2) (i) through (iii), (b)
(1) through (3), and (b)(4)(i) of this section, and records containing
the information specified under Sec. 80.72(c)(1).
* * * * *
22. Section 80.75 is amended by:
(a) Revising paragraph (a), introductory text;
(b) Revising paragraphs (a)(2)(vi) and(a)(2)(vii), and adding
paragraphs (a)(2)(viii) and (a)(2)(ix);
(c) Revising paragraph (a)(3);
(d) Revising and redesignating paragraph (n) as paragraph (o), and
adding paragraph (n) to read as follows:
Sec. 80.75 Reporting requirements.
* * * * *
(a) Quarterly reports for reformulated gasoline. Any refiner or
importer that produces or imports any reformulated gasoline or RBOB,
and any oxygenate blender that produces reformulated gasoline meeting
the oxygen standard on average, shall submit quarterly reports to the
Administrator for each refinery or oxygenate blending facility at which
such reformulated gasoline or RBOB was produced and for all such
reformulated gasoline or RBOB imported by each importer. The refiner,
importer or oxygenate blender shall include notification to EPA of per-
gallon versus average election with the first quarterly reports
submitted each year.
* * * * *
(2) * * *
(vi) For any importer, the PADD in which the import facility is
located;
(vii) For any oxygenate blender, the oxygen content;
(viii) In the case of any imported GTAB, identification of the
gasoline as such; and
(ix) In the case of any previously certified gasoline used in a
refinery operation under the terms of Sec. 80.65(i), the following
information relative to the previously certified gasoline when received
at the refinery:
(A) Identification of the previously certified gasoline as such;
(B) The batch number assigned by the receiving refinery;
(C) The date of receipt; and
(D) The volume, properties and designations of the batch.
(3)(i) The following formula shall be used to convert weight
percent oxygen from an oxygenate to volume percent oxygenate:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP11JY97.008
Where:
Vo=volume percent oxygenate
Wo=weight percent oxygen in blend from oxygenate
Wg=weight percent gasoline in blend from gasoline
do=density of oxygenate (g/ml)
dg=density of gasoline (g/ml)
(ii) The following densities and weight fractions of oxygen should
be used for these calculations:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Density at Weight
Oxygenate 60 deg.F fraction
(gm/ml) oxygen
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ethanol....................................... 0.7939 0.3473
ethyl t-butyl ether (ETBE).................... 0.7452 0.1566
ethyl t-amyl ether (ETAE)..................... 0.7452 0.1566
methanol...................................... 0.7963 0.4993
methyl t-butyl ether (MTBE)................... 0.7460 0.1815
t-amyl methyl ether (TAME).................... 0.7758 0.1566
diisopropyl ether (DIPE)...................... 0.7282 0.1566
t-butyl alcohol............................... 0.7922 0.2158
n-propanol.................................... 0.8080 0.2662
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
(n) Reports by independent laboratories. The refiner or importer
shall have any laboratory serving as an independent laboratory under
Sec. 80.72 submit to EPA the following reports:
(1) A report for the period January through March shall be
submitted by May 31; a report for the period April through June shall
be submitted by August 31; a report for the period July through
September shall be submitted by November 30; and a report for the
[[Page 37389]]
period October through December shall be submitted by February 28;
(2) Each report shall include, for each sample of reformulated
gasoline that was analyzed during a period, the analysis results for
the sample and the information specified in Secs. 80.72 (c) (1) through
(7).
(o) Report submission. The reports required by this section shall
be:
(1) Submitted on forms and following procedures specified by the
Administrator; and
(2) Signed and certified as correct by the owner or a responsible
corporate officer of the refiner, importer, oxygenate blender, or
independent laboratory.
23. Section 80.77 is amended by revising the introductory text and
paragraphs (c), (f), (g)(3) and (j), to read as follows:
Sec. 80.77 Product transfer documentation.
On each occasion when any person transfers custody or title to any
reformulated gasoline or RBOB, other than when gasoline is sold or
dispensed for use by ultimate consumers at a retail outlet or wholesale
purchaser-consumer facility, the transferor shall provide to the
transferee documents which include the information specified in this
section. These documents shall be transferred no later than the time of
the physical transfer of the gasoline in the case of custody transfers,
and within 30 days following the transfer in the case of title
transfers.
* * * * *
(c) The volume of gasoline or RBOB which is being transferred;
* * * * *
(f) The proper identification of the product as reformulated
gasoline or RBOB;
(g) * * *
(3) In the case of VOC-controlled reformulated gasoline that
contains ethanol, identification or the gasoline as containing ethanol.
* * * * *
(j) With the exception of custody transfers to truck carriers,
retail outlets and wholesale purchaser-consumer facilities, the
information required in paragraphs (f), (g) and (i) of this section may
be in the form of product codes, provided that:
(1) The codes are standardized for the distribution system in which
they are used; and
(2) The transferee is given the information to interpret the codes.
24. Section 80.78 is amended by:
(a) Revising the introductory text of paragraph (a)(1);
(b) Revising paragraph (a)(1)(v)(C) and adding paragraph (a)(1)(vi)
;
(c) Revising paragraph (a)(2);
(d) Removing and reserving paragraph (a)(3);
(e) Revising paragraphs (a) (4) through (7);
(f) Revising paragraph (a)(10);
(g) Adding paragraphs (a)(11), (a)(12), and (a)(13), to read as
follows:
Sec. 80.78 Controls and prohibitions on reformulated gasoline.
(a) Prohibited activities. (1) No person may produce, import, sell,
distribute, offer for sale or distribution, dispense, supply, offer for
supply, store or transport any gasoline for use by ultimate consumers
in a reformulated gasoline covered area unless the gasoline meets the
definition of reformulated gasoline, and
* * * * *
(v) * * *
(C) Unless each gallon of such gasoline that is subject to complex
model standards has a VOC and NOX emissions reduction
percentage which is greater than or equal to the applicable minimum
specified in Sec. 80.41; and
(vi) Unless each gallon of such gasoline that is subject to complex
model standards has property values that are within the acceptable
range limits for the complex model specified under Sec. 80.45(f)(1)(i).
* * * * *
(2) No person may produce, import, sell or distribute, offer for
sale or distribution, dispense, supply, offer for supply, store, or
transport any gasoline represented as reformulated gasoline or RBOB:
* * * * *
(3) [Reserved]
(4) Gasoline shall be presumed to be for use by ultimate consumers
in a reformulated gasoline covered area unless the product transfer
documentation accompanying such gasoline clearly indicates, as
specified in Sec. 80.106, that the gasoline is intended for sale and
use only outside any covered area.
(5) No person may combine any reformulated gasoline with any
conventional gasoline or blendstock, except a refiner who does so at a
refinery under the requirements specified in Sec. 80.65(i).
(6) No person may add any oxygenate to reformulated gasoline,
except oxygenate of the type that was used to produce the reformulated
gasoline and in an amount such that the reformulated gasoline meets the
oxygen maximum standard in Sec. 80.41(g) after the oxygenate has been
added.
(7) No person may combine any RBOB with any other gasoline,
blendstock, or oxygenate, except:
(i) Oxygenate of the type specified for the RBOB, and in an amount
that is equal to or greater than the minimum amount specified for the
RBOB and is equal to or less than the amount allowed by the oxygen
maximum standard in Sec. 80.41(g);
(ii) Other RBOB for which the same oxygenate type is specified, in
which case the minimum oxygenate volume specification for the blended
RBOB will be the largest minimum volume specification for any of the
RBOB's that are combined; or
(iii) Under the terms of paragraph (a)(5) of this section.
* * * * *
(10) No person may cause another person to commit the actions
prohibited under this paragraph (a).
(11) Exemptions.
(i) The prohibited activities specified in paragraphs (a)(1) of
this section do not apply in the case of gasoline that is used for
research, development, or testing purposes, provided that:
(A) The research, development, or testing program:
(1) Has a purpose that constitutes an appropriate basis for
exemption;
(2) Necessitates the exemption;
(3) Is reasonable in scope; and
(4) Has a degree of control consistent with the purpose of the
program; and
(B) The product transfer documentation associated with such
gasoline shall identify the gasoline as conventional gasoline for use
in research, development, or testing, as applicable, and shall state
that it is to be used only for research, development, or testing
purposes;
(C) The gasoline shall not be sold, distributed, offered for sale
or distribution, dispensed, supplied, offered for supply, transported
to or from, or stored by a gasoline retail outlet in a covered area
specified in Sec. 80.70. The gasoline also shall not be sold,
distributed, offered for sale or distribution, dispensed, supplied,
offered for supply, or transported to or from, or stored by a wholesale
purchaser-consumer facility in a covered area specified in Sec. 80.70,
unless such facility is associated with the research, development or
testing program that uses the gasoline;
(D) Prior to the initial use of the product, and subsequently at
least on an annual basis, the party using the gasoline for research,
development, or testing purposes shall submit to EPA the following
information:
(1) A description of the research, development, or testing program
and the purpose of the program, including the range of noncomplying
properties of the fuel expected to be used in the program;
[[Page 37390]]
(2) The expected dates on which the program will begin and end, and
the mileage duration of the program;
(3) The identification of any vehicles or engines in which the
gasoline is to be used;
(4) The location where the gasoline will be stored, and the
location where the gasoline will be used;
(5) The volume of the product to be used;
(6) The identification of the source (e.g., the gasoline
distributor) of the gasoline; and
(7) An explanation of why reformulated gasoline cannot be used in
the program.
(8) An explanation of why the program cannot be conducted in an
area that is not a covered area specified in Sec. 80.70.
(E) The party using the gasoline for the research, development or
testing program shall submit to EPA the program results upon completion
of the program.
(F) The submissions required under paragraphs (a)(11)(i) (D) and
(E) of this section shall be:
(1) Certified as being accurate by the owner or president of the
company or business performing the research, development, or testing;
and
(2) Submitted to the following EPA addresses:
Director (6406J) Fuels and Energy Division, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, 401 M Street SW., Washington, D.C. 20460
and
Director (2242A), Air Enforcement Division, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, 401 M Street, SW., Washington, D.C. 20460
(G) The exemption in this paragraph (a)(11) shall be null and void
upon written notification by EPA.
(ii)(A) The prohibited activities specified in paragraphs (a)(1) of
this section do not apply in the case of gasoline that is used to fuel
aircraft, or racing motor vehicles or racing boats that are used only
in sanctioned racing events, provided that product transfer documents
associated with such gasoline, and any pump stand from which such
gasoline is dispensed, identify the gasoline either as conventional
gasoline that is restricted for use in aircraft, or as conventional
gasoline that is restricted for use in racing motor vehicles or racing
boats that are used only in sanctioned racing events.
(B) A vehicle shall be considered to be a racing vehicle only if
the vehicle:
(1) Is operated only in conjunction with sanctioned racing events;
(2) Exhibits racing features and modifications such that it is
incapable of safe and practical street or highway use;
(3) Is not licensed, and is not licensable, by any state for
operation on public streets or highways;
(4) Is not currently, and previously has not been, operated on
public streets or highways; and
(5) Could not be converted to public street or highway use at a
cost that is reasonable compared to the value of the vehicle.
(12) The prohibitions against combining certain categories of
gasoline under paragraphs (a)(1)(iii), (a)(5), (a)(7), (a)(8), and
(a)(10) of this section do not apply in the case of a party who is
changing the type of gasoline stored in a gasoline storage tank or the
type of gasoline transported through a gasoline pipe or manifold within
a single facility (a gasoline storage tank, pipe, or manifold change of
service ), or in the case of a change of service that involves mixing
gasoline with blendstock, provided that:
(i) The change of service is for a legitimate operational reason
and is not for the purpose of combining the categories of gasoline or
of combining gasoline with blendstock;
(ii) Prior to adding product of the new category the volume of
product of the old category in the tank, pipe or manifold is made as
low as possible through normal pumping operations;
(iii) The volume of product of the new category that is added to
the tank, pipe or manifold is as large as possible taking into account
the availability of product of the new category; and
(iv) In any case where the new category of product is reformulated
gasoline, subsequent to adding the gasoline of the new category a
representative sample from the tank, pipe or manifold is collected and
analyzed, and such analysis shows compliance with each standard under
Sec. 80.41 that is relevant to the new gasoline category. The analysis
for each standard must be conducted using the method specified under
Sec. 80.46, or using another method that is approved by the American
Society of Testing and Materials provided that the other method is
correlated with the method specified under Sec. 80.46.
