[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 250 (Wednesday, December 31, 1997)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 68196-68208]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-34097]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 80
[FRL-5942-6]
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: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Through the 1990 amendments to the Clean Air Act (CAA),
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, on July 11, 1997, EPA proposed a variety of changes to the
regulations relating to emissions standards, emissions models,
compliance related requirements and enforcement provisions. Today's
rule finalizes certain of the changes proposed on July 11, 1997. This
final rule adopts several revisions relating to use of the Complex
Model, which is required for demonstrating compliance with the RFG
standards and the anti-dumping standards for conventional gasoline
beginning on January 1, 1998. In addition, today's rule finalizes
provisions that modify the affirmative defenses for truck carriers of
motor vehicle fuel. Finally, this rule deletes the NOX per-
gallon minimum standards for RFG and increases the number of gasoline
quality surveys, as a more cost-effective way to ensure that each area
covered by the RFG program receives the full environmental benefits of
the NOX average standards in Phase I and II of the program.
EPA will take final action on the remainder of the provisions proposed
on July 11, 1997, at a later date.
The emissions benefits achieved from the RFG and conventional
gasoline programs will not be reduced as a result of this final rule.
DATES: The effective date of this rule is January 1, 1998.
ADDRESSES: Materials relevant to this FRM are contained in Public
Docket No. A-97-03, Waterside Mall (Room M-1500), Environmental
Protection Agency, Air Docket Section, 401 M Street, S.W., Washington,
D.C. 20460. 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.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Marilyn Bennett, Fuels and Energy
Division, U.S. EPA, 401 M Street, S.W. (6406J), Washington, D.C. 20460.
Telephone: (202) 564-8989.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Regulated Entities
Regulated categories and entities affected by this action include:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Examples of regulated
Category entities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry.................................. Refiners and importers of
motor vehicle fuel. Motor
vehicle fuel tank truck
carriers.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 A, B, D, and E, 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.
The preamble and regulatory language are also available
electronically from the EPA Internet Web site. The official Federal
Register version is made available on the day of publication on the
primary Internet site listed below. The EPA Office of Mobile Sources
also publishes these notices on the secondary Web site listed below.
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)
EPA believes this is sufficient lead time for regulated parties to
implement the changes adopted here, as these noncontroversial changes
are designed to increase the flexibility provided to parties under the
regulations and to provide provisions necessary for demonstrating
compliance with the
[[Page 68197]]
standards under the Complex Model. Although this final rule includes
some new requirements, these requirements are reasonable and necessary
to provide the increased flexibility also included in this rule. EPA
notes that the general requirement in 5 U.S.C. 553(d) of the
Administrative Procedure Act (APA), concerning publication or service
of a substantive rule not less than 30 days prior to its effective
date, does not apply here. CAA section 307(d)(1) provides that section
553 of the APA does not apply to promulgation or revision of any
regulation pertaining to fuels or fuel additives under section 211 of
the CAA. Even if section 553(d) of the APA were to apply, there is good
cause under section 553(d)(3) to provide less than 30 days notice, for
the reasons noted above.
The remainder of this preamble, which explains the basis and
purposes of the regulatory changes finalized today, is organized into
the following sections:
I. Corrections to Complex Model (Sec. 80.45)
II. NOX Per-Gallon Minimum Standards (Sec. 80.41)(d)
and (f); Sec. 80.68(b)(1)(iv))
III. Truck Carrier Defenses (Sec. 80.79(c)(3); Sec. 80.2(ss);
Sec. 80.28(g)(1)(iii) and Sec. 80.30(g)(1)(i))
IV. Closely Integrated Facilities (Sec. 80.91(e))
V. Standards Applicable to Refiners and Importers of
Conventional Gasoline (Sec. 80.101)
VI. Environmental and Economic Impacts
VII. Public Participation
VIII. Regulatory Flexibility Act
IX. Submission to Congress and the General Accounting Office
X. Executive Order 12866
XI. Paperwork Reduction Act
XII. Unfunded Mandates Act
XIII. Statutory Authority
I. Corrections to Complex Model (Sec. 80.45)
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)(13). Corrects typographical error by changing
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)(ii)........ Corrects the entry for aromatics
``acceptable range'' to read ``0.0--55.0
volume percent.'' This corrects a
typographical error in the July 20, 1994
Direct Final Rule (59 FR 36961). The
correct entry was included in the RFG
final rule published on February 16,
1994 (59 FR 7826).
II. Elimination of NOX Per-Gallon Minimum Standards
(Sec. 80.41(d) 1 and (f); Sec. 80.68(b)(1)(iv))
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ In addition to deleting the NOX per-gallon
minimum standards for averaged RFG in the chart in Sec. 80.41(d),
this rule revises the chart to replace ``32.6'' for VOC-
Control Region 1 per-gallon minimum reduction with
``32.6''. This corrects a typographical error.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the final regulations establishing the RFG program (59 FR 7716
(February 16, 1994)) the Agency established both average standards for
NOX reductions and associated minimum per-gallon standards
2 for such reductions (separate standards were applied to
VOC-controlled summertime gasoline and non-VOC-controlled winter
gasoline). The standards set up for both the Simple Model and Phase I
Complex Model (applicable in 1995 through 1999) were designed to hold
NOX emissions at baseline levels, while the Phase II
standards (applicable beginning in 2000) added a more stringent
standard for summertime NOX reductions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ These two types of standards, both applying to refineries
that elect to comply by averaging, should not be confused with the
per-gallon standard, which applies to refineries that elect not to
average their compliance over a year, but rather to make gasoline
that all (each gallon) meets a fixed standard. The latter approach
to compliance will likely not be selected by most refiners for
practical reasons having to do with the inherent variability in
NOX quality of gasoline from batch to batch.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 baseline; the corresponding Phase I standard holds
any increase over baseline for a batch to 2.5%. Less stringent
averaging minimum standards apply outside of the high ozone season in
Phase II. These 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/or through time. An additional but secondary
objective of the averaging minimum standard was to augment the
detectability of non-RFG gasoline being illegally sold in RFG areas.
The Proposal
In the July 11, 1997 NPRM EPA proposed to eliminate the minimum
averaging standards for NOX in both phases of the program
and to use an augmented RFG survey program to guard against any
possible undesirable environmental effects of that action. The reasons
for wanting to eliminate these standards are discussed at some length
in the NPRM, but they center on avoiding the imposition of substantial
additional RFG production costs on the industry without providing
additional environmental benefits over and above those provided by the
relevant average standard, where the purposes of the per-gallon minimum
can also be served by the RFG surveys.
