Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 147 / Thursday, July 31, 1997 / Notices 41047

1Letter dated January 16, 1997 from Frank C.

Lenski, President, RFG Survey Association, to

Charles Freed, Director, Fuels and Energy Division,

EPA.

2Letter dated January 31, 1997 from Charles

Freed, EPA, to Frank Lenski, RFG Survey

Association. Also see Memorandum dated April 29,

1997 from Stuart Romanow, Mechanical Engineer,

Fuels and Energy Division to Charles Freed.

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.

Respondents/Affected Entities:

Industrial plants, State and Local

permitting agencies.

Estimated Number of Respondents:

(114,820).

Frequency of Response: (1 per

respondent).

Estimated Total Annual Hour Burden:

(4,715, 260) hours.

Estimated Total Annualized Cost

Burden: $(0).

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 to the following addresses.

Please refer to EPA ICR No.1230.09

and OMB Control No. 2060–0003 in any

correspondence.

Ms. Sandy Farmer, U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency, OPPE Regulatory

Information Division (2137), 401 M

Street, SW., Washington, DC 20460

and

Office of Information and Regulatory

Affairs, Office of Management and

Budget, Attention: Desk Officer for

EPA, 725 17th Street, NW.,

Washington, DC 20503

Dated: July 25, 1997.

Joseph Retzer, Director,

Regulatory Information Division.

[FR Doc. 97–20176 Filed 7–30–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE: 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

[FRL–5867–1]

Change in Minimum Oxygen Content

Requirement for Reformulated

Gasoline

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency.

ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: EPA’s reformulated gasoline

(RFG) program contains various

standards for RFG, including an oxygen

content standard. The current per-gallon

minimum standard for oxygen content

in RFG is 1.5% by weight. Pursuant to

the RFG regulations, EPA is increasing

this standard to 1.6% by weight for

several of the RFG covered areas,

because those areas failed a series of

compliance surveys for oxygen content

in 1996. This notice announces the

increased standard, and describes the

covered areas and parties that are

subject to the increased standard. The

increased standard will help ensure that

all covered areas receive the full benefit

of the oxygen content requirement in

the RFG program.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Stuart Romanow, Fuels and Energy

Division, Office of Mobile Sources,

Environmental Protection Agency,

Washington DC (6406J) 202–233–9296.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Regulatory Entities

Regulatory categories and entities

potentially affected by this action

include:

Category Examples of affected

entities

Industry ...................... Refiners, importers,

oxygenate blenders

of reformulated

gasoline.

This table is not intended to be

exhaustive, but rather provides a guide

for readers regarding entities likely to be

affected by this action. This table lists

the types of entities that EPA is now

aware could be potentially affected by

this action. Other types of entities not

listed in the table could also be affected.

To determine whether your entity is

affected by this action, you should

carefully examine the existing

provisions at 40 CFR 80.41. If you have

questions regarding the applicability of

this action to a particular entity, consult

the person listed in the preceding FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

II. Background

Section 211(k) of the Clean Air Act

requires that EPA establish standards for

reformulated gasoline ( RFG) to be used

in specified ozone nonattainment areas

(covered areas). The RFG requirements

contain performance standards for

reductions of emissions from motor

vehicles of ozone forming volatile

organic compounds and toxic

pollutants.

Standards for RFG are contained in 40

CFR 80.41. Refiners and other parties

subject to the standards can choose to

comply on either a per-gallon basis or to

comply on average. The standards for

compliance on average (‘‘averaged

standards’’) are numerically more

stringent than the per-gallon standards.

The averaged standards for RFG that

apply in 1996 are contained in

§ 80.41(b). These averaged standards

include a per-gallon minimum

requirement of 1.5 weight percent

oxygen. This per-gallon minimum

requirement is in addition to the

requirement for 2.1 weight percent

oxygen, on average. The average

standard for oxygen must be met by a

refiner or oxygenate blender for all of

the RFG it produced at a refinery or

blending facility, or for RFG imported

by an importer, but these parties are not

required to meet this standard for the

RFG supplied to each covered area

separately.

Any refiner, importer or oxygenate

blender has the option of meeting the

RFG standards on average or per gallon.