(13) The prohibition against combining reformulated gasoline with
RBOB under paragraph (a)(8)of this section does not apply in the case
of a party who is changing the type of product stored in a tank from
which trucks are loaded, from reformulated gasoline to RBOB, or vice
versa, provided that:
(i) The change of service requirements described in paragraph
(a)(12) of this section can not be met without taking the storage tank
out of service;
(ii) Prior to adding product of the new category the volume of
product of the old category in the tank is drawn down to the lowest
point which allows trucks to be loaded during the transition;
(iii) The volume of product of the new category that is added to
the tank is as large as possible taking into account the availability
of product of the new category;
(iv) When transitioning from RBOB to reformulated gasoline:
(A) If the reformulated gasoline in the storage tank has a oxygen
content of less than 1.5 wt%, oxygenate must be blended into the RFG at
the loading rack such that the RFG has a minimum oxygen content of 1.5
wt%;
(B) Subsequent to any oxygenate blending, the reformulated gasoline
must meet all applicable standards that apply at the terminal; and
(C) Prior to the date the VOC-control standards apply to the
terminal the reformulated gasoline in the storage tank must have an
oxygen content of not less than 1.5 wt%;
(v) When transitioning from reformulated gasoline to RBOB:
(A) The oxygen content of the reformulated gasoline produced using
the RBOB must be not less than the minimum oxygen amount specified in
the RBOB product transfer documents;
(B) Subsequent to any oxygenate blending, the reformulated gasoline
must meet all applicable standards; and
(C) The transition from reformulated gasoline to RBOB may not begin
until the date the VOC-control standards no longer apply to the
terminal; and
(vi) The party must demonstrate compliance with the requirements
specified in paragraphs (a)(13)(iv) and (v) of this section through
testing of samples collected from the terminal storage tank and from
trucks loaded at the terminal subsequent to each receipt of new product
until the transition is complete. The analyses must be conducted using
the test method specified under Sec. 80.46, or using another test
method that is approved by the American Society of Testing and
Materials provided that the other method is correlated with the method
specified under Sec. 80.46.
25. Section 80.79 is amended by revising paragraphs (b)(2) and
adding paragraphs (b)(3) and (c)(3) to read as follows:
Sec. 80.79 Liability for violations of the prohibited activities.
* * * * *
[[Page 37391]]
(b) * * *
(2) Where a violation is found at a facility which is operating
under the corporate, trade or brand name of a refiner or importer, that
refiner or importer must show, in addition to the defense elements
required by paragraph (b)(1) of this section, that the violation was
caused by:
(i) An act in violation of law (other than the Act or this part),
or an act of sabotage or vandalism; or
(ii) The action of any retailer or wholesale purchaser-consumer
supplied by the refiner or importer in violation of a contractual
undertaking imposed by the refiner or importer designed to prevent such
action, and despite periodic sampling and testing by the refiner or
importer to ensure compliance with such contractual obligation; or
(iii) The action of any reseller, distributor, oxygenate blender,
carrier, or a retailer or wholesale purchaser-consumer supplied by any
of these persons, in violation of a contractual undertaking imposed by
the refiner or importer designed to prevent such action, and despite
periodic sampling and testing by the refiner or importer to ensure
compliance with such contractual obligation; or
(iv) The action of any carrier or other distributor not subject to
a contract with the refiner or importer but engaged by the refiner or
importer for transportation of gasoline, despite specification or
inspection of procedures and equipment by the refiner or importer which
are reasonably calculated to prevent such action.
(3) In this paragraph (b), to show that the violation ``was
caused'' by any of the specified actions the party must demonstrate by
reasonably specific showings, by direct or circumstantial evidence,
that the violation was caused or must have been caused by another.
(c) * * *
(3) An oversight program conducted by a carrier under paragraph
(c)(1) of this section need not include periodic sampling and testing
of gasoline in a tank truck operated by a common carrier, but in lieu
of such tank truck sampling and testing the common carrier shall
demonstrate evidence of an oversight program for monitoring compliance
with the requirements of Sec. 80.78 relating to the transport or
storage of gasoline by tank truck, such as appropriate guidance to
drivers on compliance with applicable requirements and the periodic
review of records normally received in the ordinary course of business
concerning gasoline quality and delivery.
* * * * *
26. Section 80.83 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 80.83 Gasoline treated as blendstock.
An importer may treat imported gasoline as blendstock (Gasoline
Treated as Blendstock, or GTAB) and exclude the GTAB from its importer
compliance calculations under Sec. 80.65(c) for reformulated gasoline
or Sec. 80.101(d) for conventional gasoline provided the importer meets
the requirements specified in this section.
(a) GTAB must be included in the compliance calculations for
gasoline produced at a refinery operated by the same person that is the
importer (the ``GTAB importer-refiner'').
(b) The GTAB importer-refiner may not transfer title to GTAB to
another person until the GTAB has been used to produce gasoline and all
refinery standards and requirements have been met for the gasoline
produced.
(c) The refinery at which GTAB is used to produce gasoline must be
physically located at the same terminal at which the GTAB is first
discharged upon arrival in the United States (the import facility), or
at a facility to which the GTAB is directly transported from the import
facility.
(d) GTAB must be completely segregated from any other gasoline,
whether conventional or RFG, and including any gasoline tank bottoms,
prior to the point of blending, and sampling and testing, in the
refinery operation, except that:
(1) GTAB may be placed in a storage tank that contains other GTAB
imported by that importer; or
(2) GTAB may be placed in a storage tank that contains gasoline
provided that:
(i) The gasoline has the same designations under Sec. 80.65(d) as
the gasoline which will be produced using the GTAB;
(ii) The blending is performed in that storage tank; and
(iii) The properties and volume the gasoline produced using GTAB is
determined in a manner that excludes the volume and properties of the
gasoline.
(e) Each year that GTAB is used to produce gasoline, the GTAB
importer-refiner must determine an adjusted baseline for the refinery
where the GTAB is used to produce gasoline that would apply in the case
of conventional gasoline standards under Sec. 80.101(b) and
reformulated gasoline standards under Sec. 80.41(h)(2)(i) for all
gasoline produced at that refinery for that year. The following
formulas must be used to calculate the adjusted refinery baseline where
GTAB is used to produce conventional gasoline:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP11JY97.009
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP11JY97.010
And the following formula must be used to calculate the adjusted
refinery baseline where GTAB is used to produce RFG:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP11JY97.011
Where:
ABi = Adjusted baseline for parameter or emissions
performance i.
V1990 = 1990 baseline volume for the refinery.
[[Page 37392]]
Va = Volume of RFG, conventional gasoline and RBOB produced
at the refinery during the year (averaging period) in question.
VRFG = Volume of RFG and RBOB produced at the refinery
during the year in question.
VConv = Volume of conventional gasoline produced at the
refinery during the year in question.
VRGTAB = Volume of GATB used to produce conventional
gasoline at the refinery during the year in question.
VCGtab = Volume of GTAB used to produce conventional
gasoline at the refinery during the year in question.
RBi = 1990 refinery baseline for parameter or emissions
performance i.
IBi = Baseline for parameter or emissions performance i that
applies to the GTAB importer-refiner in its importer capacity.
SBi = Statutory baseline for parameter or emissions
performance i.
(f)(1) The GTAB importer-refiner must complete all requirements for
the GTAB at the time it is imported as if the GTAB were imported
gasoline, including sampling and testing, independent sampling and
testing for GTAB used to produce reformulated gasoline, record keeping
and reporting.
(2) The volume and properties of GTAB that has been combined with
other GTAB may be determined by subtracting the volume and properties
of the GTAB in the tank prior to receipt of the new product, from the
volume and properties of the GTAB in the tank subsequent to receipt of
the new product.
(3) Any GTAB batch that is used in whole or in part to produce
reformulated gasoline must be treated as imported reformulated gasoline
for purposes of sampling and testing, and reporting, under paragraph
(f)(1) of this section; except that the sampling and testing may be
based on vessel composite samples without regard to whether the
gasoline in individual ship compartments separately meets the
reformulated gasoline downstream standards.
(4) Any reports to EPA for imported GTAB must identify the GTAB as
such.
(5) Any GTAB that ultimately is not used to produce gasoline must
be treated as newly imported gasoline, for which all required sampling
and testing, record keeping and reporting must be accomplished, and the
gasoline must be included in the GTAB importer-refiner's importer
compliance calculations for the averaging period that includes the date
this sampling and testing occurs.
27. Section 80.84 is added to subpart D to read as follows:
Sec. 80.84 Treatment of interface and transmix.
(a) Definitions. For purposes of this section, the following
definitions apply:
(1) Interface: A quantity of petroleum product in a pipeline
between two surrounding batches of petroleum product that consists of a
mixture of the two surrounding batches.
(2) Transmix: An interface that consists of a mixture of gasoline
and distillate fuel oil.
(b) Classification of interface. Interface shall be classified in
the following manner:
(1) Interface mixtures of RFG or RBOB, and conventional gasoline
shall be classified as conventional gasoline;
(2) Interface mixtures of VOC-controlled RFG and non-VOC-controlled
RFG shall be classified as non-VOC-controlled RFG;
(3) Interface mixtures of VOC-controlled RFG for Region 1 and VOC-
controlled RFG for Region 2 shall be classified as VOC-controlled RFG
for Region 2 or as non-VOC-controlled RFG;
(4) Interface mixtures of RBOB and RFG shall be classified as RBOB;
and
(5) Interface mixtures of gasoline and blendstock shall be
classified as blendstock.
(c) Transmix processing. (1) Any person who separates transmix
where the gasoline portion is classified as conventional gasoline shall
exclude from compliance calculations under section 101 any gasoline or
gasoline blendstock produced from the transmix.
(2) Any person who separates transmix where the gasoline portion is
classified as reformulated gasoline shall meet all requirements and
standards that apply to a refinery under 40 CFR subparts D and F with
regard to the transmix operation, and shall include the transmix
gasoline portion in compliance calculations for the refinery.
(d) Transmix Blending. (1) Any person may blend transmix into
conventional gasoline only if:
(i) The transmix results from normal pipeline operations;
(ii) (A) The transmix cannot be transported by pipeline or water to
a transmix processing facility; or
(B) Transmix was blended at the terminal before 1995; and
(iii) The transmix is blended at a rate that does not exceed the
greater of:
(A) The demonstrated blending rate at that terminal during 1994; or
(B) 0.25 percent by volume.
(2) Any person may blend transmix into reformulated gasoline only
if:
(i) The transmix results from normal pipeline operations;
(ii) The transmix cannot be transported by pipeline or water to a
transmix processing facility;
(iii) The transmix cannot be blended into conventional gasoline
under paragraph (d)(1) of this section;
(iv) The transmix is blended at a rate that does not exceed 0.25
percent by volume; and
(v) After blending the reformulated gasoline is shown through
sampling and testing to meet all applicable reformulated gasoline
standards that apply at the terminal. This sampling and testing shall
be at one of the following rates:
(A) In the case of transmix that is blended in a storage tank,
following each occasion transmix is blended; or
(B) In the case of transmix that is blended in-line, at least twice
each calendar month during which transmix is blended.
28. Section 80.91 is amended by:
a. Revising paragraph (d)(3) and adding paragraph (d)(5)(iii);
b. Adding paragraph (e)(1)(iii);
c. Revising paragraph (f)(2)(ii) introductory text;
d. Revising paragraphs (f)(2)(ii)(D), (f)(2)(ii)(E), and
(f)(2)(ii)(F);
e. Revising paragraph (f)(2)(ii)(G) introductory text;
f. Removing paragraphs (f)(2)(ii)(G)(1) and (f)(2)(ii)(G)(2);
g. Revising paragraph (f)(2)(ii)(H) introductory text;
h. Revising paragraphs (f)(2)(ii)(H)(1) and (f)(2)(ii)(H)(2):
i. Removing paragraph (f)(2)(ii)(H)(3);
j. Adding paragraph (f)(2)(ii)(I).
The revisions, additions, and removals are set out to read as
follows:
Sec. 80.91 Individual baseline determination.
* * * * *
(d) * * *
(3) Negligible quantity sampling. Post-1990 testing of a blendstock
stream for a fuel parameter listed in this paragraph (d)(3) is not
required if the refiner can show, through engineering judgement or past
experience, that the fuel parameter exists in the stream at less than
or equal to the amount, on average, shown in this paragraph (d)(3) for
that fuel parameter. Any fuel parameter shown to exist in a refinery
stream in negligible amounts shall be assigned a value of 0.0 or the
negligible amount shown below at the refiner's discretion:
Aromatics, volume percent--1.0
Benzene, volume percent--0.15
Olefins, volume percent--1.0
Oxygen, weight percent--0.2
Sulfur, ppm--30.0
* * * * *
(5) * * *
(iii) If a refiner measures a blendstock stream for aromatics,
benzene, olefins,
[[Page 37393]]
oxygen, or sulfur content and discovers that the measured component
level of that stream is below the applicable range for the test method
used, the low end of the applicable range may be substituted for the
actual measured value in the baseline determination. This paragraph
(d)(5)(iii) is not applicable to blendstock streams that have not been
explicitly measured.