At the time of the 1994 final rule, 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. The final rule did not take
into account extra costs resulting from compliance with the minimum
standards. Such costs, which would likely be sharply higher in Phase
II, could be expected to elevate the price of RFG relative to that of
conventional gasoline and might thus endanger public acceptance of
Phase II RFG.
The NPRM discussed an expanded RFG survey program, along with the
fungibility of the gasoline distribution system, as providing adequate
protection against the kind of geographical and/or temporal unevenness
of distribution of program benefits that the NOX averaging
minimum standards were intended to guard against. The proposal included
an increase of 20 in the initial number of RFG surveys per year before
adjustments have been made for the gallonage of opt-in areas and that
of areas that may have failed surveys in prior years. The effect of
these adjustments, given the current set of opt-in areas and recent
survey failures for oxygen, would be to almost double the initial 20-
survey increase when computing the number of week-long surveys to be
conducted in the course of a year. The resulting increase brings the
total number of surveys in a year to more than 150. The increase in
survey coverage was intended to permit more careful scrutiny of
gasoline quality across the geographical areas covered by the program
(especially the opt-in areas) and to strengthen the ability of the
surveys to deter environmentally harmful uses of the averaging
flexibility, especially in areas supplied by a limited group of
refineries.
[[Page 68198]]
Comments on the Proposal
Industry commenters were almost unanimous in supporting the
proposed elimination of the NOX minimums, citing reasons
that were mostly similar to those given in the proposal. Most
frequently, the argument was that the minimums, especially in Phase II,
would raise the costs of making RFG above the level calculated in the
1994 Regulatory Impact Assessment and do so without securing any
additional environmental benefit. The comments tended to confirm the
conclusions EPA analysts had reached in the course of detailed
interviews with a small number of refiners 3, namely that
refiners would comply with the minimum standards mostly by using a set
of strategies that are not capital-intensive and do not result in
NOX reductions in excess of those required by the average
standard. 4
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ These interviews and the business confidential information
disclosed to EPA in them were discussed at some length in the July
11, 1997 NPRM. See 62 FR 37343.
\4\ Some general examples of the approaches identified in these
interviews as 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The only comments received from a non-industry source came from the
State and Territorial Air Pollution Program Administrators (STAPPA) and
the Association of Local Air Pollution Control Officials (ALAPCO).
These comments generally agree with the appropriateness of eliminating
the NOX minimums, primarily as a way of strengthening the
RFG program by improving its cost-effectiveness. They express the
belief, though, that a strengthened survey program is needed to
substitute for protections that would have been provided by the minimum
standards for NOX. They suggest some specific ways to
strengthen the surveys as discussed below.
Almost all of the comments received recognized the importance of
the RFG survey program in guarding against uneven distribution of
NOX benefits in the absence of the minimum standards. All of
the industry comments that addressed the topic cited the surveys as the
mechanism for providing the needed insurance against uneven
distribution. Commenters disagreed, though, on the question of whether
the currently prescribed survey program is adequate to serve this
purpose in the absence of the NOX minimum standards; the
American Petroleum Institute (API) and one other commenter supported
the proposed increase in the number of surveys, while the National
Petroleum Refiners Association and one other industry commenter
questioned the need for the additional surveys, especially in light of
the increased sampling involved in each survey as a result of the
change to the complex model. Of the latter comments, one suggested that
if the additional surveys were imposed, they should be split evenly
between summer and winter seasons. API's comments took note of the fact
that the RFG final rule did not prescribe summertime NOX
surveys for Phase II of the program and supported the addition of such
surveys, provided that the NOX minimum standards are
eliminated.
STAPPA/ALAPCO's comments on the survey program made a number of
suggestions aimed at strengthening the surveys' ability to take over
the functions that would have been performed by the NOX
minimum standards. They recommend weighted representation of octane
grades 5, concentration of additional surveys in the high
ozone season, and a greater emphasis on smaller, isolated RFG markets
that, on the simple basis of gasoline volume, would tend to be
neglected. They would like for EPA to work closely with stakeholders on
survey questions, and support imposition of a severe penalty (in the
form of a ratcheted standard) where NOX surveys are failed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Careful stratification of the sample for each survey to
accurately represent octane grades as well as station gasoline sales
volume levels within each RFG area is already a feature of the
survey design.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA believes that, without the NOX minimum standards,
the survey program would be key to ensuring that uneven distribution of
gasoline NOX quality did not result in air quality problems.
Since the most important consideration in regulating NOX is
its contribution to the formation of ground-level ozone, the Agency
must be sure that survey coverage during the high ozone season is
sufficiently intense to both deter misuse of averaging and to detect it
if it should occur. To this end, the Agency believes that the increase
in number of surveys proposed in the NPRM is necessary to ensure
adequate coverage of opt-in areas. The suggestion of one commenter that
the additional surveys should be split between summer and winter would,
if implemented, defeat the purpose behind the increase, even though it
would reduce the increase in survey costs brought about by both the
additional surveys and the increase in the size of each survey needed
to meet precision requirements for NOX.6 EPA
agrees with STAPPA/ALAPCO regarding the greater attention that must be
paid to the distribution system when allocating surveys. Isolated
areas, while possibly not large in population, are more vulnerable to
variability in the NOX quality of gasoline shipments and
should receive somewhat disproportionate coverage by the survey
program. The reverse is also true to some extent--because of the
severity and scope of the ratchet provisions, areas that share in a
large fungible supply of gasoline are protected with some redundancy, a
fact that could be used to provide isolated areas with greater
protection when allocating surveys. To summarize regarding the surveys,
in order to make elimination of the minimum standards appropriate, EPA
believes that the survey program must be augmented so it will
adequately perform the function previously performed by the
NOX per-gallon minimums.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ The increase in the sampling requirements of each survey
(and survey series), while substantial in magnitude, is driven by
the heterogeneity of the most important parameters in the
NOX emissions equation--olefins and, especially, sulfur.