If a party is subject to the averaged

standards, then the requirement to

conduct surveys, as specified in § 80.68,

must be satisfied. In these surveys, RFG

samples are collected at retail gasoline

stations within covered areas and

analyzed to determine if the RFG

supplied to each covered area meets

certain survey pass/fail criteria specified

in § 80.68. An oxygen survey series

failure occurs in a covered area if the

annual average oxygen content for all of

the samples is less than 2.00 weight

percent. The purpose of the surveys and

the tightened standards which result if

a survey is failed is to ensure that

averaging over a refiner’s entire

production as compared to separate

averaging for each covered area does not

lead to the reduced quality of RFG in

any covered area.

Since the implementation of the RFG

program in 1995, these surveys have

been conducted by the RFG Survey

Association, a not-for-profit association

of refiners, importers and blenders,

using an EPA-approved survey design

plan as required in the regulations. By

letter dated January 16, 1997, the RFG

Survey Association reported to EPA the

results of its surveys for 1996, indicating

that several survey areas failed to meet

the annual average requirements of

2.00% oxygen by weight.1 After

reviewing the data EPA determined that

8 areas did fail the survey series for

oxygen content.2

The following covered areas failed the

oxygen survey series:

1. Philadelphia-Wilmington-Trenton

area [§ 80.70(e)]

2. Baltimore, MD area [§ 80.70(g)]
41048 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 147 / Thursday, July 31, 1997 / Notices

3. Houston-Galveston-Brazoria, TX area

[§ 80.70(h)]

4. The Atlantic City, NJ area comprised

of [§ 80.70(j)(9):]

Atlantic County

Cape May County

5. The Dallas-Fort Worth, TX area

comprised of [§ 80.70(j)(13):]

Collin County

Dallas County

Denton County

Tarrant County

6. Norfolk-Virginia Beach-Newport

News (Hampton Roads), VA area

comprised of [§ 80.70(j)(14):]

Chesapeake

Hampton

James City County

Newport News

Norfolk

Poquoson

Portsmouth

Suffolk

Virginia Beach

Williamsburg

York County

7. Richmond, VA area comprised of

[§ 80.70(j)(14):]

Charles City County

Chesterfield County

Colonial Heights

Hanover County

Henrico County

Hopewell

Richmond

8. Washington D.C. area comprised of

[§ 80.70(j)(2),(j)(6),(j)(14):]

The District of Columbia

Calvert County, MD

Charles County, MD

Frederick County, MD

Montgomery County, MD

Prince Georges County, MD

Alexandria, VA

Arlington County, VA

Fairfax, VA

Fairfax County, VA

Falls Church, VA

Loudon County, VA

Manassas, VA

Manassas Park, VA

Prince William County, VA

Stafford County, VA

The boundaries of the covered areas

are described in detail in § 80.70.

Under § 80.41(o), when a covered area

fails an oxygen content survey series,

the minimum oxygen content

requirement for that covered area is

made more stringent by increasing the

per gallon minimum oxygen content

standard for affected RFG subject to the

averaging standard by 0.1% . This more

stringent requirement applies beginning

the year following the year of the

failure. Therefore, in this case, the

minimum per gallon oxygen content

requirement for the above covered areas

is increased from 1.5% to 1.6% by

weight.

The criteria identifying the refineries,

importers and oxygenate blenders

subject to adjusted standards are stated

in § 80.41(q). In general, adjusted

standards apply to RFG that is subject

to an averaging standard (‘‘averaged

RFG’’) that is produced at a refinery or

oxygenate blending facility if any

averaged RFG from that refinery or

facility supplied a failed covered area

during 1996, or supplies the covered

area during any year that the more

stringent standards are in effect. The

regulation provides for an exception

based on certain volume limits [see 40

CFR § 80.41(q)(1)(iii).]

Thus, if a refiner has elected for a

refinery to be subject to the average

oxygen standard, and if even a small

portion of the RFG produced at the

refinery is used in an area subject to an

oxygen ratchet, the entire volume of

RFG produced at the refinery is subject

to the more stringent oxygen standard

regardless of which area receives the

RFG. This result is true regardless of

whether the refinery’s gasoline was

supplied to the city in question during

1996 or during a year when the more

stringent oxygen standard applies.

Under § 80.41(q)(2), the applicability

of adjusted standards to imported

averaged RFG is specified by the

Petroleum Administration for Defense

District (PADD) in which the covered

area is located and the PADD where the

gasoline is imported. The covered areas

that had oxygen survey series failures

are located in PADDs I and III.

