[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 NO<INF>X</INF> 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 NO<INF>X</INF> 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. NO<INF>X</INF> 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 NO<INF>X</INF> Per-Gallon Minimum Standards 
(Sec. 80.41(d) <SUP>1</SUP> and (f); Sec. 80.68(b)(1)(iv))
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ In addition to deleting the NO<INF>X</INF> per-gallon 
minimum standards for averaged RFG in the chart in Sec. 80.41(d), 
this rule revises the chart to replace ``<ls-thn-eq>32.6'' for VOC-
Control Region 1 per-gallon minimum reduction with 
``<gr-thn-eq>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 
NO<INF>X</INF> reductions and associated minimum per-gallon standards 
<SUP>2</SUP> 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 
NO<INF>X</INF> emissions at baseline levels, while the Phase II 
standards (applicable beginning in 2000) added a more stringent 
standard for summertime NO<INF>X</INF> 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 
NO<INF>X</INF> 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 NO<INF>X</INF> 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 
NO<INF>X</INF> 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 NO<INF>X</INF> 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 NO<INF>X</INF> 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 <SUP>3</SUP>, 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 
NO<INF>X</INF> reductions in excess of those required by the average 
standard. <SUP>4</SUP>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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 
NO<INF>X</INF> 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 NO<INF>X</INF> 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 NO<INF>X</INF> 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 NO<INF>X</INF>. 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 
NO<INF>X</INF> 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 NO<INF>X</INF> 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 NO<INF>X</INF> 
surveys for Phase II of the program and supported the addition of such 
surveys, provided that the NO<INF>X</INF> 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 NO<INF>X</INF> 
minimum standards. They recommend weighted representation of octane 
grades <SUP>5</SUP>, 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 NO<INF>X</INF> 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 NO<INF>X</INF> minimum standards, 
the survey program would be key to ensuring that uneven distribution of 
gasoline NO<INF>X</INF> quality did not result in air quality problems. 
Since the most important consideration in regulating NO<INF>X</INF> 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 NO<INF>X</INF>.<SUP>6</SUP> 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 NO<INF>X</INF> 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 
NO<INF>X</INF> 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 
NO<INF>X</INF> 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 NO<INF>X</INF> quality during the 
crucial summer months. The adequacy of the survey program to perform 
the function originally intended for the NO<INF>X</INF> 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 NO<INF>X</INF> 
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 NO<INF>X</INF> survey program in Phase II as 
necessary to replace the protections that were provided by the 
NO<INF>X</INF> minimum standards.

Summary and conclusions regarding NO<INF>X</INF> minimum standards

    After a careful review of available data on the NO<INF>X</INF> 
quality of gasolines produced under the simple model and study of the 
variability of the major causes of high NO<INF>X</INF> emissions 
(sulfur

[[Page 68199]]

and olefins), EPA is convinced that the per-gallon minimums for 
NO<INF>X</INF> 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 NO<INF>X</INF> 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 NO<INF>X</INF> 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 
NO<INF>X</INF> 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 NO<INF>X</INF> 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 NO<INF>X</INF> 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 NO<INF>X</INF> 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 NO<INF>X</INF> survey 
or failure of a NO<INF>X</INF> survey series. This change conforms 
Sec. 80.41(m) to other provisions of the regulations referring to 
survey activity involving NO<INF>X</INF>, 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 NO<INF>X</INF> survey series; 
and Sec. 80.68(c)(10) describing the conditions giving rise to failure 
of a NO<INF>X</INF> 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. <SUP>7</SUP> 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) <SUP>8</SUP> 
to be appropriate for

[[Page 68201]]