This increase, necessary to maintain the precision of the mean
estimates of each 7-day ``snapshot'' of gasoline quality,
nevertheless does not contribute at all to the number of such
``snapshots'' taken of gasoline NOX quality during the
crucial summer months. The adequacy of the survey program to perform
the function originally intended for the NOX minimum
depends entirely on the Agency's ability to spread those individual
survey ``snapshots'' over both the geographical areas covered by the
program and the months of the high ozone season.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The RFG final rule did not provide for summertime NOX
surveys in Phase II of the program on grounds that the per-gallon
minimum standards (established under section 211(c) authority) were
more than adequate to satisfy the requirements of section 211(k) of the
CAA (see 57 FR 7774). With the minimum per-gallon standard for Phase II
summertime eliminated, the surveys become necessary, as pointed out in
API's comments, and will be required as part of today's action. EPA
sees a summertime NOX survey program in Phase II as
necessary to replace the protections that were provided by the
NOX minimum standards.
Summary and conclusions regarding NOX minimum standards
After a careful review of available data on the NOX
quality of gasolines produced under the simple model and study of the
variability of the major causes of high NOX emissions
(sulfur
[[Page 68199]]
and olefins), EPA is convinced that the per-gallon minimums for
NOX would impose severe limitations on refineries' ability
to make flexible use of averaging in production of complex model
gasoline. In consequence, refiners' costs for compliance would exceed
the cost of meeting the average standard. Rather than respond to this
situation with capital investments that might actually further improve
air quality, EPA believes that refiners are more likely to respond with
costly and environmentally unproductive strategies for dealing with
high NOX batches. The added cost for making RFG would be an
unnecessary burden. EPA is thus acting today to eliminate the averaging
per-gallon minimum standards for NOX reduction in both Phase
I and Phase II of the RFG program.
As indicated in the NPRM, EPA believes that the geographical and
temporal distribution objective that was the chief reason for the
NOX minimum standards can be achieved by the RFG survey
program at lower cost to refiners and the public and without
sacrificing air quality. Accordingly, in today's action EPA is
increasing the number of surveys in the initial schedule by 20, as
proposed, and requiring that week-long NOX surveys be
conducted in the summertime in Phase II, as was not previously
required. EPA believes that the intensified survey coverage, if
carefully allocated, coupled with the wide-ranging and costly
consequences of NOX survey failures, will motivate refiners
to avoid actions that could compromise air quality in areas covered by
the RFG program.
This final rule also makes minor changes to other sections of the
regulations to delete references to the NOX per gallon
minimum standards and reflect the additional survey requirements. These
changes affect the following sections: Sec. 80.41(m); Sec. 80.67(e)(4);
Sec. 80.68(c)(3); Secs. 80.68(c)(13)(iv) (H) and (L));
Sec. 80.77(g)(2)(iv)(B); Sec. 80.78(a)(1)(v)(C); and Sec. 80.79(c)(1).
In addition, this final rule modifies Sec. 80.41(m) to clearly indicate
that its provisions apply to failure of either a NOX survey
or failure of a NOX survey series. This change conforms
Sec. 80.41(m) to other provisions of the regulations referring to
survey activity involving NOX, such as: Sec. 80.68(b)(4)(ii)
describing the consequences of failing to carry out an approved survey
program; Sec. 80.68(c)(4)(ii) defining a NOX survey series;
and Sec. 80.68(c)(10) describing the conditions giving rise to failure
of a NOX survey or survey series.
III. Truck Carrier Defenses (Sec. 80.79(c)(3); Sec. 80.2(ss);
Sec. 80.28(g)(1)(iii) and Sec. 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 a
properly conducted quality assurance sampling and testing program
conducted by another party. Carrier is defined at 40 CFR Sec. 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 failed to meet 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 proposed to modify the defense elements under
Sec. 80.79 as they pertain to truck carriers to state that, instead of
sampling and testing, an oversight program by a truck carrier may
consist of a program to monitor compliance with the 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
proposed to add a definition of tank truck carrier to Sec. 80.2.
EPA did not propose 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 requested
comments regarding whether the changes proposed for truck carriers
should also be applied to other types of carriers.
EPA also proposed similar changes to the defense provisions for
truck carriers in the case of violations of the volatility requirements
at Sec. 80.28(g)(1), and violations of the diesel sulfur requirements
at Sec. 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.
EPA received no comments on the proposed modifications to the
defense elements for truck carriers at Secs. 80.28, 80.30, and 80.79,
or the definition of tank truck carrier at Sec. 80.2, and these
provisions are being finalized as proposed.
IV. Closely Integrated Facilities (Sec. 80.91(e))
Section 80.91(e)(1)(i) of the reformulated gasoline regulations
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
[[Page 68200]]
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,
record keeping and reporting). Rather, the provision allows a single
baseline to be set for each facility it represents, and sections
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. 7 Similarly, section 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ 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 proposed to amend the RFG and anti-dumping regulations by
adding section 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. EPA received no comments on
this section and it is being promulgated as proposed.
For facilities that have established baselines, the single baseline
assigned to the closely integrated facilities will be a volume-weighted
average of the individual facility baselines. The refiner should
generate the appropriate baseline data and calculations and submit this
information to EPA for approval. EPA will notify the refiner when the
new closely integrated facilities baseline is approved.
V. Standards Applicable to Refiners and Importers of Conventional
Gasoline (Sec. 80.101)
A. Application of Compliance Baselines Under the Complex Model
(Sec. 80.101(b)(3)(i))
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. 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 refinery baseline to
reflect the excess volume over 1990 levels.
The rationale for using compliance baselines is the same for both
simple and complex model standards. However, under Sec. 80.101(b)
compliance baselines currently 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 proposed requiring use of compliance
baselines under the complex model. No comments were received on this
proposal, and it is being finalized as proposed.
B. Elimination of the Baseline Adjustment by Refiners who also are
Importers (Sec. 80.101(f)(3)) and Inclusion of a Prohibition to Prevent
Import Gaming (Sec. 80.101(j))
Under the anti-dumping program all domestic refineries have
individual baselines, while almost all imported gasoline currently is
subject to the statutory baseline. However, the regulations include a
provision, at Sec. 80.101(f)(3), that 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) is
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
believes the gaming concern can 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.
For these reasons EPA proposed to eliminate the requirement for
refiner/importers to calculate a special baseline for imported
gasoline, and instead to prohibit the form of gaming described above.
EPA received favorable comments on this proposal from three refiners
and the change is being finalized as proposed.