Therefore, all RFG imported at facilities

located in PADDs I, II, III or IV is subject

to the adjusted oxygen standard. The

states included in each PADD are

identified in § 80.41(r). In addition, if

any RFG imported into any other PADD

supplies any of the covered areas with

oxygen survey failures, the adjusted

standard applies to that RFG, as well.

Under § 80.41(q)(3), any gasoline that

is transported in a fungible manner by

a pipeline, barge or vessel is considered

to have supplied each covered area that

is supplied with any gasoline by that

pipeline, barge or vessel shipment

unless the refiner or importer is able to

establish that the gasoline it produced

or imported was supplied only to a

smaller number of covered areas.

Consider, for example, gasoline

transported on the Colonial Pipeline,

which supplies RFG to several cities

that failed the oxygen survey in 1996. If

a refinery’s RFG was transported by the

Colonial Pipeline any time during 1996,

or any time during any year when the

more stringent oxygen standard applies,

the more stringent oxygen standard

applies to all RFG produced at the

refinery regardless of the market. In

addition, there is a presumption that,

due to fungible mixing, each refinery’s

RFG that is transported by the Colonial

Pipeline is in part supplied to each city

supplied by the Colonial Pipeline. This

presumption is rebuttable, but the

rebuttal normally would require a

refiner to have transported its RFG in a

non-fungible manner. Thus, the more

stringent standard applies to a refinery

whose gasoline is transported on the

Colonial Pipeline regardless of whether

the refiner takes delivery of RFG in the

specific cities that failed the oxygen

survey.

The adjusted oxygen standard applies

to all averaged RFG produced by a

refinery or imported by an importer

identified in § 80.41(q). In accordance

with § 80.41(p), the effective date of this

change is October 29, 1997.

Thus, under § 80.41(p) the more

stringent oxygen standard applies at all

points of the distribution system

beginning on October 29, 1997,

including terminals supplying the

affected covered areas and retail outlets

in the covered areas. If a downstream

facility fails to meet the new standard

by October 29, 1997, the party who

operates the facility would be in

violation, as well as each upstream

party who supplied that facility. An

upstream party who failed to supply

RFG meeting the new oxygen standard

sufficiently in advance of October 29,

1997 will have caused the violation.

As a result, EPA believes that refiners,

importers and oxygenate blenders must

begin producing or importing RFG

meeting the new oxygen standard

sufficiently in advance of October 29,

1997 to ensure all downstream parties

have time to transition storage tanks to

meet the new standard.

However, EPA believes it may be

difficult for all regulated parties to

transition to the new oxygen standard

by October 29, 1997. As a result, EPA

intends to enforce the new oxygen

standard in a manner that gives parties

additional time. Refiners, importers, and

oxygenate blenders will be required to

meet the new oxygen standard

beginning September 29, 1997. EPA

believes this revised date for refinerylevel compliance reflects a later date

than would be necessary if all parties

had to comply by October 29, 1997. In

the case of parties other than refiners,

importers, oxygenate blenders, retailers

and wholesale purchaser-consumers,

(e.g., pipelines and terminals supplying

gasoline to affected covered areas) EPA

will enforce the new oxygen standard
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 147 / Thursday, July 31, 1997 / Notices 41049

3This supersedes the downstream enforcement

timing discussed in ‘‘RFG/Anti-Dumping Questions

and Answers, November 12, 1996’’.

beginning November 28, 19973. In the

case of retail outlets and wholesale

purchaser-consumer facilities located in

the affected covered areas EPA will

enforce the new oxygen standard

beginning December 29, 1997. EPA

intends to initiate a rulemaking to revise

§ 80.41(p) to reflect the need for

additional downstream transition time

when a standard is changed.

Mary D. Nichols,

Assistant Administrator for Air and

Radiation.

Sylvia K. Lowrance,

Assistant Administrator for Enforcement and

Compliance Assurance.

[FR Doc. 97–20220 Filed 7–30–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

[FRL–5866–5]

Safe Drinking Water Act State Primary

Enforcement Program Revision

Approval: New York State

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of final action.

SUMMARY: This Notice announces EPA’s

approval of a state primary enforcement

program revision application from New

York State to include the Surface Water

Treatment Rule.