* * * * *
(e) * * *
(1) * * *
(iii) For facilities determined to be closely integrated gasoline
producing facilities and for which EPA has granted a single set of
baseline fuel parameter values per this paragraph (e)(1):
(A) All reformulated gasoline and anti-dumping standards shall be
met by such closely integrated facilities on an aggregate basis;
(B) A combined facility registration shall be submitted under
Secs. 80.76 and 80.103; and
(C) Record keeping requirements under Secs. 80.74 and 80.104 and
reporting requirements under Secs. 80.75 and 80.105 shall be met for
such closely integrated facilities on an aggregate basis.
* * * * *
(f) * * *
(2) * * *
(ii) If the baseline fuel value for aromatics, olefins, benzene,
and/or sulfur (determined per paragraph (e) of this section) is higher
than the high end of the valid range limits specified in
Sec. 80.42(c)(1) if compliance is being determined under the Simple
Model, or in Sec. 80.45(f)(1)(ii) if compliance is being determined
under the Complex Model, then the valid range limits may be extended
for conventional gasoline in the following manner:
* * * * *
(D) The new high end of the valid range for sulfur is determined
from the following equation:
NSULLIM=SULBASE+50 ppm
Where:
NSULLIM=The new high end of the valid range limit for sulfur, in parts
per million
SULBASE=The seasonal baseline fuel value for sulfur, in parts per
million
(E) The extension of the valid range is limited to the applicable
summer or winter season in which the baseline fuel values for
aromatics, olefins, benzene, and/or sulfur exceed the high end of the
valid range as described in paragraph (f)(2)(ii) of this section. Also,
the extension of the valid range is limited to use by the refiner whose
baseline value for aromatics, olefins, benzene, and/or sulfur was
higher than the valid range limits as described in paragraph (f)(2)(ii)
of this section.
(F) Any extension of the Simple Model valid range limits is
applicable only to the Simple Model. Likewise any extension of the
Complex Model valid range limits is applicable only to the Complex
Model.
(G) The valid range extensions calculated in paragraphs (f)(2)(ii)
(A), (B), (C), and (D) of this section are applicable to both the
baseline fuel and target fuel for the purposes of determining the
compliance status of conventional gasolines. The extended valid range
limit represents the maximum value for that parameter above which fuels
cannot be evaluated with the applicable compliance model.
(H) Under the Simple Model, baseline and compliance calculations
shall subscribe to the following limitations:
(1) If the aromatics valid range has been extended per paragraph
(f)(2)(ii)(A) of this section, an aromatics value equal to the high end
of the valid range specified in Sec. 80.42(c)(1) shall be used for the
purposes of calculating the exhaust benzene fraction.
(2) If the fuel benzene valid range has been extended per paragraph
(f)(2)(ii)(C) of this section, a benzene value equal to the high end of
the valid range specified in Sec. 80.42(c)(1) shall be used for the
purposes of calculating the exhaust benzene fraction.
(I) Under the Complex Model, baseline and compliance calculations
shall subscribe to the following limitations:
(1) If the aromatics valid range has been extended per paragraph
(f)(2)(ii)(A) of this section, an aromatics value equal to the high end
of the valid range specified in Sec. 80.45(f)(1)(ii) shall be used for
the purposes of calculating emissions performances.
(2) If the olefins valid range has been extended per paragraph
(f)(2)(ii)(B) of this section, an olefins value equal to the high end
of the valid range specified in Sec. 80.45(f)(1)(ii) shall be used for
the target fuel for the purposes of calculating emissions performances.
(3) If the benzene valid range has been extended per paragraph
(f)(2)(ii)(C) of this section, a benzene value equal to the high end of
the valid range specified in Sec. 80.45(f)(1)(ii) shall be used for the
target fuel for the purposes of calculating emissions performances.
(4) If the sulfur valid range has been extended per paragraph
(f)(2)(ii)(D) of this section, a sulfur value equal to the high end of
the valid range specified in Sec. 80.45(f)(1)(ii) shall be used for the
target fuel for the purposes of calculating emissions performances.
* * * * *
29. Section 80.101 is amended by:
(a) Revising paragraphs (b)(2) and (b)(3);
(b) Adding paragraph (d)(4)(iii);
(c) Revising paragraph (f);
(d) Revising paragraph (g);
(e) Revising paragraphs (h)(1)(ii) and (i)(2);
(f) Adding paragraphs (h)(4), (i)(1)(i)(C), (i)(1)(iii), (i)(3),
and (i)(4);
(g) Adding paragraph (j) to read as follows:
Sec. 80.101 Standards applicable to refiners and importers.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(2) Optional complex model standards. Annual average levels of
exhaust benzene emissions, weighted by volume weighted for each batch
and calculated using the applicable complex model under Sec. 80.45,
shall not exceed the refiner's or importer's compliance baseline for
exhaust benzene emissions.
(3) Complex model standards. (i) Annual average levels of exhaust
toxics emissions and NOx emissions, weighted by volume for
each batch and calculated using the applicable complex model under
Sec. 80.45, shall not exceed the refiner's or importer's compliance
baseline for exhaust toxics emissions and NOx emissions,
respectively.
(ii) On a per-gallon basis,
(A) No conventional gasoline may have properties that are outside
the complex model acceptable range limits specified at
Sec. 80.45(f)(1)(ii); except that
(B) For a refinery with a baseline parameter value that is outside
the acceptable range limits, the value of this parameter for gasoline
produced at this refinery shall not exceed the value determined in
Sec. 80.91(f)(2) .
* * * * *
(d) * * *
(4) * * *
(iii) Where oxygenate is included in a refinery's or importer's
compliance calculations, only the oxygenate volume, excluding
denaturant, water and impurities, shall be included in the compliance
calculations.
* * * * *
(f) Compliance baseline determination. The compliance baseline for
any refinery or importer, for each parameter or emissions performance,
and for each averaging period, shall be calculated as follows.
(1) Calculate the refinery's or importer's averaging period volume
(Va) as the total volume of the following products produced,
imported or blended during the averaging period:
(i) Conventional gasoline;
(ii) Oxygenates blended with conventional gasoline downstream if
[[Page 37394]]
allowed under paragraph (d)(4)(ii) of this section;
(iii) Reformulated gasoline;
(iv) RBOB;
(v) Oxygenates added to RBOB as determined under
Sec. 80.65(e)(1)(ii); and
(vi) California gasoline as defined in Sec. 80.81(a)(2).
(2) Calculate the baseline to averaging period volume ratio (VR)
using the following equation:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP11JY97.012
where:
VRa=baseline to averaging period volume ratio for averaging
period a
V1990=the refinery's or importer's 1990 baseline volume as
determined in Sec. 80.91(f)(1)
Va=the averaging period volume as calculated in paragraph
(f)(1) of this section
(3) If VRa is equal to or greater than 1, the refinery's
or importer's compliance baseline shall be the baseline as determined
in Sec. 80.91(f)(1).
(4) If VRa is less than 1, the refinery's or importer's
compliance baseline shall be calculated using the following equation:
CBi=(Bi x VRa)+(DBi x
(1-VRa))
Where:
CBi=compliance baseline for parameter or emissions
performance i
Bi=the refinery's or importer's baseline for parameter or
emissions performance i
DBi=the statutory baseline for parameter or emissions
performance i in Secs. 80.91(c)(5) (iii) and (iv)
(g) Compliance calculations.--(1) Determination of batch parameter
and emissions performance values. (i) In the case of each batch subject
to the simple model standards, determine the values for sulfur, T-90,
olefins, benzene, and aromatics as specified in paragraph (i) of this
section.
(ii) In the case of each batch subject to the early complex or
complex model standards:
(A) Determine the values for each parameter required under the
complex model as specified in paragraph (i) of this section;
(B) In the case of each batch subject to the early complex model
standards, calculate the exhaust benzene emissions using the complex
model in Sec. 80.45; and
(C) In the case of each batch subject to the complex model
standards, calculate the exhaust toxics and NOX emissions
using the complex model in Sec. 80.45.
(2) Compliance determinations--(i) Refineries and importers with an
individual baseline. In the case of any refinery or importer subject to
an individual baseline, for each parameter or emissions performance
subject to a standard under paragraph (b) of this section:
(A) Except exhaust benzene emissions under the simple model,
calculate the annual average parameter value, or annual average
emissions performance in mg/mi, using the following formula:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP11JY97.013
Where:
Pa = annual average value for parameter or emissions
performance
Vi = volume of batch i
Pi = parameter or emissions performance for batch i
i = each batch of gasoline or blendstock included in a refinery's or
importer's compliance calculations under paragraph (d) of this section
(B) In the case of exhaust benzene emissions under the simple model
calculate the annual average value using the following formula:
EXHBEN = 1.884 + (0.949 x BZ) + (0.113 x (AR - BZ))
Where:
EXHBEN = annual average simple model exhaust benzene emissions
BZ = annual average benzene content, calculated under paragraph
(g)(2)(i)(A) of this section
AR = annual average aromatics content, calculated under paragraph
(g)(2)(i)(A) of this section
(C) In order to achieve compliance the annual average value shall
be equal to or less than the refinery's or importer's standard under
paragraph (b) of this section.
(ii) Refineries and importers with the statutory baseline. In the
case of any refinery or importer subject to the statutory baseline, for
each parameter or emissions performance subject to a standard under
paragraph (b) of this section:
(A) Calculate the compliance total based on the standard under
paragraph (b) of this section for each parameter, or emissions
performance in mg/mi, using the formula in Sec. 80.67(g)(1)(i).
(B) Calculate the actual total for each parameter, or emissions
performance in mg/mi, for the gasoline and blendstocks under paragraph
(d) of this section, using the formula in Sec. 80.67(g)(1)(ii).
(C) In order to achieve compliance the actual total shall be equal
to or less than the compliance total.
(3) Additional compliance requirements. (i) Any calculations
involving sulfur content or wt% oxygen shall be adjusted for specific
gravity.
(ii) The emissions performance of gasoline that is intended for use
in an area subject to an RVP standard in Sec. 80.27 during the period
such standard applies and that meets this RVP standard shall be
determined using the ``summer'' complex model. The emissions
performance of all other gasoline shall be determined using the
``winter'' complex model.
(4) Oxygen election for NOX. (i) For the 1998 and 1999
averaging periods, any refiner for a refinery, or any importer, may
elect to determine compliance with the NOX emissions
performance standard:
(A) With oxygenates added downstream from the refinery under
Sec. 80.91(e)(4) included in the compliance calculations, and a
baseline NOX emissions performance that includes oxygenate;
or
(B) With such oxygenates excluded from compliance calculations, and
a baseline NOX emissions performance that excludes
oxygenate.
(ii) The election under paragraph (g)(4)(i) of this section for
1999 shall apply for all subsequent averaging periods.
(5) Exclusion of previously certified gasoline and blendstock. (i)
Any refiner who uses previously certified reformulated or conventional
gasoline, or blendstock that previously has been included in compliance
calculations under Sec. 80.102(e)(2), to produce gasoline at a
refinery, shall exclude the previously certified gasoline and
blendstock for purposes of demonstrating compliance with the standards
under Sec. 80.101(b).
(ii) In order to accomplish the exclusion required in paragraph
(g)(5)(i) of this section, the refiner shall either:
(A) Determine the volume and properties of blendstock used at the
refinery, and use the compliance calculation procedures in paragraph
(g)(5)(iii) of this section; or
(B) Determine the volume and properties of the previously certified
gasoline and the previously certified blendstock used at the refinery,
and the volume and properties of gasoline produced at the refinery, and
use the compliance calculation procedures in paragraph (g)(5)(iv) of
this section.
(iii) (A) Determine the volume and properties of each batch of
blendstock used at the refinery, and of oxygenate blended with a
refinery's gasoline under paragraph (d)(4)(ii) of this section, with
the exception of previously certified
[[Page 37395]]
blendstock, using the procedures in paragraph (i) of this section.
(B) Determine the blendstock volume fraction (F) based on the
volume of blendstock, and the volume of gasoline with which the
blendstock is blended, using the following equation:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP11JY97.014
Where:
F = blendstock volume fraction
Vb = volume of blendstock
Vg = volume of gasoline with which the blendstock is
blended.
(C) For each parameter required by the complex model, calculate the
parameter value that would result by combining, at the blendstock
volume fraction (F), the blendstock with a gasoline having properties
equal to the refinery's or importer's baseline, using the following
formula:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP11JY97.015
Where:
CPj = calculated value for parameter j
BAPj = baseline value for parameter j
BLPj = value of parameter j for the blendstock
j = each parameter required by the complex model
(1) The baseline value shall be the refinery's ``summer'' or
``winter'' baseline, based on the ``summer'' or ``winter''
classification of the gasoline produced as determined under paragraph
(g)(3)(iii) of this section. In the case of a refinery that is
aggregated under paragraph (h) of this section, the refinery baseline
shall be used, and not the aggregate baseline.
(2) The sulfur content and oxygen wt% adjustment required under
paragraph (g)(3)(i) of this section shall use a gasoline specific
gravity of 0.749 for ``summer'' gasoline and of 0.738 for ``winter''
gasoline.