C. Compliance Calculations for Oxygenates and Blendstocks
(Sec. 80.101(g)(3))
The current regulations at Sec. 80.101(g)(3) describe a method for
calculating the emissions performance of a blendstock based on the
difference in emissions performance of a baseline gasoline and of a
hypothetical blend of baseline gasoline and the blendstock. However,
use of this method is limited to refineries that include only
blendstocks in the refinery compliance calculations at a single
facility, and it may not be used for a refinery that includes both
blendstocks and finished gasoline in the refinery compliance
calculations. Similarly, the current regulations do not include a clear
procedure for calculating the emissions performance for oxygenate that
is included in a refinery's compliance calculations under
Sec. 80.101(d)(4). For further discussion see the preamble to the NPRM
at 62 FR 37363-37365 (July 11, 1997).
As a result, EPA proposed to revise Sec. 80.101(g)(3) 8
to be appropriate for
[[Page 68201]]
calculating the exhaust toxics and NOX emissions performance
of all blendstocks, including oxygenates blended downstream of the
refinery. The only comment on this proposal, submitted by a refinery
association and an individual refiner, was that two terms were switched
in one of the proposed equations. EPA agrees with this comment. As a
result, with the exception of the revised equation the provision is
being finalized as proposed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ The July 11, 1997 NPRM proposed to reorganize Sec. 80.101(g)
and move the method for calculating the emissions performance of
blendstocks from Sec. 80.101(g)(3) to Sec. 80.101(g)(5). Today's
final rule modifies the current Sec. 80.101(g)(3), but does not take
final action on the reorganization of Sec. 80.101(g) proposed in the
NPRM. EPA intends to address the proposed reorganization of
Sec. 80.101(g) at the time it takes final action on the remaining
provisions proposed in the NPRM.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Under this revised methodology, a refiner first determines the
volume and properties of each batch of blendstock used. This
determination requires the refiner to sample and test each blendstock
batch, or in the case of oxygenates the normal oxygenate properties are
used. The refiner then determines the blending rate, or volume fraction
(F), of the blendstock.
Next, the refiner calculates the properties of a hypothetical
gasoline that reflects the properties that result if gasoline having
the refinery's ``summer'' or ``winter'' baseline values, as
appropriate, are blended with the blendstock at the blending rate (F)
previously determined. This calculation, which is a volume-weighted
average of the blendstock properties and the gasoline properties,
9 is illustrated by the following example.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ Although certain properties, such as distillation and RVP,
do not blend in an exact linear manner, EPA is promulgating this
approach as a reasonable approximation since there is no other
method to more accurately attribute the emissions effect of such
downstream blending operations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Assume a refiner blends 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 Sec. 80.45(b)(2) the ``summer'' benzene
statutory baseline is 1.53 vol%. The benzene content for the
hypothetical gasoline blend (Bh) is calculated as 1.57 vol%
using the following equation:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR31DE97.007
In the case of the calculated values for sulfur and oxygen, the
specific gravities of the blendstock and gasoline are included in the
calculation. The measured specific gravity of the blendstock is used,
however the regulations specify specific gravity values that must be
used for ``summer'' and ``winter'' gasolines.
The exhaust toxics and NOX emissions performance of the
hypothetical gasoline (HEP), and of a gasoline having the refinery's
baseline values (BEP), are determined using the complex model. Finally,
the refiner calculates the exhaust toxics and NOX emissions
performance of the blendstock portion the hypothetical gasoline blend,
called the ``equivalent emissions performance'' or EEP. The exhaust
toxics and NOX equivalent emissions performance values for
the blendstock, together with the applicable blendstock volume, is
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) is calculated to
be 992.47 mg/mi using the following equation:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR31DE97.008
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 992.47 mg/mi.
It should be noted that certain blendstocks, including oxygenates,
when blended with gasoline may reduce exhaust toxics or NOX
emissions performance under the complex model. In such cases, the
calculated equivalent emissions performance for the given blending
fraction may yield a negative result under this methodology. Consider
for example a hypothetical refiner with summer baseline fuel properties
that provide a baseline for exhaust toxics (BEP) of 39.61 mg/mi under
the complex model. If this refiner blends 6,000 gallons of ethanol into
125,000 gallons of gasoline over one summer month, resulting in a
blendstock volume fraction of 0.046, the hypothetical fuel properties
of that blend then result in exhaust toxics emissions performance (HEP)
of 37.13 mg/mi. Using the equation provided in the regulations, the
calculated equivalent emissions performance for exhaust toxics for this
oxygenate blendstock is -14.3 mg/mi. Thus, this refiner would include a
batch of 6,000 gallons at an exhaust toxics emissions level of -14.3
mg/mi in its compliance calculations.
EPA also is requiring refiners to keep certain records for
blendstocks included in refinery compliance calculations using the
calculation procedures described above. Section 80.104 currently
requires refiners to keep records of the test results for blendstock
batches included in refinery compliance calculations. However, there is
no current record keeping requirement for documents that support the
blendstock volume fraction (F). As a result, EPA is including a new
requirement in Sec. 80.104 that refiners who include blendstock batches
in refinery compliance calculations must keep records that reflect the
volume of blendstocks blended and the volume of gasoline with which the
blendstock is blended, the two terms used to calculate the blendstock
volume fraction. This record keeping requirement was not specifically
included in the proposal, but EPA believes it is a logical outgrowth of
the proposal for calculating the exhaust toxics and NOX
emissions of blendstocks. In the absence of this record keeping
requirement EPA could be unable to verify a refiner has used the proper
blendstock volume fraction to calculate the exhaust toxics and
NOX emissions of blendstocks. Moreover, EPA believes this
requirement normally would be met using documents that already are
created and kept for commercial business purposes, i.e., documents that
show movements of blendstock and gasoline to the blending tank and
volume measurements of the blending tank.
D. Conventional Gasoline Complex Model Valid Range Limit as Standards
(Sec. 80.101(b)(3)) and Emissions Performance Outside the Model Limits
(Sec. 80.101(g)(8))
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.
[[Page 68202]]
The Complex Model standards apply to both reformulated and
conventional gasoline. However, 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.
For this reason EPA proposed the parameter values of conventional
gasoline would have to be within the applicable Complex Model valid
range limits when the gasoline is certified by the refiner or
importer.10
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ Under Sec. 80.91(f)(2), refiners with baseline parameter
values outside the valid range limits are allowed to use in the
complex model parameter values that are somewhat outside the normal
range limits for these parameters.
