68196 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 250 / Wednesday, December 31, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

COLORADO—PM–10 NONATTAINMENT AREAS—Continued

Designated area

Designation Classification

Date Type Date Type

On the West—Beginning at the southwestern corner of section 23, T4N, R85W of

the 6th P.M. North along the western border of sections 23, 14, 11, T4N, R85W.

Thence, along the ridge which bisects sections 35, 36, 25, 24, 13, 14, 11, 12, 1,

T5N, R85W, and sections 36, 25, 24, T6N, R85W. Thence heading northwest

along the ridge which bisects sections 23, 15, 10, 9,4, T6N, R85W of 6th P.M.

Thence, heading northeast along the ridge which bisects sections 33, 34, 35, 36,

25, T7N, R85W and sections 30 and 10 of T7N, R84W. Thence, north along the N

1⁄2 of the western edge of section 19, to the NW corner of section 18, T7N, R84W.

On the North—The northern boundary of sections 16, 17, 18, T7N, R84W of 6th

P.M.

* * * * * *

*

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 97–33958 Filed 12–30–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

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 antidumping standards for conventional

gasoline beginning on January 1, 1998.

In addition, today’s rule finalizes

provisions that modify the affirmative

defenses for truck carriers of motor

vehicle fuel. Finally, this rule deletes

the NOX per-gallon minimum standards

for RFG and increases the number of

gasoline quality surveys, as a more costeffective way to ensure that each area

covered by the RFG program receives

the full environmental benefits of the

NOX average standards in Phase I and II

of the program. EPA will take final

action on the remainder of the

provisions proposed on July 11, 1997, at

a later date.

The emissions benefits achieved from

the RFG and conventional gasoline

programs will not be reduced as a result

of this final rule.

DATES: The effective date of this rule is

January 1, 1998.

ADDRESSES: Materials relevant to this

FRM are contained in Public Docket No.

A–97–03, Waterside Mall (Room M–

1500), Environmental Protection

Agency, Air Docket Section, 401 M

Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20460.

Materials relevant to the final rule

establishing standards for reformulated

gasoline and anti-dumping standards for

conventional gasoline are contained in

Public Dockets—A–92–01 and A–92–12,

and are incorporated by reference.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Marilyn Bennett, Fuels and Energy

Division, U.S. EPA, 401 M Street, S.W.

(6406J), Washington, D.C. 20460.

Telephone: (202) 564–8989.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Regulated Entities

Regulated categories and entities

affected by this action include:

Category Examples of regulated 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
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 250 / Wednesday, December 31, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 68197

1 In addition to deleting the NOX per-gallon

minimum standards for averaged RFG in the chart

in § 80.41(d), this rule revises the chart to replace

‘‘≤32.6’’ for VOC-Control Region 1 per-gallon

minimum reduction with ‘‘≥32.6’’. This corrects a

typographical error.

2These two types of standards, both applying to

refineries that elect to comply by averaging, should

not be confused with the per-gallon standard,

which applies to refineries that elect not to average

their compliance over a year, but rather to make

gasoline that all (each gallon) meets a fixed

standard. The latter approach to compliance will

likely not be selected by most refiners for practical

reasons having to do with the inherent variability

in NOX quality of gasoline from batch to batch.

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 (§ 80.45)

II. NOX Per-Gallon Minimum Standards

(§ 80.41)(d) and (f); § 80.68(b)(1)(iv))

III. Truck Carrier Defenses (§ 80.79(c)(3);

§ 80.2(ss); § 80.28(g)(1)(iii) and

§ 80.30(g)(1)(i))

IV. Closely Integrated Facilities (§ 80.91(e))

V. Standards Applicable to Refiners and

Importers of Conventional Gasoline

(§ 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

(§ 80.45)

§ 80.45(c)(1)(iv)(B) .............................................. Corrects several small typographical errors in both the Phase I and Phase II equations.

§ 80.45(c)(1)(iv)(D)(12) ....................................... Corrects typographical error by changing ‘‘(E300 × 72 percent)’’ to ‘‘(E300—72 percent).’’

§ 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 × ARO)’’ to ‘‘79.75 + (0.385 × ARO).’’

§ 80.45(d)(1)(iv)(B) ............................................. Corrects typographical errors to the equation.

§ 80.45(f)(1)(ii) .................................................... Corrects the entry for aromatics ‘‘acceptable range’’ to read ‘‘0.0—55.0 volume percent.’’

This corrects a typographical error in the July 20, 1994 Direct Final Rule (59 FR 36961).

The correct entry was included in the RFG final rule published on February 16, 1994 (59

FR 7826).

II. Elimination of NOX Per-Gallon

Minimum Standards (§ 80.41(d) 1 and

(f); § 80.68(b)(1)(iv))

In the final regulations establishing

the RFG program (59 FR 7716 (February

16, 1994)) the Agency established both

average standards for NOX reductions

and associated minimum per-gallon

standards 2 for such reductions (separate

standards were applied to VOCcontrolled summertime gasoline and

non-VOC-controlled winter gasoline).