(3) In the case of ``summer'' gasoline, where the blendstock is
ethanol and the volume fraction calculated under paragraph
(g)(5)(iii)(B) of this section is equal to or greater than 0.015, the
value for RVP shall be 1.0 psi greater than the RVP calculated using
the equation in this paragraph (g)(5)(iii)(C).
(D) Using the summer or winter complex model, as appropriate,
calculate the exhaust toxics and NOX emissions performance,
in mg/mi, of:
(1) A hypothetical gasoline having properties equal to those
calculated in paragraph (g)(5)(iii)(C) of this section (HEP); and
(2) A gasoline having properties equal to the refinery's or
importer's baseline (BEP).
(E) Calculate the exhaust toxics and NOX equivalent
emissions performance (EEP) of the blendstock, in mg/mi, using the
following equation:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP11JY97.016
Where:
EEPJ = equivalent emissions performance of the blendstock
for emissions performance j
BEPJ = emissions performance j of a gasoline having the
properties of the refinery's baseline.
HEPJ = emissions performance j of a hypothetical blendstock/
gasoline blend
F = blendstock volume fraction
J = exhaust toxics or NOX emissions performance
(F) For each blendstock batch, the volume, and exhaust toxics and
NOX equivalent emissions performance (EEP), shall be
included in the refinery's compliance calculations.
(G)(1) The portions of a blendstock batch used to produce
``summer'' and ``winter'' gasoline, as determined in paragraph
(g)(3)(iii) of this section, shall be treated as separate batches for
purposes of this paragraph (g)(5)(iii).
(2) In the case of oxygenates or butane blended with a refinery's
gasoline under paragraph (d)(4)(ii) of this section, the oxygenate or
butane volume blended during a maximum of one month may be treated as a
single batch for purposes of this paragraph (g)(5)(iii).
(iv)(A) For each batch of previously certified gasoline or
blendstock received that is used to produce conventional gasoline:
(1) Determine the volume and properties using the procedures in
paragraph (i) of this section;
(2) In the case of previously certified gasoline, determine the
exhaust toxics and NOX emissions performance using the
summer or winter complex model, as appropriate.
(3) In the case of previously certified blendstock, determine the
exhaust toxics and NOX equivalent emissions performance
using the procedures in paragraph (g)(5)(iii) of this section.
(4) Include the volume and emissions performance, as a negative
volume and a negative emissions performance, in the refinery's
compliance calculations for exhaust toxics and NOX.
(B) Determine the volume and properties, and exhaust toxics and
NOX emissions performance, for each batch of conventional
gasoline produced at the refinery using previously certified gasoline
or blendstock, and include each batch in the refinery's compliance
calculations for exhaust toxics and NOX without regard to
the presence of previously certified gasoline or blendstock in the
batch.
(h) Refinery grouping for determining compliance. (1) * * *
(ii) Elect to achieve compliance on an aggregate basis for a group,
or for groups, of one or more refineries, provided that:
(A) Compliance is achieved for each refinery separately or as part
of a group;
[[Page 37396]]
(B) The data for any refinery is included in only one compliance
calculation;
and
(C) Where more than one person meets the definition of refiner for
a refinery, the refinery may not be aggregated with any other refinery
unless the same persons meet the definition of refiner for . each
refinery in the aggregation.
* * * * *
(4) Where any refinery that has been included in an aggregation is
transferred to another refiner, or is shut down:
(i) The aggregation requirements and baselines calculated under
Sec. 80.91(f)(4) shall apply;
(ii) The aggregated baseline for the refiner who transfers or shuts
down the refinery shall be calculated for the averaging period during
which the refinery is transferred or is shut down using an adjusted
baseline volume for the refinery calculated using the following
equation:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP11JY97.017
Where:
ABV = adjusted baseline volume
BV = baseline volume for the transferred or shut down refinery
Days = number of days during the averaging period the party was the
refiner of the refinery or that the refinery was in operation
(iii) In the case of a transferred refinery:
(A) The new refiner's aggregation election shall be made for the
averaging period during which the refinery is transferred, and shall
apply for all subsequent averaging periods;
(B) If the new refiner elects to aggregate the refinery, the
aggregated baseline for the new refiner shall be calculated for the
averaging period during which the refinery is transferred using an
adjusted baseline volume for the transferred refinery calculated using
the equation in paragraph (h)(4)(ii) of this section; and
(C) Each refiner of a transferred refinery shall demonstrate
compliance for the gasoline produced during the period it was the
refiner of the refinery.
(i) Sampling and testing. (1) * * *
(i) * * *
(C) Sampling under this paragraph (i)(1)(i) shall follow the
requirements of Sec. 80.47.
* * * * *
(iii) Retain a minimum of 330 ml of every sample analyzed under
paragraph (i)(1)(i)(A) of this section for not less than 30 days from
the date of production or import, and provide this remaining sample to
the Administrator's authorized representative upon request.
(2) In the case of oxygenate that is included in a refinery's
compliance calculations under paragraph (d)(4) of this section the
refiner may use the properties of the pure oxygenate instead of
sampling and testing each oxygenate batch, provided that the refiner
obtains documents from the oxygenate supplier that state the purity of
any oxygenate used.
(3) An importer who imports conventional gasoline into the United
States by truck may meet the sampling and testing requirements under
paragraph (i)(1) of this section as follows.
(i) The imported conventional gasoline must meet the applicable
conventional gasoline standards, specified under paragraph (b) of this
section, on an every-gallon basis.
(ii) The optional complex model standards and the complex model
standards, under paragraphs (b)(2) and (3) of this section:
(A) May be met separately for ``summer'' gasoline and for
``winter'' gasoline, as defined in paragraphs (g)(5) and (6) of this
section, based on the baselines applicable to the importer for these
two periods; or
(B) May be met for all gasoline during a calendar year on the basis
of the annual baseline applicable to the importer.
(iii)(A) The importer must demonstrate that every gallon of
imported gasoline meets the applicable conventional gasoline standards,
through test results of samples of the gasoline contained in the
storage tank from which the trucks used to transport gasoline into the
United States are loaded.
(B) The frequency of this sampling and testing must be subsequent
to each receipt of gasoline into the storage tank, or immediately prior
to each transfer of gasoline to the importer's truck.
(C) The testing must be for each applicable parameter specified
under Sec. 80.65(e)(2)(i), using the test methods specified under
Sec. 80.46.
(D) The importer must obtain a copy of the terminal test results
that reflects the quality of each truck load of gasoline that is
imported into the United States.
(iv)(A) The importer must conduct separate programs of periodic
quality assurance sampling and testing of the gasoline obtained from
each truck-loading terminal, to ensure the accuracy of the terminal
test results.
(B) The quality assurance samples must be obtained from the truck-
loading terminal by the importer, and terminal operator may not know in
advance when samples are to be collected.
(C) The importer must test each sample (or use a laboratory that is
independent under Sec. 80.65(f)(2)(iii) to test the sample) for the
parameters specified under Sec. 80.65(e)(2)(i) using the test methods
specified under Sec. 80.46, and the results must correlate with the
terminal's test results within the ranges specified under
Sec. 80.65(e)(2)(i).
(D) The frequency of quality assurance sampling and testing must be
at least one sample for each fifty of an importer's trucks that are
loaded at a terminal, or one sample per month, whichever is more
frequent.
(v) The importer must treat each truck load of imported gasoline as
a separate batch for purposes of assigning batch numbers under
Sec. 80.101(i), record keeping under Sec. 80.104, and reporting under
Sec. 80.105.
(vi) EPA inspectors or auditors, and auditors conducting attest
engagements under subpart F, must be given full and immediate access to
the truck-loading terminal and any laboratory at which samples of
gasoline collected at the terminal are analyzed, and be allowed to
conduct inspections, review records, collect gasoline samples, and
perform audits. These inspections or audits may be either announced or
unannounced.
(vii) In the event the requirements specified in paragraphs
(i)(3)(i) through (vi) of this section are not met, in whole or in
part, the importer shall immediately lose the option of importing
gasoline under the terms of this paragraph (i)(3).
(4) A refiner who produces gasoline by blending butane into
conventional gasoline may meet sampling and testing requirements of
paragraph (i)(1) of this section as follows:
(i) Commercial grade butane is defined as butane for which test
results demonstrate the butane is 95% pure and has the following
properties:
olefins 1.0 vol%
aromatics 2.0 vol%
[[Page 37397]]
benzene 0.03 vol%
sulfur 140 ppm
(ii) Non-commercial grade butane is defined as butane for which
test results demonstrate the butane has the following properties:
olefins 10.0 vol%
aromatics 2.0 vol%
benzene 0.03 vol%
sulfur 140 ppm
(iii) Any refiner who blends butane for which the refiner has
documents from the butane supplier which demonstrate the butane is
commercial grade shall include the butane in compliance calculations
based on the properties specified in paragraph (i)(4)(i) of this
section;
(iv) Any refiner who blends butane for which the refiner has
documents from the butane supplier which demonstrate the butane is non-
commercial grade shall include the butane in compliance calculations
based on the properties specified in paragraph (i)(4)(ii) of this
section, provided the refiner:
(A) Conducts a quality assurance program of sampling and testing
the butane obtained from each separate butane supplier that demonstrate
the butane has the properties specified under paragraph (i)(4)(ii) of
this section; and
(B) The frequency of butane sampling and testing for the butane
received from each butane supplier must be one sample for every 50,000
gallons of butane received, or one sample every three months, whichever
is more frequent; and
(v) When butane is blended under this paragraph (i)(4) during the
period May 1 through September 15 the refiner shall demonstrate through
sampling and testing that any gasoline blended with butane meets the
volatility standards specified under 40 CFR 80.27.
(vi) Butane that is blended during a period of up to one month may
be included in a single batch for purposes of reporting to EPA,
however, commercial grade butane and non-commercial grade butane shall
be reported as separate batches.
(j) Evasion of standards through exporting and importing gasoline.
Notwithstanding the requirements of this section, no refiner or
importer shall export gasoline and import the same or other gasoline
for the purpose of evading a more stringent baseline requirement.
30. Section 80.102 is amended by:
(a) Adding introductory text;
(b) Revising the introductory text of paragraph (a) and revising
paragraphs (a)(1)(viii) and (a)(2), and adding paragraph (a)(3);
(c) Revising the first sentence of paragraphs (b)(1) and (c);
(d) Revising the introductory text of paragraphs (d)(1) and (d)(2);
revising the ``Vg'' portion of the formula in paragraphs
(d)(1)(i) and (d)(2)(i); revising paragraph (d)(3)(iv) and (d)(3)(v);
and adding paragraphs (d)(3)(vi) and(d)(3)(vii);
(e) Revising the introductory text of paragraphs (e)(1) and (e)(2)
and revising paragraphs (e)(2)(i) and (e)(3);
(f) Revising the introductory text of paragraph (f)(1) and revising
paragraph (f)(1)(i);
(g) Revising paragraph (g), to read as follows:
Sec. 80.102 Controls applicable to blendstocks
The requirements of this section shall be met separately for each
refinery by the refiner, and by each importer.
(a) For the purposes of this subpart E the following
classifications apply.
(1) * * *
(viii) Dimate; except that
(2) No petroleum product shall be considered ``applicable
blendstocks'' if it has an initial boiling point that is less than 75
deg. F or a boiling end point that is greater than 450 deg. F; and
(3) Any gasoline blendstock with properties such that, if oxygenate
only is added to the blendstock the resulting blend meets the
definition of gasoline under Sec. 80.2(c), shall be considered
gasoline.
(b) (1) Determine the baseline blendstock-to-gasoline ratio for
each calendar year 1990 through 1993 using the following formula:* * *
* * * * *
(c) Determine the cumulative blendstock-to-gasoline ratio using the
following formula:* * *
* * * * *
(d)(1) For each averaging period:
(i) * * *
Vg = Volume of conventional gasoline, oxygenates blended
downstream under Sec. 80.101(d)(4)(ii), reformulated gasoline and RBOB,
including oxygenates added to RBOB as determined under
Sec. 80.65(e)(1)(ii), produced or imported during the averaging period,
excluding California gasoline as defined in Sec. 80.81(a)(2).
* * * * *
(2) Beginning on January 1, 1998, for each averaging period:
(i) * * *
Vg,i = Volume of conventional gasoline, oxygenates blended
downstream under Sec. 80.101(d)(4)(ii), reformulated gasoline and RBOB,
including oxygenates added to RBOB as determined under
Sec. 80.65(e)(1)(ii), produced or imported during averaging i,
excluding California gasoline as defined in Sec. 80.81(a)(2).
* * * * *
(3) * * *
(iv) Transferred between refineries that have been aggregated under
Sec. 80.101(h);
(v) Used to produce California gasoline as defined in
Sec. 80.81(a)(2);
(vi) Sold at a price that is not less than 100% greater than the
average price of the refinery's regular grade conventional gasoline
when sold in bulk during the same month; or
(vii) Tendered in a volume not exceeding 1,000 gallons.