DATES: EPA’s approval is effective June

3, 1997, except as noted below.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Copies of EPA’s final determination and

response to comments are available for

public distribution by writing to USEPA

Region II, Division of Environmental

Planning and Protection, 290 Broadway,

28th Floor, New York, New York,

10007–1866, ATTN: NYC Watershed

Team or by calling (212) 637–3519.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On June

29, 1989, EPA promulgated the Surface

Water Treatment Rule (SWTR), 40 CFR

part 141, subpart H under authority of

the Safe Drinking Water Act. As

prescribed under 40 CFR 142.12,

Revision of State Program, states with

primary enforcement responsibility

(primacy) for the Safe Drinking Water

Act (SDWA) must adopt all new and

revised national primary drinking water

regulations (NPDWRs). States must

submit primacy program revision

application packages to EPA regions for

approval of the program revision. The

package must sufficiently demonstrate

that the state’s revised regulations are

no less stringent than the federal

regulations and that they are enforceable

by the state. If the application meets the

requirements of 40 CFR 142.12, it is to

be approved by EPA.

On March 11, 1992, the New York

State Department of Health (NYSDOH)

promulgated its own surface water

treatment regulations as part of the State

Sanitary Code and, thereafter, applied to

EPA for primacy program revision to

include these regulations. EPA reviewed

the NYSDOH’s request to revise its

Public Water System Supervision

Primacy Program regulations. Based on

this review EPA found that the

regulations, when compared to the

federal SWTR regulations (40 CFR part

141, subpart H), met the standards for

approval of primacy program revision

set out in 40 CFR part 142, subpart B.

The NYSDOH was notified of EPA’s

initial determination to approve its

application in a letter dated July 22,

1993.

In accordance with 40 CFR 142.13 a

notice of EPA’s initial decision to

approve NYSDOH’s application was

published in the Federal Register on

July 30, 1993 and in several newspapers

of general circulation throughout the

State shortly thereafter. The Notices

included an opportunity to request a

public hearing. A public hearing was

requested by The Coalition of

Watershed Towns and Putnam County

within the allowed 30 day request

period. Accordingly, EPA held a public

hearing on December 7, 1993. EPA

received written and oral comments at

the hearing and thereafter. Subsequent

to the public hearing, EPA must either

affirm or rescind its initial

determination by order pursuant to 40

CFR 142.13(f).

A final decision was delayed due to

challenges to New York City’s proposed

promulgation of revised watershed

regulations and critical watershed

protection programs set forth in EPA’s

1993 Filtration Avoidance

Determination (FAD) for New York

City’s Catskill/Delaware water supply

system. This led to negotiations between

EPA, New York City, New York State,

the Coalition of Watershed Towns,

several counties and environmental

groups over the next two years, causing

further delays. The negotiations resulted

in the New York City Watershed

Memorandum of Agreement (MOA),

executed January 21, 1997.

As part of the New York City

Watershed Memorandum of Agreement

(MOA) signed on January 21, 1997, the

State and EPA agreed that EPA will

retain SWTR primacy for New York

City’s Catskill/Delaware water supply

system until May 15, 2007. Therefore,

EPA’s approval of the State’s

application for SWTR primacy with

respect to this system will become

effective on May 15, 2007. The reason

for EPA retaining primacy during this

period is to provide the appropriate

oversight of New York City’s

implementation of the conditions of a

Filtration Avoidance Determination

which EPA issued on May 6, 1997. This

period will allow EPA to continue its

work with the City to ensure the City

meets the conditions of EPA’s Filtration

Avoidance Determination. It will also

allow time for NYSDOH to strengthen

its oversight program for New York

City’s Catskill/Delaware system. As

provided in the Watershed MOA, during

this period of EPA retained primacy,

EPA and the NYSDOH will work jointly

and cooperatively with respect to

decisions concerning enforcement of the

SWTR as it applies to the Catskill/

Delaware system.

Dated: July 14, 1997.

Jeanne M. Fox,

Regional Administrator.

[FR Doc. 97–20175 Filed 7–30–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

FEDERAL EMERGENCY

MANAGEMENT AGENCY

[FEMA–1181–DR]

Michigan; Amendment to Notice of a

Major Disaster Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency

Management Agency (FEMA).

ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice

of a major disaster for the State of

Michigan, (FEMA–1181-DR), dated July

11, 1997, and related determinations.

EFFECTIVE DATE: July 22, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Magda Ruiz, Response and Recovery

Directorate, Federal Emergency

Management Agency, Washington, DC

20472, (202) 646–3260.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The notice

of a major disaster for the State of

Michigan, is hereby amended to include

the following areas among those areas

determined to have been adversely

affected by the catastrophe declared a

major disaster by the President in his

declaration of July 11, 1997:

Genesee County for Individual Assistance.