Today's final rule addresses the issue of complex model valid
range limits for conventional gasoline, but does not address the
valid range limits for RFG. EPA intends to address the proposal
regarding valid range limits for RFG when it takes final action on
the remaining provisions proposed in the NPRM.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Several refiners commented that this would be unduly restrictive,
particularly for a refinery with baseline properties close to or
outside the valid range limits. A refinery's baseline properties
reflect the average for each property for all gasoline produced at that
refinery during 1990. However, a refinery's gasoline quality is not
constant for any particular property, but varies across grades and
during the year because of differences in season, crude oil, refinery
turnarounds, and so on. As a result, if a refinery's 1990 baseline for
a property is close to the valid range limit, it is reasonable to
conclude that some significant percentage of the refinery's gasoline
batches in 1990 had values for the property that were outside the valid
range limit.
EPA has evaluated the proposed use of the valid range limits for
conventional gasoline in light of the anti-dumping requirements for
conventional gasoline under section 211(k)(8) of the Clean Air Act. The
intent of the anti-dumping program is to maintain each refinery's
gasoline quality at 1990 levels, in order to ensure there is no
degradation in the overall quality of the nation's conventional
gasoline. From this perspective each refiner should be allowed to
continue producing the same types of conventional gasoline that were
produced in 1990. However, the proposed imposition of valid range
limits as per-gallon standards would force certain refiners to change
their conventional gasoline quality relative to 1990 gasoline quality,
particularly refiners with baseline parameter values close to the valid
range limits.
As a result, one premise of the anti-dumping program (that refiners
should be allowed to produce conventional gasoline with parameter
values that are the same as for gasoline produced in 1990) conflicts
with the limited ability of the Complex Model to reliably predict
emissions when parameter values are outside the model's range limits.
EPA has decided to resolve this conflict by allowing refiners to
produce individual batches of conventional gasoline with parameter
values that are outside the Complex Model's valid range limits. EPA
also is adopting additional requirements intended to minimize the
volume of gasoline in this category and the risk of adverse
environmental effects.
Thus, today's rule allows refiners to produce conventional gasoline
without any per-batch restriction on parameter values, regardless of
the complex model's valid range limits. This gives refiners and
importers the same flexibility to produce particular batches of
conventional gasoline having widely disparate parameter values as they
had in 1990.
To mitigate the potential to cause harm to the environment from
removing this per-gallon batch restriction, EPA is adding two
additional requirements for conventional gasoline compliance. First, a
limit on annual average parameter values is included. This standard,
which applies for each parameter, is equal to the conventional gasoline
complex model valid range limit or the refinery's baseline values,
whichever is less stringent.11 EPA believes this standard is
appropriate because it is consistent with the refinery's 1990 baseline
value for the parameter, which reflects the refinery's 1990 annual
average for the parameter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ For example, if a refinery's sulfur baseline is 1,050 ppm
the annual average sulfur content of the refinery's conventional
gasoline cannot exceed 1,050 ppm, which is less stringent than the
conventional gasoline valid range limit for sulfur of 1,000 ppm.
However, if a refinery's sulfur baseline is 900 ppm the annual
average limit would be the less stringent valid range limit of 1,000
ppm. Similarly, if a refinery's baseline for E200 is 28% the annual
average E200 of the refinery's conventional gasoline cannot be less
than 28%, which is less stringent than the conventional gasoline
lower valid range limit for E200 of 30%. This is in addition to the
annual average requirement for exhaust toxics and NOX.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Second, where a refiner has parameter test results for conventional
gasoline that are outside the current valid range limits, the
regulations specify whether the exhaust toxics and NOX
emissions performance are calculated using the tested parameter value,
or the valid range limit value. For each parameter, and for each
emissions performance category, EPA has specified that the value which
is most protective of the environment must be used.
For each parameter EPA evaluated whether higher exhaust toxics or
NOX emissions result if the valid range limit is used, or if
a value outside the valid range limit is used. In each case the value
that gives the higher emissions must be used, as specified in a table
included in the regulations at Sec. 80.101(g)(8).12
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ Thus, for example, if a refiner has a tested sulfur value
in excess of the valid range limit of 1,000 ppm, the exhaust toxics
and NOX emissions performance must be calculated under
the Complex Model using the tested sulfur value, because emissions
values increase as sulfur values increase above 1,000 ppm. In
contrast, if a refiner has a tested RVP value of less than the 6.4
psi lower valid range limit, the exhaust toxics and NOX
emissions performance must be calculated using the 6.4 psi valid
range limit, because emissions values decrease as RVP values
decrease below 6.4 psi.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA believes it is appropriate to use the Complex Model to predict
emissions in this manner, even though in certain cases parameter values
outside the valid range limits are used. Based on engineering judgment
it is likely the direction of a parameter's effect on emissions at the
valid range limit continues outside the valid range limit, even though
the magnitude of the effect becomes more speculative as the value moves
away from the range limit.
Thus, for example, the Complex Model reports that both exhaust
toxics and NOX emissions increase as sulfur values increase
from 950 ppm to 1,000 ppm, based on vehicle emissions test data. In
addition, the Complex Model reports that exhaust toxics and
NOX emissions continue to increase as sulfur values increase
above the 1,000 ppm valid range limit. These outside-the-range-limit-
results reflect only an assumption that emissions effects outside the
range limit are similar to emissions results inside the range limit,
and do not reflect vehicle emissions test data for fuels having higher
sulfur values. However, engineering judgment supports the likelihood
that actual exhaust toxics and NOX emissions continue to
increase with sulfur values higher than 1,000 ppm.
The relative lack of confidence in the magnitude of the effect on
emissions of
[[Page 68203]]
parameter values outside the valid range limits justifies use of these
environmentally conservative requirements, i.e., required use of the
parameter value (valid range limit or tested) that results in the
greater emissions. A refiner can avoid this ``worst case'' requirement
by producing conventional gasoline batches with parameter values within
the valid range limits. In addition, the requirement that parameter
limits must be met on an annual average basis, discussed above, will
minimize the number of conventional gasoline batches that have
parameter values outside the valid range limits, and the magnitude of
the excursions for batches that do.