(e)(1) The blendstock-to-gasoline ratio percentage change threshold
shall have been exceeded if:
* * * * *
(2) Any refiner for a refinery, or any importer, that exceeds the
blendstock-to-gasoline ratio percentage change threshold shall, without
further notification:
(i) Include all blendstocks, except blendstocks that meet the
criteria for exclusion under paragraph (d)(3) of this section, produced
or imported and transferred to others in its compliance calculations
under Sec. 80.101 for two averaging periods beginning on January 1 of
the averaging period subsequent to the averaging period when the
exceedance occurs;
* * * * *
(3) Any refiner for a refinery, or any importer, that has
previously exceeded the blendstock-to-gasoline ratio percentage change
threshold, and subsequently exceeds the threshold for an averaging
period and is not granted a waiver pursuant to paragraph (f)(2)(i) of
this section, shall, without further notification, meet the
requirements specified in paragraphs (e)(2)(i) through (iii) of this
section for four averaging periods, beginning on January 1 of the
averaging period following the averaging period when the subsequent
accedence occurs.
(f)(1) The refinery or importer blendstock accounting requirements
specified under paragraph (e) of this section shall not apply in the
case of any refinery or importer:
(i) Whose 1990 baseline value for each regulated fuel property and
emissions performance as determined in accordance with Secs. 80.91 and
80.92, is equal to or less stringent than the anti-dumping statutory
baseline value for that parameter or emissions performance;
* * * * *
[[Page 37398]]
(g) Notwithstanding the requirements of paragraphs (a) through (f)
of this section, any refiner for a refinery, or any importer, who
transfers applicable blendstocks to another refinery or importer with a
less stringent baseline, either directly or indirectly, for the purpose
of evading a more stringent baseline requirement, shall include such
blendstock(s) in determining compliance with the applicable
requirements of this subpart.
31. Section 80.104 is amended by revising paragraphs (a)(1)(i),
(a)(1)(ii), (a)(2)(i), (a)(2)(iv), (a)(2)(ix) and (a)(2)(x), and adding
paragraphs (a)(2)(xi) and (a)(2)(xii) to read as follows:
Sec. 80.104 Record keeping requirements.
* * * * *
(a) * * *
(1) * * *
(i) Each batch of conventional gasoline produced; and
(ii) Each batch of blendstock that is included in compliance
calculations.
(2)(i)(A) The result of tests performed in accordance with
Sec. 80.101(i) as originally printed by the testing apparatus, or where
no printed result is generated by the testing apparatus, the results as
originally recorded by the person who performed the tests; and
(B) Any record that contains results for the tests that are not
identical to the results recorded in paragraph (a)(2)(i)(A) of this
section; and
* * * * *
(iv) The date of production, importation, blending or receipt;
* * * * *
(ix) In the case of any refinery-produced or imported products
listed in Sec. 80.102(a) that are excluded under Sec. 80.102(d)(3),
documents that demonstrate the basis for exclusion;
(x) In the case of oxygenate that is added by a person other than
the refiner or importer under Sec. 80.101(d)(4)(ii)(B), documents that
support the volume of oxygenate claimed by the refiner or importer,
including the contract with the oxygenate blender and records relating
to the audits, sampling and testing, and inspections of the oxygenate
blender operation; and
(xi) In the case of any imported GTAB, documents that reflect the
physical movement of the GTAB from the point of importation to the
point of blending to produce gasoline.
(xii) In the case of refiners who blend butane into conventional
gasoline, documents reflecting the volume and purity of butane blended.
* * * * *
32. Section 80.105 is amended by revising (a)(5)(iv), removing
paragraph (a)(5)(v), and revising paragraph (c) to read as follows:
Sec. 80.105 Reporting requirements.
(a) * * *
(5) * * *
(iv) The properties, except for oxygenates blended downstream of
the refinery or import facility, pursuant to Sec. 80.101(i); and
* * * * *
(c) For each averaging period, each refiner and importer shall
cause to be submitted to the Administrator of EPA, by May 31 of each
year, a report in accordance with the requirements for Attest
Engagements of Secs. 80.125 through 80.131 for each refinery and for
each importer.
* * * * *
33. Section 80.106 is amended by revising the introductory text of
paragraph (a)(1), revising paragraph (a)(1)(vi), removing paragraph
(a)(1)(vii), and adding paragraph (a)(3) to read as follows:
Sec. 80.106 Product transfer documents.
(a)(1) On each occasion when any person transfers custody or title
to any conventional gasoline, other than when gasoline is transferred
to a retail outlet or wholesale purchaser-consumer facility located
outside any covered area, or is sold or dispensed for use in motor
vehicles at a retail outlet or wholesale purchaser-consumer facility,
the transferor shall provide to the transferee documents that include
the following information:
* * * * *
(vi)(A) The following statement: ``This product does not meet the
requirements for reformulated gasoline, and may not be used in any
reformulated gasoline covered area.''
(B) With the exception of custody transfers to truck carriers,
retail outlets and wholesale purchaser-consumer facilities, the
statement required in paragraph (a)(vi) of this section may be in the
form of product codes, provided that:
(1) The codes are standardized for the distribution system in which
they are used; and
(2) The transferee is given the information necessary to interpret
the codes.
* * * * *
(3) The information required in this paragraph (a) shall be
transferred:
(i) No later than the time of the transfer in the case of transfers
of custody; and
(ii) Within thirty days following the transfer in the case of
transfers of title.
* * * * *
34. Section 80.125 is amended by adding paragraphs (a)(1) through
(a)(4) to read as follows:
Sec. 80.125 Attest engagements.
(a) * * *
(1) In the case of any refiner or importer of reformulated or
conventional gasoline, the attest procedures in Sec. 80.133 shall be
completed, or, prior to the 1998 reporting period, the attest
procedures in Sec. 80.128 may be completed as an alternative to the
attest procedures in Sec. 80.133.
(2) In the case of any oxygenate blender who meets the oxygen
standard on average, the attest procedures in Sec. 80.134 shall be
completed, or, prior to the 1998 reporting period, the attest
procedures in Sec. 80.129 may be completed as an alternative to the
Sec. 80.134 attest procedures.
(3) In the case of any importer who imports any gasoline classified
as GTAB under Sec. 80.83, the attest procedures in Sec. 80.131 shall be
completed.
(4) In the case of any refiner who produces reformulated gasoline
under an in-line blending waiver from independent sampling and testing
under Sec. 80.65(f), the attest procedures in Sec. 80.132 shall be
completed.
* * * * *
35. Section 80.126 is amended by adding paragraphs (h), (i), (j),
(k), (l), (m), (n), and (o) to read as follows:
Sec. 80.126 Definitions.
* * * * *
(h) Attestor means the CPA or CIA performing the agreed-upon
procedures engagement under this subpart.
(i) Foot (or crossfoot) means to add a series of numbers, generally
in columns (or rows), to a total amount. When applying the attestation
procedures in this subpart F, the attestor may foot to subtotals on a
sample basis in those instances where subtotals (e.g., page totals)
exist. In such instances, the total should be footed from the subtotals
and the subtotals should be footed on a test basis using no less than
25% of the subtotals.
(j) Gasoline Treated as Blendstock, or GTAB, means imported
gasoline that is excluded from the import facility's compliance
calculations, but is treated as blendstock in a related refinery that
includes the GTAB in its refinery compliance calculations.
(k) Laboratory Analysis means the original test result for each
analysis that was used to determine a product's properties. Original
test result means the document in which a test result is first
recorded, and not a transcribed version of the test result. For
[[Page 37399]]
laboratories using test methods that must be correlated to the standard
test method, the correlation factors and results shall be included as
part of the laboratory analysis. For refineries or importers that
produce reformulated gasoline or RBOB and use the 100% independent lab
testing, the laboratory analysis shall consist of the results reported
to the refinery or importer by the independent lab. Where assumed
properties are used (e.g., for butane) the assumed properties may serve
as the test results. In the case of attest engagements for in-line
blending operations under Sec. 80.132, the term laboratory analysis
shall include both the ``primary analysis'' results under
Sec. 80.132(c) and the ``confirmatory analysis'' results under
Sec. 80.132(d).
(l) Non-finished-gasoline petroleum products means liquid petroleum
products that have boiling ranges greater than 75 degrees Fahrenheit,
but less than 450 degrees Fahrenheit, as per ASTM D86 or equivalent.
(m) Product transfer documents means copies of documents
represented by the refiner/importer/oxygenate blender as having been
provided to the transferee, and that reflect the transfer of ownership
or physical custody of gasoline or blendstock (e.g., invoices,
receipts, bills of lading, manifests, and/or pipeline tickets).
(n) Reporting period means the time period relating to the reports
filed with EPA by the refiner, importer, or oxygenate blender, and
generally is the calendar year.
(o) Tender means the transfer of ownership or physical custody of a
volume of gasoline or other petroleum product all of which has the same
identification (reformulated gasoline, conventional gasoline, RBOB, and
other non-finished-gasoline petroleum products), and characteristics
(time and place of use restrictions for reformulated gasoline and
RBOB).
36. Section 80.127 is amended by revising paragraph (a) to read as
follows:
Sec. 80.127 Sample size guidelines
* * * * *
(a) Sample items shall be selected in such a way as to comprise a
simple random sample of each relevant population
(1) The relevant population may be treated as the entire population
included in the annual averaging period, or
(2) The relevant population may be treated as the aggregation of
portions of the population stratified on a quarterly basis; and
* * * * *
37. Section 80.128 is amended by revising the heading and
introductory text; revising paragraphs (d)(2), (e)(2), (e)(4) and
(e)(5); and removing (e)(6) and (f) to read as follows:
Sec. 80.128 Alternative agreed upon procedures for refiners and
importers.
Prior to the attest report for the 1998 reporting period, the
following minimum attest procedures may be carried out for a refinery
or importer, in lieu of the attest procedures specified in Sec. 80.132.
* * * * *
(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, OPRG versus non-OPRG, summer or winter gasoline, and
simple or complex model certified; and
* * * * *
(e) * * *
(2) Determine that the requisite contract was in place with the
downstream blender designating the required blending procedures, or
that the refiner or importer accounted for the RBOB using the
assumptions in Sec. 80.69(a)(2);
* * * * *
(4) Trace back to the batch or batches in which the RBOB was
produced or imported. Obtain the refiner's or importer's internal lab
analysis for each batch and agree the consistency of the type and
volume of oxygenate required to be added to the RBOB with that
indicated in the applicable tender's product transfer documents; and
(5) Agree the sampling and testing frequency of the refiner's or
importer's downstream oxygenated blender quality assurance program with
the sampling and testing rates as required in Sec. 80.69(a)(7).
* * * * *
38. Section 80.129 is amended by:
(a) Revising the heading and introductory text;
(b) Revising paragraph (a);
(c) Revising paragraphs (d)(3)(iii) and (d)(3)(iv), and removing
paragraph (d)(3)(v); and
(d) Adding paragraph (f), to read as follows:
Sec. 80.129 Alternative agreed upon procedures for oxygenate blenders.
Prior to the attest report for the 1998 reporting period, the
following minimum attest procedures may be carried out for an oxygenate
blending facility that is subject to the requirements of this subpart
F, in lieu of the attest procedures specified in Sec. 80.134.
(a) Read the oxygenate blender's reports filed with EPA for the
previous year as required by Sec. 80.75.
* * * * *
(d) * * *
(3) * * *
(iii) Recalculate the actual oxygen content based on the volumes
blended and agree to the report to EPA on oxygen; and
(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).
* * * * *
(f) In the case of any oxygenate blender who meets the oxygen
standard on average without separately sampling and testing each batch,
under the terms of Sec. 80.69(b)(5), the following procedures also
shall be carried out.
(1) Obtain a listing of the oxygen compliance calculations, test
the mathematical accuracy of the listing, and agree the volumetric
calculations to the material balance analysis.
(2) Select a representative sample of the oxygen compliance
calculations using the guidelines in Sec. 80.127, and for each
calculation selected:
(i) Confirm that the calculation represented gasoline production
for a period no longer than one month;
(ii) Confirm that the oxygenate blender properly performed the
calculation required in Sec. 80.69(b)(5), including that the oxygenate
blender used the proper values for specific gravities, mole fraction,
and denaturant content; and
(iii) Agree the calculated oxygen value to the corresponding batch
report to EPA.
(3) Obtain records of the oxygenate blender's quality assurance
program of sampling and testing, as required in Sec. 80.69(b)(5),
select a representative sample of the quality assurance samples using
the guidelines in Sec. 80.127, and for each quality assurance sample
selected, confirm the sample was collected within the required
frequency.
39. Section 80.130 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 80.130 Agreed upon procedures record keeping and reporting.