calculating the exhaust toxics and NO<INF>X</INF> 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, 
<SUP>9</SUP> 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 (B<INF>h</INF>) 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 NO<INF>X</INF> 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 NO<INF>X</INF> emissions 
performance of the blendstock portion the hypothetical gasoline blend, 
called the ``equivalent emissions performance'' or EEP. The exhaust 
toxics and NO<INF>X</INF> 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 NO<INF>X</INF> emissions performance of 
685.6 mg/mi. Using the summer baseline emissions performance for 
NO<INF>X</INF> under Sec. 80.45(b)(3) (660.0 mg/mi) and the blendstock 
volume fraction previously calculated (0.077), the blendstock's 
NO<INF>X</INF> 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 
NO<INF>X</INF> emissions performance compliance calculations a batch 
with a volume of 25,000 gallons (the blendstock volume), and a 
NO<INF>X</INF> 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 NO<INF>X</INF> 
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 NO<INF>X</INF> 
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 
NO<INF>X</INF> 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.<SUP>10</SUP>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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.<SUP>11</SUP> 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 NO<INF>X</INF>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 NO<INF>X</INF> 
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 
NO<INF>X</INF> 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).<SUP>12</SUP>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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 NO<INF>X</INF> 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 NO<INF>X</INF> 
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 NO<INF>X</INF> 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 
NO<INF>X</INF> 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 NO<INF>X</INF> 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 NO<INF>X</INF> 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 
NO<INF>X</INF> per-gallon minimum standards for averaged RFG will 
relieve industry of a substantial cost burden, while the increased 
compliance surveys for NO<INF>X</INF> will ensure that the full 
environmental benefits of the NO<INF>X</INF> 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 NO<INF>X</INF> 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 NO<INF>X</INF> 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 NO<INF>X</INF> 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 NO<INF>X</INF> per-gallon minimum standards 
were included in the final rule as a tool to assure an even 
distribution of NO<INF>X</INF> 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 NO<INF>X</INF> 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 <divide> 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 NO<INF>X</INF> 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.................................  <gr-thn-eq>36.6      
        Per-Gallon Minimum.......................  <gr-thn-eq>32.6      
    Gasoline designated for VOC-Control Region 2:                       
        Standard.................................  <gr-thn-eq>17.1      
        Per-Gallon Minimum.......................  <gr-thn-eq>13.1      
Toxics air pollutants emissions performance        <gr-thn-eq>16.5      
 reduction (percent).                                                   
NO<INF>X emissions performance reduction (percent)....  <gr-thn-eq>1.5       
Oxygen content (percent, by weight):                                    
    Standard.....................................  <gr-thn-eq>2.1       
    Per-Gallon Minimum...........................  <gr-thn-eq>1.5       
Benzene (percent, by volume):                                           
    Standard.....................................  <ls-thn-eq>0.95      
    Per-Gallon Maximum...........................  <ls-thn-eq>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.................................  <gr-thn-eq>29.0      
        Per-Gallon Minimum.......................  <gr-thn-eq>25.0      
    Gasoline designated for VOC-Control Region 2:                       
        Standard.................................  <gr-thn-eq>27.4      
        Per-Gallon Minimum.......................  <gr-thn-eq>23.4      
Toxics air pollutants emissions performance        <gr-thn-eq>21.5      
 reduction (percent).                                                   
NO<INF>X emissions performance reduction (percent):                          
    Gasoline designated as VOC-Controlled........  <gr-thn-eq>6.8       
    Gasoline not designated as VOC-Controlled....  <gr-thn-eq>1.5       

[[Page 68206]]

                                                                        
Oxygen content (percent, by weight):                                    
    Standard.....................................  <gr-thn-eq>2.1       
    Per-Gallon Minimum...........................  <gr-thn-eq>1.5       
Benzene (percent, by volume):                                           
    Standard.....................................  <ls-thn-eq>0.95      
    Per-Gallon Minimum...........................  <ls-thn-eq>1.30      
------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *
    (m) Effect of NO<INF>X</INF> survey or survey series failure.
    (1) On each occasion that a covered area fails a NO<INF>X</INF> 
emissions reduction survey or survey series conducted pursuant to 
Sec. 80.68, the required average NO<INF>X</INF> 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 
NO<INF>X</INF> emissions reductions have been made more stringent 
passes all NO<INF>X</INF> emissions reduction surveys and survey series 
in two consecutive years, the required average NO<INF>X</INF> 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 
NO<INF>X</INF> emissions reductions have been made less stringent fails 
a subsequent NO<INF>X</INF> emissions reduction survey or survey 
series:
    (i) The required average NO<INF>X</INF> 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 NO<INF>X</INF> emission reductions for that 
covered area thereafter shall not be made less stringent regardless of 
the results of subsequent NO<INF>X</INF> 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, Y<INF>VOC</INF>(t) shall be defined:
    (1) For Phase I:

Y<INF>VOC</INF>(t)=100%  x  0.52  x  [exp(v<INF>1</INF>(et))/
exp(v<INF>1</INF>(b))--1]
    + 100%  x  0.48  x  [exp(v<INF>2</INF>(et))/exp(v<INF>2</INF>(b))--
1]
    + {100%  x  0.52  x  [exp(v<SUP>1</SUP>(et))/exp(v<INF>1</INF>(b))]
     x  [{[(0.0002144  x  E200<INF>et</INF>)--0.014470]  x  
<greek-D>E200}
    + {[(0.0008174  x  E300<INF>et</INF>)--0.068624
    - (0.000348  x  ARO<INF>et</INF>)]  x  <greek-D>E300}
    + {[(-0.000348  x  E300<INF>et</INF>) + 0.0323712]  x  
<greek-D>ARO}]}
    + {100%  x  0.48  x  [exp(v<INF>1</INF>(et))/
exp(v<INF>2</INF>(b))}]
     x  [{[(0.000212  x  E200<INF>et</INF>) - 0.01350]  x  
<greek-D>E200}
    + {[(0.000816  x  E300<INF>et</INF>)--0.06233
    - (0.00029  x  ARO<INF>et</INF>)]  x  <greek-D>E300{time} 
    + {[(-0.00029  x  E300<INF>2et</INF>) + 0.028204]  x  
<greek-D>ARO}]}
    (2) For Phase II:

Y<INF>VOC</INF>(t)=100%  x  0.444  x  [exp(v<INF>1</INF>(et))/
exp(v<INF>1</INF>(b))--1]
    + 100%  x  0.556  x  [exp(v<INF>2</INF>(et))/
exp(v<INF>2</INF>(b))--1]
    + {100%  x  0.444  x  [exp(v<INF>1</INF>(et))/
exp(v<INF>1</INF>(b))]
     x  [{[(0.0002144  x  E200<INF>et</INF>)--0.014470]  x  
<greek-D>E200}
    + {[(0.0008174  x  E300<INF>et</INF>)--0.068624
    - (0.000348  x  ARO<INF>et</INF>)]  x  <greek-D>E300}
    + {[(-0.000348  x  E300<INF>et</INF>) + 0.0323712]  x  
<greek-D>ARO}]}
    + Sec. 100%  x  0.556  x  [exp(v<INF>2</INF>(et))/
exp(v<INF>2</INF>(b))]
     x  [{[(0.000212  x  E200<INF>et</INF>)--0.01350]  x  
<greek-D>E200}
    + {[(0.000816  x  E300<INF>et</INF>)--0.06233
    - (0.00029  x  ARO<INF>et</INF>)]  x  <greek-D>E300}
    + {[(-0.00029  x  E300<INF>et</INF>) + 0.028204]  x  
<greek-D>ARO}]}
* * * * *
    (D) * * *
    (12) If the E300 level of the target fuel is less than 72 percent, 
then <greek-D>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 
<greek-D>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, 
Y<INF>nox</INF>(t) shall be defined as:

    (1) For Phase I:
Y<INF>Nox</INF>(t)=100% x 0.82 x [exp(n<INF>1</INF>(et))/
exp(n<INF>1</INF>(b))-1]
    +100% x 0.18 x [exp(n<INF>2</INF>(et))/exp(n<INF>2</INF>(b))-1]
    +{100% x 0.82 x [exp(n<INF>1</INF>(et))/exp(n<INF>1</INF>(b))]
     x [{[(-0.00000133 x SUL<INF>et</INF>) + 0.000692] x <greek-D>SUL}
    +{[(-0.000238 x ARO<INF>et</INF>) + 0.0083632] x ARO}
    +{[(0.000733 x OLE<INF>et</INF>) -0.002774] x <greek-D>OLE}]}
    +{100% x 0.18 x [exp(n<INF>2</INF>(et))/exp(n<INF>2</INF>(b))]
     x [{0.000252 x <greek-D>SUL} +
    + {[(-0.0001599 x ARO<INF>et</INF>) + 0.007097] x <greek-D>ARO}
    +{[(0.000732 x OLE<INF>et</INF>) -0.00276] x <greek-D>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 NO<INF>X</INF> 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 
NO<INF>X</INF> 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 NO<INF>X</INF> 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 
NO<INF>X</INF> 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 NO<INF>X</INF> 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 NO<INF>X</INF> 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
V<INF>b</INF>=volume of blendstock

[[Page 68208]]

V<INF>g</INF>=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:

CP<INF>j</INF>=calculated value for parameter j
BAP<INF>j</INF>=baseline value for parameter j
BLP<INF>j</INF>=value of parameter j for the blendstock or oxygenate
<INF>j</INF>=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 NO<INF>X</INF> 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 NO<INF>X</INF> equivalent 
emissions performance (EEP) of the blendstock, in mg/mi, using the 
following equation:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR31DE97.011

Where:

EEP<INF>j</INF>=equivalent emissions performance of the blendstock for 
emissions performance j
BEP<INF>j</INF>=emissions performance j of a gasoline having the 
properties of the refinery's baseline.
HEP<INF>j</INF>=emissions performance j of a hypothetical blendstock/
gasoline blend
F=blendstock volume fraction
j=exhaust toxics or NO<INF>X</INF> emissions performance

    (vi) For each blendstock batch, the volume, and exhaust toxics and 
NO<INF>X</INF> 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                           NO<INF>X              
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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