The current regulations include provisions for extending the
conventional gasoline valid range limits for aromatics, olefins or
benzene for certain refiners, at Sec. 90.91(f)(2)(ii). In addition, EPA
proposed to modify Sec. 80.91(f)(2)(ii) to allow extended valid range
limits for sulfur for certain refiners. These provisions apply to
refiners with baseline values for parameter values that are outside the
valid range limits, and allow such refiners to use the Complex Model to
calculate the emissions of gasolines having properties outside the
valid range limits.
However, in light of the changes being promulgated today that allow
parties to calculate exhaust toxics and NOX emissions for
any conventional gasoline batch without constraint of the Complex
Model's valid range limits, the valid range extension provisions at
Sec. 80.91(f)(2)(ii) are unnecessary. As a result, EPA is eliminating
these valid range extension provisions.
In the NPRM, EPA proposed to promulgate the complex Model valid
range limits as standards for both conventional gasoline and RFG under
the authority of Sec. 211(k), but not under Sec. 211(c). EPA believed
that it was not necessary to promulgate the valid range limits as
standards under the authority of Sec. 211(c) since the valid range
limits are standards under the RFG and conventional gasoline
regulations solely for the purpose of ensuring that the Complex Model
will accurately predict emissions, and not for the independent purpose
of achieving emissions reductions from the range limits themselves. EPA
received adverse comment on the proposal to promulgate the valid range
limits only under Sec. 211(k). Since the issue of whether to promulgate
the complex model valid range limits as standards under Sec. 211(c)
relates both conventional gasoline and RFG, EPA is reserving its
decision on this issue until it takes final action on the remainder of
the July 11, 1997 NPRM provisions, including the provisions relating
the valid range limits as standards for RFG. EPA is, therefore, at this
time adopting the above changes regarding the conventional gasoline
Complex Model valid range limits solely under the authority of
Secs. 211(k) and 301.
VI. Environmental and Economic Impacts
The Agency does not expect today's rule to have any adverse impact
on the environment. Many of the revisions finalized today correct
typographical and other minor errors in the final rule. The provisions
relating to use of the Complex Model are the result of a determination
that the existing regulatory requirements may be revised without
detriment to the environment. Economic impacts will be generally
beneficial to affected parties due to the additional flexibility
adopted in today's final rule. In particular, the deletion of the
NOX per-gallon minimum standards for averaged RFG will
relieve industry of a substantial cost burden, while the increased
compliance surveys for NOX will ensure that the full
environmental benefits of the NOX RFG standards are
achieved. The environmental and economic impacts of the RFG and
conventional gasoline programs 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, S.W.,
Washington, D.C. 20460.
VII. Public Participation
EPA solicited comments on the need to take the actions proposed in
the July 11, 1997 NPRM, including the actions finalized today. EPA met
with representatives of the petroleum industry and other interested
parties and considered their concerns and ideas in the development of
this final rule. EPA also reviewed and considered all written comments
on the provisions finalized today. Responses to comments are contained
in the preamble to this final rule. All comments received by EPA are
located in the EPA Air Docket, Docket A-97-03 (See ADDRESSES).
VIII. Regulatory Flexibility
EPA has determined that it is not necessary to prepare a regulatory
flexibility analysis in connection with this final rule. EPA has also
determined that this rule will not have a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities.
Although the revisions to the reformulated and conventional
gasoline regulations contained in today's final rule will affect small
business refiners, importers and gasoline tank truck carriers, EPA has
determined that this final rule will not have an adverse economic
impact on these entities. Several actions taken in today's final rule
will provide increased flexibility for all refiners and importers of
gasoline, including small business refiners and importers. The deletion
of the NOX per-gallon minimum standards, in particular, will
provide refiners and importers with greater flexibility to comply with
the RFG regulations without compromising the environmental effect of
the RFG program. In addition, this action eliminates the requirement
for refiners of conventional gasoline who also import gasoline to
calculate a special baseline for their imported product, and aids
refiners and importers by allowing them to use a more flexible way of
demonstrating compliance with the anti-dumping standards under the
Complex Model. This action also provides additional affirmative
defenses for truck carriers of motor vehicle fuel.
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 the reformulated gasoline and anti-dumping regulations
on small business entities. The RFA is in the docket for that
rulemaking: EPA Air Docket A-92-2.
IX. Submission to Congress and the General Accounting Office
Under 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A) as added by the Small Business
Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, EPA submitted a report
containing this rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate,
the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the
General Accounting Office prior to publication of the rule in today's
Federal Register. This rule is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5
U.S.C. 804(2).
X. 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
[[Page 68204]]
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 terms of the Executive Order 12866, and is therefore not
subject to OMB review.
XI. Paperwork Reduction Act
The information collection requirements proposed in the July 11,
1997 NPRM, including the provisions finalized today, have been
submitted for approval to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et
seq. An Information Collection Request (ICR) was 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. (mail code 2137); Washington, DC 20460, or by
calling (202) 260-2740. Include the ICR and/or OMB number in any
correspondence.
Most of the provisions finalized today make minor adjustments to
the regulations and provide refiners and importers of gasoline with
additional flexibility to comply with the regulations. Most of these
changes will not result in any additional reporting, record keeping, or
testing burdens. EPA is requiring refiners to keep certain records
associated with revisions to the provisions for calculating the
emissions performance of gasoline blendstocks. EPA, however, believes
that this requirement normally will be met using documents that already
are created and kept for commercial business purposes, i.e., documents
that show movements of blendstock and gasoline to the blending tank and
volume measurements of the blending tank. This requirement, therefore,
is not expected to impose additional record keeping burdens on
regulated parties.
This action also eliminates the per-gallon NOX minimum
standards for Complex Model averaged RFG, and increases the initial
number of compliance surveys required beginning in 1998 and thereafter
from 50 to 70. EPA is eliminating 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 II). 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, will achieve a similar level of assurance of even
distribution of NOX benefits.
The actual number of surveys required to be conducted by industry
is based on the initial number of required surveys adjusted to take
into account areas that opt into the RFG program and any additional
surveys required as a result of any survey ratchets. EPA estimates that
the incremental cost burden of the additional 20 surveys will be
roughly $1,100,000 industry-wide (20 additional surveys at
approximately $55,000 each). With adjustments for opt-in and ratcheted
areas, EPA estimates that the increase in the total number of surveys
required in 1998 due to the regulatory change finalized today will be
39, at a cost of approximately $2,145,000 industry-wide, or about
$14,300 per RFG refiner or importer ($2,145,000 150 refiners/
importers). The increased cost burden due to the additional survey
requirements, however, will 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.