(a) Reports. (1) The CPA or CIA shall issue to the refiner,
importer, or blender a report summarizing the procedures performed and
the findings in accordance with the attest engagement or internal audit
performed in
[[Page 37400]]
compliance with this subpart. This report shall include the information
specified below, or an explanation of why the information does not
apply to the subject of the attest engagement.
(2) The name and registration number of the refiner, importer or
oxygenate blender who is the subject of the attest engagement, and in
the case of refineries and oxygenate blending facilities, the name and
registration number.
(3) The name, address and telephone number of each CPA or CIA who
participated in the conduct of the attest engagement, and the name of
the CPA's firm if any.
(4)(i) The information required in this paragraph (a)(4) shall be
reported separately for the following product types:
(A) Reformulated gasoline;
(B) Conventional gasoline;
(C) Non-finished-gasoline petroleum products, in the following
categories:
(1) Applicable blendstock included in a party's blendstock tracking
calculations pursuant to Secs. 80.102(b) through (d);
(2) Applicable blendstock not included in a party's blendstock
tracking calculations; and
(3) All other non-finished-gasoline petroleum products;
(D) RBOB designated for ``any-oxygenate'' and 2.0 weight percent
oxygen;
(E) RBOB designated for ``ether-only'' and 2.0 weight percent
oxygen;
(F) All other RBOB;
(G) Gasoline treated as blendstock;
(H) In the case of oxygenate blenders, oxygenate; and
(I) In the case of refiners with in-line blending waivers from
independent sampling and testing, the gasoline produced using such an
in-line blending operation, segregated into the categories specified in
paragraphs (a)(4)(i) (A), (D), (E) and (F) of this section.
(ii) The volumes from:
(A) The inventory reconciliation analysis;
(B) The listing of tenders; and
(C) The listing of batches.
(iii) The number of tenders; and
(iv) The number of batches; and
(5) For each attest procedure specified in the relevant regulatory
section:
(A) Identify the section number, and a statement that the procedure
was performed or an explanation of why the procedure was not performed;
(B) On each occasion when a sample is selected in accordance with
the guidelines in Sec. 80.127, report the option under Sec. 80.127 that
was used to select the sample, the size of the population, the size of
the sample, and the method used to ensure the sample was a simple
random sample of the relevant population;
(C) Any information the attest procedure identifies to report, or
to report as a finding; and
(D) The nature of each discrepancy found.
(b) Submission of reports to EPA. The refiner, importer, or blender
shall provide a copy of the auditor's report to EPA within the times
specified in Secs. 80.65(f)(2)(ii)(C), 80.75(m) and 80.105(c).
(c) Document retention. (1) The CPA or CIA shall retain all
documents pertaining to the performance of each agreed upon procedure
and pertaining to the creation to the agreed upon procedures report, or
copies of such documents, including, but not limited to, the following
documents:
(i) Documents that are reviewed as part of the attest engagement,
including:
(A) Inventory reconciliation records;
(B) Product transfer documents; and
(C) Laboratory reports;
(ii) Documents that are prepared by the CPA or CIA as part of the
attest engagement or in preparation of the attest engagement report,
commonly called ``work papers;''
(iii) Computer data and the results of computer programs that are
used by the auditor to assist in the conduct of the attest engagement;
and
(iv) Correspondence between the CPA or CIA and the refiner,
importer or oxygenate blender on the subject of the attest engagement.
(2) The term document includes computer records where the
information specified in paragraph (c)(1) of this section is in the
form of computer records.
(3) The documents specified in paragraph (c)(1) of this section
shall be retained by the CPA or CIA for a period of five years from the
date the attest engagement report is submitted to EPA, and shall
deliver such documents to the Administrator's authorized representative
upon request.
40. Section 80.131 is added to subpart F to read as follows:
Sec. 80.131 Agreed upon procedures for GTAB, certain conventional
gasoline imported by truck, previously certified gasoline used to
produce gasoline, and butane blenders.
(a) Attest procedures for GTAB. The following are the attest
procedures to be carried out in the case of an importer who imports
gasoline classified as blendstock (or ``GTAB'') under the terms of
Sec. 80.83:
(1) Obtain a listing of all GTAB volumes imported for the reporting
period. Agree the total volume of GTAB from the listing to the
inventory reconciliation analysis under Sec. 80.132.
(2) Obtain a listing of all GTAB batches reported to EPA by the
importer. Agree the total volume of GTAB from the listing to the GTAB
volumes reported to EPA. Note that the EPA report includes a notation
that the batch is not included in the compliance calculations because
the imported product is GTAB. Also, agree these volumes to the Import
Summary received from the U.S. Customs Service.
(3) Select a sample, in accordance with the guidelines in
Sec. 80.127, from the listing of GTAB batches obtained in paragraph
(a)(2) of this section, and for each GTAB batch selected perform the
following:
(i) Trace the GTAB batch to the tank activity records. From the
tank activity records, determine the volumes of conventional gasoline
and of RFG produced. Agree the volumes from the tank activity records
to the batch volume reported to the EPA as reformulated or conventional
gasoline.
(ii) Agree the location of the refinery represented by the tank
activity records obtained in paragraph (a)(3)(i) of this section for
the gasoline produced from GTAB, to the location that the GTAB arrived
in the U.S. or at a facility to which GTAB is directly transported from
the import facility using records representing location (e.g., US
Customs Service entry records). Using product transfer records, trace
volumes transported from the import facility directly to the refinery
as applicable.
(iii) Obtain tank activity records for all batches of GTAB received
and blended. Using the tank activity records, determine whether the
GTAB was received into an empty tank, or into a tank containing other
GTAB imported by that importer or finished gasoline of the same
category as the gasoline that will be produced using the GTAB.
(iv) Using the tank activity records obtained under paragraph
(a)(3)(iii) of this section, determine the volume of any tank bottom
(beginning tank inventory) that is previously certified gasoline before
GTAB is added to the tank. Using lab reports, batch reports, or product
transfer documents, determine the properties of the tank bottom.
(v) Determine whether the properties and volume of gasoline
produced using GTAB were determined in a manner that excludes the
volume and properties of any gasoline that previously has been included
in any refiners or importers compliance calculations, as follows:
(A) Note documented tank mixing procedures.
(B) Determine the volume and properties of the gasoline contained
in
[[Page 37401]]
the storage tank after blending is complete. Mathematically subtract
the volume and properties of the previously certified gasoline to
determine the volume and properties of the GTAB plus blendstock added.
Agree the volume and properties of the GTAB plus blendstock added to
the volume reported to EPA as a batch of gasoline produced; or
(C) In the alternative, using the tank activity records, note that
only GTAB and blending components were combined, and that no gasoline
was added to the tank. Agree the volumes and properties of the
shipments from the tank after the GTAB and blendstock are added,
blended, and sampled and tested, to the volumes and properties reported
to the EPA by the refiner.
(vi) Obtain the importer's laboratory analysis for each batch of
GTAB selected, and agree the properties listed in the corresponding
batch report submitted to the EPA, to the laboratory analysis.
(b) Attest procedures for certain truck imports. The following
procedures are to be carried out in the case of an importer who imports
conventional gasoline into the United States by truck using the
sampling and testing option in Sec. 80.101(i)(3) (``Sec. 101(i)(3)
truck imports'').
(1) Obtain a listing of all volumes of Sec. 101(i)(3) truck imports
for the reporting period. Agree the total volume of Sec. 101(i)(3)
truck imports from the listing to the inventory reconciliation analysis
under Sec. 80.132.
(2) Obtain a listing of all Sec. 101(i)(3) truck import batches
reported to EPA by the importer. Agree the total volume of
Sec. 101(i)(3) truck imports from the listing to the volume of
Sec. 101(i)(3) truck imports reported to EPA. Also, agree these totals
to the Import Summary received from the U.S. Customs Service.
(3) Select a sample, in accordance with the guidelines in
Sec. 80.127, from the listing obtained in paragraph (b)(2) of this
section, and for each Sec. 101(i)(3) truck import batch selected
perform the following:
(i) Obtain the copy of the terminal test results for the batch,
under Sec. 80.101(i)(3)(iii)(A), and determine that the sample was
analyzed using the test methods specified in Sec. 80.46, and agree the
terminal test results to the batch properties reported to EPA; and
(ii) Obtain tank activity records for the terminal storage tank
showing receipts, discharges, and sampling, and determine that the
sample under paragraph (b)(3)(i) of this section was collected
subsequent to the most recent receipt into the storage tank.
(4) Obtain listings for each terminal where Sec. 101(i)(3) truck
import gasoline was loaded, of all quality assurance samples collected
by the importer, and for each terminal select a sample in accordance
with the guidelines in Sec. 80.127 from the listing. For each quality
assurance sample selected perform the following:
(i) Determine that the sample was analyzed by the importer or by an
independent laboratory, and that the analysis was performed using the
test methods specified in Sec. 80.46;
(ii) Obtain the terminal's test results that correspond in time to
the time the quality assurance sample was collected, and agree the
terminal's test results with the quality assurance test results; and
(iii) Determine that the quality assurance sample was collected
within the frequency specified in Sec. 80.101(i)(3)(iv)(D).
(c) Attest procedures for previously certified gasoline. The
following procedures are to be carried out in the case of a refiner who
uses previously certified gasoline (PCG) under the requirements of
Sec. 80.65(i).
(1) Obtain a listing of all batches of PCG received at the refinery
during the reporting period. Agree the total volume of PCG from the
listing to the inventory reconciliation analysis under Sec. 80.132.
(2) Obtain a listing of all PCG batches reported to EPA by the
refiner. Agree the total volume of PCG from the listing of PCG received
to the volume of PCG reported to EPA.
(3) Select a sample, in accordance with the guidelines in
Sec. 80.127, from the listing obtained in paragraph (c)(2) of this
section, and for each PCG batch selected perform the following:
(i) Trace the PCG batch to the tank activity records. Confirm that
the PCG was included in a batch of reformulated or conventional
gasoline produced at the refinery.
(ii) Obtain the refiner's laboratory analysis and volume
measurement for the PCG when received and agree the properties and
volume listed in the corresponding batch report submitted to the EPA,
to the laboratory analysis and volume measurements.
(iii) Obtain the product transfer documents for the PCG when
received and agree the designations from the product transfer documents
to designations in the corresponding batch report submitted to EPA
(reformulated gasoline, RBOB or conventional gasoline, and designations
regarding VOC control and OPRG).
(d) Attest procedures for butane blenders. The following procedures
shall be carried out by a refiner who blends butane under
Sec. 80.101(i)(4).
(1) Obtain a listing of all butane batches received at the refinery
during the reporting period.
(2) Obtain a listing of all butane batches reported to EPA by the
refiner for the reporting period. Agree the total volume of butane from
the receipt listing to the volume of butane reported to EPA.
(3) Select a sample, in accordance with the guidelines in
Sec. 80.127, from the listing of butane batches reported to EPA, and
for each butane batch selected perform the following:
(i) Trace the butane included in the batch to the documents
provided to the refiner by the butane supplier for the butane.
Determine, and report as a finding, whether these documents establish
the butane was commercial grade, non-commercial grade, or neither
commercial nor non-commercial grade as defined in Sec. 80.101(i)(4).
(ii) In the case of non-commercial grade butane, obtain the
refiner's sampling and testing results for butane, and confirm that the
frequency of the sampling and testing was consistent with the
requirements in Sec. 80.101(i)(4).
41. Section 80.132 is added to subpart F to read as follows:
Sec. 80.132 Agreed upon procedures for refiners with in-line blending
waivers from independent sampling and testing.
The following are the procedures to be carried out at each refinery
where reformulated gasoline or RBOB is produced under an exemption from
independent sampling and testing obtained under Sec. 80.65(f)(2) (an
``in-line blending exemption'').
(a) Review waiver requirements. (1) Review the refiner's petition
submitted under Sec. 80.65(f)(2), and of EPA's approval of this
petition.
(2) Note, and report as a finding, for each parameter specified in
Sec. 80.65(e)(2)(i), and for each form of sampling and/or testing to be
carried out under the terms of in-line blending exemption petition and/
or under EPA's petition approval:
(i) The location where the sample is to be collected;
(ii) The manner in which the sample is to be collected;
(iii) The number of samples to be collected during each separate
blend;
(iv) How the refiner is to determine the time when each sample is
collected;
(v) Who is to collect the sample;
(vi) The type of analysis to be performed;
(vii) Where the analysis is to be performed;
(viii) Who is to perform the analysis; and
(ix) The manner in which the analysis results are to be recorded
and reported.
[[Page 37402]]
(b) Batch listings. (1) Obtain a listing of all batches of
reformulated gasoline and RBOB produced during the prior year under an
in-line blending exemption, and test the mathematical accuracy of the
volumetric calculations contained in the listing.
(2) Select a representative sample of the reformulated gasoline and
RBOB batches produced under an in-line blending exemption using the
guidelines specified under Sec. 80.127, and for each batch selected
obtain the laboratory analysis results for the batch, as identified in
paragraph (a)(2) of this section.
(3) The procedures specified in paragraphs (c) and (d) of this
section shall be carried out for each batch identified in paragraph
(b)(2) of this section, and for each parameter that is subject to, or
that is used to calculate an emissions performance that is subject to,
a standard specified in Sec. 80.41 for the batch.
(c) Primary analysis results. (1) Identify the laboratory analysis
that formed the basis for the refiner's report to EPA for the parameter
(the ``primary analysis'') and report this result as a finding;
(2) Agree the primary analysis to the refiner's report to EPA; and
(3) Confirm that the sample was collected, analyzed, and reported
as specified under paragraph (a)(2) of this section.
(d) Confirmatory analysis. Identify the laboratory analysis results
that, under the terms of the in-line blending exemption petition, are
to be used to confirm the accuracy of the primary analysis (the
``confirmatory analysis''), and for each parameter complete the
procedures specified in this paragraph (d).
(1) Where the confirmatory analysis results are from an analyzer
that operates continually or with great frequency as part of the in-
line blending operation (``on-line'' analysis results), identify twelve
confirmatory analysis results as follows:
(i) Separate the blend into twelve equal time segments;
(ii) For each time segment, identify the mid-point of the time
segment; and
(iii) Identify the on-line analysis result that reflects the
quality of gasoline being produced most close to the mid-point of the
time segment.
(2) Where the confirmatory analysis results are from samples that
are collected during the blending operation and analyzed at a separate
laboratory (``off-line'' analysis results), select a representative
sample of the off-line confirmatory analysis results using the
guidelines specified in Sec. 80.127 as confirmatory analysis results.
(3) Where the confirmatory analysis results are from samples of
blendstocks used in the in-line blending operation:
(i) Identify the analysis result that reflects the properties, and
proportions, of each blendstock being used at the times identified in
paragraph (d)(1) of this section; and
(ii) Calculate the expected parameter value for the gasoline or
RBOB based on the blendstock proportions and property values at each
time as twelve confirmatory analysis results.
(4) For any confirmatory analysis result identified under
paragraphs (d) (1) through (3) of this section:
(i) Agree the confirmatory analysis result with:
(A) The primary analysis result; and
(B) The applicable per-gallon standard for the parameter;
(ii) Confirm that the confirmatory sample was collected, analyzed,
and reported as specified under paragraph (a)(2) of this section; and
(iii) Report the confirmatory analysis result as a finding.
(e) Expansion of sample. If for any batch selected under paragraph
(b)(2) of this section the difference between any primary analysis
result and the corresponding confirmatory analysis result under
paragraph (d) of this section is greater than the value for that
parameter specified in Sec. 80.65(e)(2)(i), the following procedure
shall be followed:
(1) Select an additional sample from the listing of batches under
paragraph (b)(1) of this section using the guidelines specified under
Sec. 80.127 based on the total number of batches, but in a manner that
randomly selects only from batches that were not selected under
paragraph (b)(2) of this section; and
(2) Complete the procedures specified in paragraphs (c) and (d) of
this section for each batch selected, and for each parameter that is
subject to, or that is used to calculate an emissions performance that
is subject to, a standard specified in Sec. 80.41 for the batch.
42. Section 80.133 is added to subpart F to read as follows:
Sec. 80.133 Agreed-upon procedures for refiners and importers.
The following are the minimum attest procedures that shall be
carried out for each refinery and importer. Agreed upon procedures may
vary from the procedures stated in this section due to the nature of
the refiner's or importer's business or records, provided that any
refiner or importer desiring to use modified procedures obtains prior
approval from EPA.
(a) EPA Reports. (1) Obtain and read a copy of the refinery's or
importer's reports (except for batch reports) filed with the EPA as
required by Secs. 80.75 and 80.105 for the reporting period.
(2) In the case of a refiner's report to EPA that represents
aggregate calculations for more than one refinery, obtain the refinery-
specific volume and property information that was used by the refiner
to prepare the aggregate report. Foot and crossfoot the refinery-
specific totals and agree to the values in the aggregate report. The
procedures in paragraphs (b) through (m) of this section then are
performed separately for each refinery.
(3) Obtain a written representation from a company representative
that the report copies are complete and accurate copies of the reports
filed with the EPA.
(4) Identify, and report as a finding, the name of the commercial
computer program used by the refiner or importer to track the data
required by these regulations, if any.
(b) Inventory reconciliation analysis. Obtain an inventory
reconciliation analysis for the refinery or importer for the reporting
period by product type (i.e., reformulated gasoline, RBOB, conventional
gasoline, and non-finished-gasoline petroleum products), and perform
the following:
(1) Foot and crossfoot the volume totals reflected in the analysis;
and
(2) Agree the beginning and ending inventory amounts in the
analysis to the refinery's or importer's inventory records. If the
analysis shows no production of conventional gasoline or if the
refinery or importer represents under paragraph (l) of this section
that it has a baseline less stringent or equal to the statutory
baseline, the analysis may exclude non-finished-gasoline petroleum
products.
(3) Report as a finding the volume totals for each product type.
(c) Listing of tenders. For each product type other than non-
finished gasoline petroleum products (i.e., reformulated gasoline,
RBOB, conventional gasoline), obtain a separate listing of all tenders
from the refinery or importer for the reporting period. Each listing
should provide for each tender the volume shipped and other information
as needed to distinguish tenders. Perform the following:
(1) Foot to the volume totals per the listings; and
(2) For each product type listed in the inventory reconciliation
analysis obtained in paragraph (b) of this section, agree the volume
total on the listing to
[[Page 37403]]
the tender volume total in the inventory reconciliation analysis.
(d) Listing of batches. For each product type other than non-
finished gasoline petroleum products (i.e., reformulated gasoline,
RBOB, and conventional gasoline), obtain separate listings of all
batches reported to the EPA and perform the following:
(1) Foot to the volume totals per the listings; and
(2) Agree the total volumes in the listings to the production
volume in the inventory reconciliation analysis obtained in paragraph
(b) of this section.
(e) Reformulated gasoline tenders. Select a sample, in accordance
with the guidelines in Sec. 80.127, from the listing of reformulated
gasoline tenders obtained in paragraph (c) of this section, and for
each tender selected perform the following:
(1) Obtain product transfer documents associated with the tender
and agree the volume on the tender listing to the volume on the Product
transfer documents; and
(2) Note whether the product transfer documents evidencing the date
and location of the tender and the compliance model designations for
the tender (VOC-controlled for Region 1 or 2, non VOC-controlled, and
simple or complex model certified).
(f) Reformulated gasoline batches. Select a sample, in accordance
with the guidelines in Sec. 80.127, from the listing of reformulated
gasoline batches obtained in paragraph (d) of this section, and for
each batch selected perform the following:
(1) Agree the volume shown on the listing, to the volume listed in
the corresponding batch report submitted to EPA; and
(2) Obtain the refinery's or importer's laboratory analysis and
agree the properties listed in the corresponding batch report submitted
to EPA, to the properties listed in the laboratory analysis.
(g) RBOB tenders. Select a sample, in accordance with the
guidelines Sec. 80.127, from the listing of RBOB tenders obtained in
paragraph (c) of this section, and for each tender selected perform the
following:
(1) Obtain product transfer documents associated with the tender
and agree the volume on the tender listing to the volume on the product
transfer documents; and
(2) Inspect the product transfer documents evidencing the type and
amount of oxygenate to be added to the RBOB.
(h) RBOB batches. Select a sample, in accordance with the
guidelines in Sec. 80.127, from the listing of RBOB batches obtained in
paragraph (d) of this section, and for each batch selected perform the
following:
(1) Obtain from the refiner or importer the oxygenate type and
volume, and oxygen volume required to be hand blended with the RBOB, in
accordance with Secs. 80.69(a)(2) and (8);
(2) Agree the volume shown on the listing, as adjusted to reflect
the oxygenate volume determined under paragraph (h)(1) of this section,
to the volume listed in the corresponding batch report submitted to
EPA; and
(3) Obtain the refinery's or importer's laboratory analysis of the
RBOB hand blend and agree:
(i) The oxygenate type and oxygen amount determined under paragraph
(h)(1) of this section, to the tested oxygenate type and oxygen amount
listed in the laboratory analysis; and
(ii) The properties listed in the corresponding batch report
submitted to EPA to the properties listed in the laboratory analysis.
(4)(i) Categorize the RBOB batch reports into two groups:
(A) RBOB Batch reports showing:
(1) ``RBOB-any oxygenate'' with ethanol as oxygenate and an oxygen
content of 2.0 weight percent; and
(2) ``RBOB-ethers only'' with only MTBE as oxygenate and an oxygen
content of 2.0 weight percent; and
(B) All other RBOB batch reports.
(ii) Perform the following procedures for each batch report
included in paragraph (h)(4)(i)(B) of this section:
(A) Obtain and inspect a copy of the executed contract with the
downstream oxygenate blender (or with an intermediate owner), and
confirm that the contract:
(1) Was in effect at the time of the corresponding RBOB transfer;
and
(2) Allowed the company to sample and test the reformulated
gasoline made by the blender.
(B) Obtain a listing of RBOB blended by downstream oxygenate
blenders and the refinery's or importer's oversight test results, and
select a representative sample, in accordance with the guidelines in
Sec. 80.127, from the listing of test results and for each test
selected perform the following:
(1) Obtain the laboratory analysis for the batch, and agree the
type of oxygenate used and the oxygen content appearing in the
laboratory analysis to the instructions stated on the product transfer
documents corresponding to a RBOB receipt immediately preceding the
laboratory analysis and used in producing the reformulated gasoline
batch selected;
(2) Calculate the frequency of sampling and testing or the volume
blended between the test selected and the next test; and
(3) Agree the frequency of sampling and testing or the volume
blended between the test selected and the next test to the sampling and
testing frequency rates stated in Sec. 80.69(a)(7).
(i) Conventional gasoline and conventional gasoline blendstock
tenders. Select a sample, in accordance with the guidelines in
Sec. 80.127, from the listing of the tenders of conventional gasoline
and conventional gasoline blendstock that becomes gasoline through the
addition of oxygenate only, and for each tender selected perform the
following:
(1) Obtain product transfer documents associated with the tender
and agree the volume on the tender listing to the volume on the product
transfer documents; and
(2) Inspect the product transfer documents evidencing that the
information required in Sec. 80.106(a)(1)(vii) is included.
(j) Conventional gasoline batches. Select a sample, in accordance
with the guidelines in Sec. 80.127, from the conventional gasoline
batch listing obtained in paragraph (d) of this section, and for each
batch selected perform the following:
(1) Agree the volume shown on the listing, to the volume listed in
the corresponding batch report submitted to EPA; and
(2) Obtain the refinery's or importer's laboratory analysis and
agree the properties listed in the corresponding batch report submitted
to EPA, to the properties listed in the laboratory analysis.
(k) Conventional gasoline oxygenate blending. Obtain a listing of
each downstream oxygenate blending facility and its blender, as
represented by the refiner/importer, as adding oxygenate used in the
compliance calculations for the refinery or importer, or a written
representation from the refiner for the refinery or importer that it
has not used any downstream oxygenate blending in its conventional
gasoline compliance calculations.
(1) For each downstream oxygenate blender facility, obtain a
listing from the refiner or importer of the batches of oxygenate
included in its compliance calculations added by the downstream
oxygenate blender and foot to the total volume of batches per the
listing;
(2) Obtain a listing from the downstream oxygenate blender of the
oxygenate blended with conventional gasoline or sub-octane blendstock
that was produced or imported by the refinery or importer and perform
the following:
[[Page 37404]]
(i) Foot to the total volume of the oxygenate batches per the
listing; and
(ii) Agree the total volumes in the listing obtained from the
downstream oxygenate blender, to the listing obtained from the refiner
or importer in paragraph (k)(1) of this section.
(3) Where the downstream oxygenate blender is a person other than
the refiner or importer, as represented by management of the refinery
or importer, perform the following:
(i) Obtain the contract from the refiner or importer with the
downstream blender and inspect the contract evidencing that it covered
the period when oxygenate was blended;
(ii) Obtain company documents evidencing that the refiner or
importer has records reflecting that it conducted physical inspections
of the downstream blending operation during the period oxygenate was
blended;
(iii) Obtain company documents reflecting the refiner or importer
audit over the downstream oxygenate blending operation and note whether
these records evidencing the audit included a review of the overall
volumes and type of oxygenate purchased and used by the oxygenate
blender to be consistent with the oxygenate claimed by the refiner or
importer, and that this oxygenate was blended with the refinery's or
importer's gasoline or blending stock; and
(iv) Obtain a listing of test results for the sampling and testing
conducted by the refiner or importer over the downstream oxygenate
blending operation, and select a sample, in accordance with the
guidelines in Sec. 80.127, from this listing. For each test selected,
agree the tested oxygenate volume with the oxygenate volume in the
listing obtained from the oxygenate blender in paragraph (k)(2) of this
section for this gasoline.