Send comments 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., S.W.; Washington, DC 20460; and to
the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management
and Budget, 725 17th St., N.W., Washington, DC 20503, marked
``Attention: Desk Officer for EPA.'' Comments are requested by January
30, 1998. Include the ICR number in any correspondence.
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.
XII. 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 aggregate;
or by the private section, of $100 million or more. Under Sec. 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 effect of reducing burdens
of the reformulated gasoline and anti-dumping programs on regulated
entities. Therefore, the requirements of the Unfunded Mandates Act do
not apply to this action.
XIII. Statutory Authority
The statutory authority for the actions adopted 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 Subjects in 40 CFR Part 80
Environmental Protection, Air pollution control, Gasoline, Motor
vehicle pollution.
[[Page 68205]]
Dated: December 23, 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 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 revising paragraph (ss) to read as
follows:
Sec. 80.2 Definitions.
* * * * *
(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 80.28 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.
* * * * *
4. 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
* * * * *
5. Section 80.41 is amended by revising the introductory text and
tables in paragraphs (d) and (f) and paragraph (m) 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................................. 36.6
Per-Gallon Minimum....................... 32.6
Gasoline designated for VOC-Control Region 2:
Standard................................. 17.1
Per-Gallon Minimum....................... 13.1
Toxics air pollutants emissions performance 16.5
reduction (percent).
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
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................................. 29.0
Per-Gallon Minimum....................... 25.0
Gasoline designated for VOC-Control Region 2:
Standard................................. 27.4
Per-Gallon Minimum....................... 23.4
Toxics air pollutants emissions performance 21.5
reduction (percent).
NOX emissions performance reduction (percent):
Gasoline designated as VOC-Controlled........ 6.8
Gasoline not designated as VOC-Controlled.... 1.5
[[Page 68206]]
Oxygen content (percent, by weight):
Standard..................................... 2.1
Per-Gallon Minimum........................... 1.5
Benzene (percent, by volume):
Standard..................................... 0.95
Per-Gallon Minimum........................... 1.30
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
(m) Effect of NOX survey or survey series failure.
(1) On each occasion that a covered area fails a NOX
emissions reduction survey or survey series conducted pursuant to
Sec. 80.68, the required average NOX emissions reductions
for that covered area beginning in the year following the failure shall
be increased in stringency by an additional 1.0%.
(2) In the event that a covered area for which required
NOX emissions reductions have been made more stringent
passes all NOX emissions reduction surveys and survey series
in two consecutive years, the required average NOX emissions
reductions for that covered area beginning in the year following the
second year of passed surveys and survey series shall be decreased in
stringency by 1.0%.
(3) In the event that a covered area for which the required
NOX emissions reductions have been made less stringent fails
a subsequent NOX emissions reduction survey or survey
series:
(i) The required average NOX emission reductions for
that covered area beginning in the year following this subsequent
failure shall be increased in stringency by 1.0%; and
(ii) The required NOX emission reductions for that
covered area thereafter shall not be made less stringent regardless of
the results of subsequent NOX emissions reduction surveys or
survey series.
* * * * *
6. Section 80.45 is amended by revising paragraphs (c)(1)(iv)(B),
(c)(1)(iv)(D)(12), (c)(1)(iv)(D)(13); (d)(1)(iv)(B); and (f)(1)(ii) to
read as follows:
Sec. 80.45 Complex emissions model.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(1) * * *
(iv) * * *
(B) For fuels with E200, E300 and/or ARO levels outside the ranges
defined in Table 6, YVOC(t) shall be defined:
(1) 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(v1(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{time}
+ {[(-0.00029 x E3002et) + 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}]}
+ Sec. 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}]}
* * * * *
(D) * * *
(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). If the
E300 level of the target fuel is greater than 95 volume percent and
(79.75 + (0.385 x ARO)) also is greater than 94, then ``E300 shall be
set equal to 1 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}
+{[(-0.000238 x AROet) + 0.0083632] x ARO}
+{[(0.000733 x OLEet) -0.002774] x OLE}]}
+{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{]}
(2) For Phase II:
* * * * *
(f) * * *
(1) * * *
(ii) For conventional gasoline:
Fuel property................ Acceptable range
Oxygen....................... 0.00-4.0 weight percent.
Sulfur....................... 0.0-1000.0 parts per million by weight.
RVP.......................... 6.4-11.0 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...................... 0.0-30.0 volume percent.
Benzene...................... 0.0-4.9 volume percent.
[[Page 68207]]
* * * * *
7. In Sec. 80.67, paragraph (e)(4) is removed.
8. Section 80.68 is amended by revising paragraphs (b)(1)(iv),
(c)(3), and (c)(13)(v) (H) and (L) to read as follows:
Sec. 80.68 Compliance Surveys.
* * * * *
(b)* * *
(1)* * *
(iv) 70 surveys shall be conducted in 1998 and thereafter.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(3) A VOC survey and a NOX survey shall consist of any
survey conducted during the period June 1 through September 15.
* * * * *
(13) * * *
(v) * * *
(H) The results of the analyses of complex model samples for
oxygenate type and oxygen weight percent, benzene, aromatic
hydrocarbon, and olefin content, E-200, E-300, and RVP, the calculated
NOX and toxics emissions reduction percentage, and for each
survey conducted during the period June 1 through September 15, the
calculated VOC emissions reduction percentage;
* * * * *
(L) The average toxics emissions reduction percentage for simple
model samples and the percentage for complex model samples, the average
benzene and oxygen percentages, and for each survey conducted during
the period June 1 through September 15, the average VOC emissions
reduction percentage for simple model samples and the percentage for
complex model samples, and the average NOX emissions
reduction percentage for all complex model samples;
* * * * *
9. Section 80.77 is amended by revising paragraph (g)(2)(iv)(B) to
read as follows:
Sec. 80.77 Product transfer documentation.
* * * * *
(g) * * *
(2) * * *
(iv) * * *
(B) Beginning on January 1, 1998, for VOC-controlled gasoline, the
VOC emissions performance minimum; and
* * * * *
10. Section 80.78 is amended by revising paragraph (a)(1)(v)(C) to
read as follows:
Sec. 80.78 Controls and prohibitions on reformulated gasoline.