(l) Blendstock tracking.
(1) Either:
(i) Obtain a written representation from management of the refinery
or importer that it has a baseline for each property that is less
stringent or equal to the statutory baseline and as a result is exempt
from blendstock tracking under Sec. 80.102(f)(1)(i); or
(ii) Perform the following procedures.
(2) Obtain listings for those tenders of non-finished-gasoline
petroleum products classified by the refiner or importer as:
(i) Applicable blendstock that is included in the refinery's or
importer's blendstock tracking calculations pursuant to Secs. 80.102
(b) through (d);
(ii) Applicable blendstock that is exempt pursuant to
Sec. 80.102(d)(3) from inclusion in the refinery's or importer's
blendstock tracking calculations pursuant to Secs. 80.102 (b) through
(d); and
(iii) All other non-finished-gasoline petroleum products;
(3) Foot to the totals of the tender volumes contained in the
listings obtained from the refinery or importer in paragraph (l)(2) of
this section;
(4) Agree the total volume of tenders per the listings to the total
tender volume of non-finished-gasoline products on the gasoline
inventory reconciliation analysis obtained in paragraph (b) of this
section; and
(5) Compute and report as a finding the refinery's or importer's
ratio of all non-finished petroleum products to total gasoline
production. Total gasoline production is the volume total of the
batches from paragraph (d) of this section for reformulated gasoline,
RBOB, and conventional gasoline, exclusive of California gasoline.
(6) No procedures must be performed under paragraph (l)(7) through
(18) of this section if:
(i) The ratio in paragraph (l)(5) of this section is less than or
equal to 3%; and
(ii) The refiner represents in writing that blendstock accounting
is not required under Sec. 80.102(g).
(7) Select a sample, in accordance with the guidelines in
Sec. 80.127, from the tender listing obtained in paragraph (l)(2)(ii)
of this section, and for each tender selected perform the following:
(i) Obtain the refinery's or importer's company documents that
evidence the transfer of the product to another party and agree the
volumes contained in these records to the listing of tenders; and
(ii) Obtain documents from the refinery or importer that support
the exclusion of the applicable blendstock from the blendstock-to-
gasoline ratio, and agree that the documented purpose is one of those
specified at Sec. 80.102(d)(3);
(8) Agree the total tender volume obtained in paragraph (l)(2)(ii)
of this section to the ``total volume of applicable blendstock produced
or imported, transferred to others and excluded from blendstock ratio
calculations' reported to EPA, or to the refinery-specific volume under
paragraph (a)(2) of this section used to prepare an aggregate report
submitted to EPA.
(9) Compute and report as a finding the refinery's ratio of
applicable blendstocks included in the tracking calculation under
paragraph (l)(2)(i) of this section plus all other non-finished-
gasoline petroleum products under paragraph (l)(2)(iii) of this
section, to total gasoline production. Total gasoline production is the
volume total of the batches from paragraph (d) of this section for
reformulated gasoline, RBOB, oxygenates blended downstream of the
refinery or import facility, and conventional gasoline, exclusive of
California gasoline.
(10) No procedures must be performed under paragraphs (l) (11)
through (18) of this section if :
(i) The ratio in paragraph (l)(9) of this section is less than or
equal to 3%;
(ii) No exceptions were noted in paragraph (l)(7) of this section;
and
(iii) The refiner represents in writing that blendstock accounting
is not required under Sec. 80.102(g).
(11) Select a sample, in accordance with the guidelines in
Sec. 80.127, from the listing obtained in paragraph (l)(2)(iii) of this
section, and for each tender selected perform the following:
(i) Obtain the records that evidence the transfer of the product to
another party and agree the volume contained in these records to the
volume on the listing of tenders; and
(ii) Inspect the product type assigned by the refiner or importer
on the transfer document (i.e., alkylate, raffinate, etc.) and agree
that this product type is not included in the applicable blendstock
list at Sec. 80.102(a).
(12) Agree the total tender volume obtained in paragraph (l)(2)(i)
of this section to the ``total volume of applicable blendstock produced
or imported, transferred to others and included in blendstock ratio
calculations' reported to EPA, or to the refinery-specific volume under
paragraph (a)(2) of this section used to prepare an aggregate report
submitted to EPA.
(13) Compute and report as a finding the refinery's ratio of
applicable blendstocks included in the tracking calculation under
paragraph (l)(1)(i) of this section to total gasoline production. Total
gasoline production is the volume total of the batches from paragraph
(d) of this section for reformulated gasoline, RBOB, oxygenate blended
downstream of the refinery or import facility, and conventional
gasoline, exclusive of California gasoline.
(14) No procedures must be performed under paragraphs (l) (15)
through (18) of this section if:
(i) The ratio in paragraph (l)(13) of this section is less than or
equal to 3%; and
(ii) The refiner represents in writing that blendstock accounting
is not required under Sec. 80.102(g).
(15) Obtain the refinery's or importer's blendstock-to-gasoline
ratios for calendar years 1990 through 1993.
[[Page 37405]]
(16)(i) In the case of averaging periods prior to 1998, compute and
report as a finding the peak year blendstock-to-gasoline ratio
percentage change as required under Sec. 80.102(d)(1)(ii); or
(ii) In the case of averaging periods beginning in 1998, compute
and report as a finding the running cumulative compliance period
blendstock-to-gasoline ratio as required under Sec. 80.102(d)(2)(i),
and the cumulative blendstock-to-gasoline ratio percentage change as
required under Sec. 80.102(d)(2)(ii).
(17) Obtain from the refiner or importer the prior year's peak year
blendstock-to-gasoline ratio percentage change if the prior year was
prior to 1998, or running cumulative compliance period blendstock-to-
gasoline ratio if the prior year was 1998 or later.
(18) No procedures must be performed under paragraph (m) of this
section if:
(i) For the prior year the peak year blendstock-to-gasoline ratio
percentage change (for 1995 through 1997), or the cumulative
blendstock-to-gasoline ratio percentage change (for 1998 and after), is
less than ten; and
(ii) The refiner represents in writing that blendstock accounting
is not required under Sec. 80.102(g).
(m) Blendstock accounting. (1) Obtain listings for those tenders of
non-finished-gasoline petroleum products tenders classified by the
refinery or importer as:
(i) Blendstock that is included in the compliance calculations for
the refinery or importer under Sec. 80.102(e)(2)(i); and
(ii) All other non-finished-gasoline petroleum products;
(2) Foot the total volume of tenders per the listings;
(3) Agree the total volume of tenders per the listings to the
gasoline inventory reconciliation analysis obtained in paragraph (b) of
this section;
(4) Select a sample, in accordance with the guidelines in
Sec. 80.127, from the listing of blendstock tenders that are included
in the compliance calculations for the refinery or importer, and for
each tender selected perform the following:
(i) Agree the volumes to company documents evidencing the transfer
of the tender to another party;
(ii) Note the product transfer documents includes the statement
indicating the blendstock has been accounted-for, and may not be
included in another party's compliance calculations; and
(5) Agree the total tender volume obtained in paragraph (m)(1)(i)
of this section to the ``total volume of blendstocks included in
compliance calculations'' reported to EPA, or to the refinery-specific
volume under paragraph (a)(2) of this section used to prepare an
aggregate report submitted to EPA.
(6) Select a sample, in accordance with the guidelines in
Sec. 80.127, from the listing of tenders of non-finished-gasoline
petroleum products that are excluded from the refinery's or importer's
compliance calculations, and for each tender selected confirm that
company documents demonstrate that the petroleum products were used for
a purpose other than the production of gasoline within the United
States.
43. Section 80.134 is added to subpart F to read as follows:
Sec. 80.134 Agreed-upon procedures for downstream oxygenate blenders.
The following are the minimum attest procedures that shall be
carried out for each oxygenate blending facility that is subject to the
requirements of this subpart F. Agreed upon procedures may vary from
the procedures stated in this section due to the nature of the
oxygenate blender's business or records, provided that any oxygenate
blender desiring to use modified procedures obtains prior approval from
EPA.
(a) EPA Blender Reports. Obtain and read a copy of the blender's
reports filed with the EPA as required by Sec. 80.75 for the reporting
period. Obtain a written representation from a company representative
that the copies are complete and accurate copies of the reports filed
with the EPA.
(b) Inventory reconciliation analysis. (1) Obtain from the blender
an inventory reconciliation analysis for the reporting period that
summarizes:
(i) Receipts of RBOB, reformulated gasoline, and oxygenate;
(ii) Beginning and ending inventories of RBOB , reformulated
gasoline, and oxygenate;
(iii) Production of reformulated gasoline; and
(iv) Tenders of RBOB and reformulated gasoline.
(2) Foot and the crossfoot volume totals reflected in the analysis.
(3) Agree the beginning and ending inventory amounts in the
analysis to the blender's inventory records.
(c) RBOB receipts. Obtain a listing of all RBOB receipts for the
reporting period, and perform the following:
(1) Foot to the total volume of RBOB receipts per the listing;
(2) Agree the total RBOB receipts volume reflected on the listing
to the RBOB receipts volume on the inventory reconciliation analysis;
(3) Select a sample, in accordance with the guidelines in
Sec. 80.127, of RBOB receipts from the listing. For each selected RBOB
receipt, obtain product transfer documents specifying the type and
volume of oxygenate to be added to the RBOB.
(d) Oxygenate receipts. Obtain a listing of all oxygenate receipts
for the reporting period, and perform the following:
(1) Foot to the total volume of oxygenate receipts per the listing;
(2) Agree the total oxygenate receipts volume reflected on the
listing to the oxygenate receipts volume on the inventory
reconciliation analysis.
(e) Reformulated gasoline tenders. Obtain a listing of all
reformulated gasoline tenders for the reporting period, and perform the
following:
(1) Foot to the total reformulated gasoline tenders per the
listing;
(2) Agree the total reformulated gasoline tenders volume reflected
on the listing to the reformulated gasoline tenders volume on the
inventory reconciliation analysis;
(3) Select a sample, in accordance with the guidelines in
Sec. 80.127, of reformulated gasoline tenders from the listing, and for
each tender selected perform the following:
(i) Obtain the product transfer documents associated with the
tender and agree the volume on the tender listing to the volume on the
product transfer documents.
(ii) Inspect the product transfer documents evidencing the date and
location of the tender and the compliance model designations for the
tender (VOC-controlled for Region 1 or 2, non VOC-controlled, and
simple or complex model certified).
(f) RBOB tenders. Obtain a listing of all RBOB tenders during the
reporting period, and perform the following:
(1) Foot to the total volume of RBOB per the listing;
(2) Agree the total RBOB tenders volume reflected on the listing to
the RBOB tenders volume on the inventory reconciliation analysis.
(g) Reformulated gasoline batches. Obtain a listing of all
reformulated gasoline batches produced during the reporting period, and
perform the following:
(1) Foot to the total volume of reformulated gasoline batches
produced per the listing;
(2) Agree the total reformulated gasoline batch volume reflected on
the listing to the reformulated gasoline batch volume on the inventory
reconciliation analysis.
(h) Blender sampling and testing. (1) For blenders who meet the
oxygenate blending requirements by sampling and testing each batch of
reformulated
[[Page 37406]]
gasoline, select a sample, in accordance with the guidelines in
Sec. 80.127, of reformulated gasoline batches from the listing obtained
in paragraph (g) of this section, and for each batch selected perform
the following:
(i) Obtain the internal laboratory analysis for the batch, and
agree the type of oxygenate used and the oxygen content appearing in
the laboratory analysis to the instructions stated on the product
transfer documents corresponding to a RBOB receipt immediately
preceding the laboratory analysis and used in producing the
reformulated gasoline batch selected.
(ii) Agree the oxygen content results of the laboratory analysis to
the corresponding batch information reported to EPA.
(2) For blenders who meet the oxygen content standard on average
without separately sampling and testing each batch, under the terms of
Sec. 80.69(b)(5), the following procedures shall be carried out:
(i) Obtain a listing of the oxygen compliance calculations, test
the mathematic accuracy of the listing, and agree the volumetric
calculations to the material balance analysis.
(ii) Select a representative sample of the oxygen compliance
calculations using the guidelines in Sec. 80.127, and for each
calculation selected:
(A) Confirm that the calculation represented gasoline production
for a period no longer than one month;
(B) Confirm that the oxygenate blender properly performed the
calculation required in Sec. 80.69(b)(5), including that the oxygenate
blender used the proper values for specific gravities, mole fraction,
and denaturant content; and
(C)Agree the calculated oxygen value to the corresponding batch
report to EPA.
(iii) Obtain records of the oxygenate blender's quality assurance
program of sampling and testing as required in Sec. 80.69(b)(5), select
a representative sample of the quality assurance sample selected using
the guidelines in Sec. 80.127, and for each quality assurance sample
selected confirm the sample was collected within the required
frequency.
44. Appendices A through G to Part 80 [Removed]
[FR Doc. 97-17029 Filed 7-10-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