(a) * * *
(1) * * *
(v) * * *
(C) Unless each gallon of such gasoline that is subject to complex
model standards has a VOC emissions reduction percentage which is
greater than or equal to the applicable minimum specified in
Sec. 80.41.
* * * * *
11. Section 80.79 is amended by revising paragraph (c) introductory
text and paragraph (c)(1); and by adding paragraph (c)(3) to read as
follows:
Sec. 80.79 Liability for violations of the prohibited activities.
* * * * *
(c) Quality assurance program. In order to demonstrate an
acceptable quality assurance program for reformulated gasoline at all
points in the gasoline distribution network, other than at retail
outlets and wholesale purchaser-consumer facilities, a party must
present evidence of the following.
(1) Of a periodic sampling and testing program to determine if the
applicable maximum and/or minimum standards for oxygen, benzene, RVP,
or VOC emission performance are met.
* * * * *
(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.
12. Section 80.91 is amended by revising paragraph (e)(1)(iii) and
adding paragraph (f)(2)(ii) to read as follows:
Sec. 80.91 Individual baseline determination.
* * * * *
(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)(i):
(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) [reserved]
* * * * *
13. Section 80.101 is amended by:
a. Revising paragraph (b)(3);
b. Revising paragraphs (f)(3) and (f)(4);
c. Revising paragraph (g)(3) and adding (g)(8); and
d. Adding paragraph (j).
Sec. 80.101 Standards applicable to refiners and importers.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(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 and NOX emissions, respectively.
(ii) Annual average levels of RVP, benzene, aromatics, olefins,
sulfur, E200 and E300 shall not be greater than the conventional
gasoline complex model valid range limits for the parameter under
Sec. 80.45(f)(1)(ii), or the refiner or importer's annual 1990 baseline
for the parameter if outside the valid range limit, whichever is
greater.
* * * * *
(f) Compliance baseline determination.
* * * * *
(3) [Reserved]
(4) Any compliance baseline under paragraph (f)(1) of this section
shall be adjusted for each averaging period as follows:
* * * * *
(g) Compliance calculations.
* * * * *
(3) Exhaust toxics and NOX emissions performance of a
blendstock batch shall be determined as follows:
(i) Determine the volume and properties of the blendstock.
(ii) 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] TR31DE97.009
Where:
F=blendstock volume fraction
Vb=volume of blendstock
[[Page 68208]]
Vg=volume of gasoline with which the blendstock is blended.
(iii) 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] TR31DE97.010
Where:
CPj=calculated value for parameter j
BAPj=baseline value for parameter j
BLPj=value of parameter j for the blendstock or oxygenate
j=each parameter required by the complex model
(A) 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 paragraphs
(g)(5) or (g)(6) 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.
(B) The sulfur content and oxygen wt% computations under paragraph
(g)(3)(iii) of this section shall be adjusted for the specific gravity
of the gasoline and blendstock using specific gravities of 0.749 for
``summer'' gasoline and of 0.738 for ``winter'' gasoline.
(C) In the case of ``summer'' gasoline, where the blendstock is
ethanol and the volume fraction calculated under paragraph (g)(3)(ii)
is equal to or greater than 0.015, the value for RVP calculated under
paragraph (g)(3)(iii) of this section shall be 1.0 psi greater than the
RVP of the gasoline with which the blendstock is blended.
(iv) Using the summer or winter complex model, as appropriate,
calculate the exhaust toxics and NOX emissions performance,
in mg/mi, of:
(A) A hypothetical gasoline having properties equal to those
calculated in paragraph (g)(3)(iii) of this section (HEP); and
(B) A gasoline having properties equal to the refinery's or
importer's baseline (BEP).
(v) Calculate the exhaust toxics and NOX equivalent
emissions performance (EEP) of the blendstock, in mg/mi, using the
following equation:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR31DE97.011
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
(vi) For each blendstock batch, the volume, and exhaust toxics and
NOX equivalent emissions performance (EEP) shall be included
in the refinery's compliance calculations.
* * * * *
(8) Emissions performance of conventional gasoline with parameters
outside the complex model valid range limits. Notwithstanding the
provisions of Sec. 80.45(f)(2), in the case of any parameter value that
does not fall within the complex model range limit in
Sec. 80.45(f)(1)(ii), the refiner or importer shall determine the
emissions performance of the batch using the following parameter
values:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Parameter value to use for calculating
Parameter outside the range limit -----------------------------------------------------------------------
Exhaust toxics NOX
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sulfur.................................. Test value\1\........................ Test value.\1\
RVP (summer only):
< 6.4="" psi...........................="" 6.4="" psi..............................="" 6.4="" psi.=""> 11.0 psi.......................... Test value\1\........................ Test value.\1\
Aromatics............................... Test value\1\........................ Test value.\1\
Olefins................................. Test value\1\........................ Test value.\1\
Benzene................................. Test value\1\........................ Test value.\1\
E200:
< 30%...............................="" test="" value\1\........................="" 30%=""> 70%............................... 70%.................................. Test value.\1\
E300 < 70%..............................="" test="" value\1\........................="" test="" value.\1\="" ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------="" \1\="" test="" value="" is="" the="" value="" for="" a="" parameter="" determined="" pursuant="" to="" paragraph="" 80.101(i)(1)(i)="" of="" this="" section.="" *="" *="" *="" *="" *="" (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.="" 12.="" section="" 80.104="" is="" amended="" by="" adding="" paragraph="" (a)(2)(xi)="" to="" read="" as="" follows:="" sec.="" 80.104="" recordkeeping="" requirements.="" *="" *="" *="" *="" *="" (a)="" *="" *="" *="" (2)="" *="" *="" *="" (xi)="" in="" the="" case="" of="" blendstocks="" that="" are="" included="" in="" refinery="" compliance="" calculations="" using="" the="" procedures="" under="" sec.="" 80.101(g)(3),="" documents="" that="" reflect="" the="" volume="" of="" blendstock="" and="" the="" volume="" of="" gasoline="" with="" which="" the="" blendstock="" is="" blended.="" *="" *="" *="" *="" *="" [fr="" doc.="" 97-34097="" filed="" 12-30-97;="" 8:45="" am]="" billing="" code="" 6560-50-p="">