The standards set up for both the

Simple Model and Phase I Complex

Model (applicable in 1995 through

1999) were designed to hold NOX

emissions at baseline levels, while the

Phase II standards (applicable beginning

in 2000) added a more stringent

standard for summertime NOX

reductions.

The averaging minimum standard in

Phase II requires that each gallon (batch)

of RFG in the high ozone season has at

least a 3% reduction from the baseline;

the corresponding Phase I standard

holds any increase over baseline for a

batch to 2.5%. Less stringent averaging

minimum standards apply outside of

the high ozone season in Phase II. These

minimum standards were not put in

place to provide any incremental

environmental benefit beyond that

provided by the average standard, but

rather to ensure an even distribution of

program benefits from area to area and/

or through time. An additional but

secondary objective of the averaging

minimum standard was to augment the

detectability of non-RFG gasoline being

illegally sold in RFG areas.

The Proposal

In the July 11, 1997 NPRM EPA

proposed to eliminate the minimum

averaging standards for NOX in both

phases of the program and to use an

augmented RFG survey program to

guard against any possible undesirable

environmental effects of that action. The

reasons for wanting to eliminate these

standards are discussed at some length

in the NPRM, but they center on

avoiding the imposition of substantial

additional RFG production costs on the

industry without providing additional

environmental benefits over and above

those provided by the relevant average

standard, where the purposes of the pergallon minimum can also be served by

the RFG surveys.

At the time of the 1994 final rule, data

did not exist to adequately assess the

variability, within refineries’ output, of

NOX quality or the factors that affect it

across all of the batches of gasoline

produced in a year. The final rule did

not take into account extra costs

resulting from compliance with the

minimum standards. Such costs, which

would likely be sharply higher in Phase

II, could be expected to elevate the price

of RFG relative to that of conventional

gasoline and might thus endanger

public acceptance of Phase II RFG.

The NPRM discussed an expanded

RFG survey program, along with the

fungibility of the gasoline distribution

system, as providing adequate

protection against the kind of

geographical and/or temporal

unevenness of distribution of program

benefits that the NOX averaging

minimum standards were intended to

guard against. The proposal included an

increase of 20 in the initial number of

RFG surveys per year before

adjustments have been made for the

gallonage of opt-in areas and that of

areas that may have failed surveys in

prior years. The effect of these

adjustments, given the current set of

opt-in areas and recent survey failures

for oxygen, would be to almost double

the initial 20-survey increase when

computing the number of week-long

surveys to be conducted in the course of

a year. The resulting increase brings the

total number of surveys in a year to

more than 150. The increase in survey

coverage was intended to permit more

careful scrutiny of gasoline quality

across the geographical areas covered by

the program (especially the opt-in areas)

and to strengthen the ability of the

surveys to deter environmentally

harmful uses of the averaging flexibility,

especially in areas supplied by a limited

group of refineries.
68198 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 250 / Wednesday, December 31, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

3These 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.

4Some general examples of the approaches

identified in these interviews as likely to be used

to bring sub-minimum batches above the standard

include: finding another use for the poor NOX

quality gasoline or its components (shifting it to

conventional gasoline, if that can be done without

violating anti-dumping standards, or shifting it to

other products) and buying conforming RFG on the

spot market to take its place; reblending the poor

NOX quality batches with clean blendstocks

purchased from the outside to make them conform

to the minimum; or simply reducing RFG

production.

5Careful 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.

6The increase in the sampling requirements of

each survey (and survey series), while substantial

in magnitude, is driven by the heterogeneity of the

most important parameters in the NOX emissions

equation—olefins and, especially, sulfur. This

increase, necessary to maintain the precision of the

mean estimates of each 7-day ‘‘snapshot’’ of

gasoline quality, nevertheless does not contribute at

all to the number of such ‘‘snapshots’’ taken of

gasoline NOX quality during the crucial summer

months. The adequacy of the survey program to

perform the function originally intended for the

NOX minimum depends entirely on the Agency’s

ability to spread those individual survey

‘‘snapshots’’ over both the geographical areas

covered by the program and the months of the high

ozone season.

Comments on the Proposal

Industry commenters were almost

unanimous in supporting the proposed

elimination of the NOX minimums,

citing reasons that were mostly similar

to those given in the proposal. Most

frequently, the argument was that the

minimums, especially in Phase II,

would raise the costs of making RFG

above the level calculated in the 1994

Regulatory Impact Assessment and do

so without securing any additional

environmental benefit. The comments

tended to confirm the conclusions EPA

analysts had reached in the course of

detailed interviews with a small number

of refiners 3, namely that refiners would

comply with the minimum standards

mostly by using a set of strategies that

are not capital-intensive and do not

result in NOX reductions in excess of

those required by the average standard. 4

The only comments received from a

non-industry source came from the State

and Territorial Air Pollution Program

Administrators (STAPPA) and the

Association of Local Air Pollution

Control Officials (ALAPCO). These

comments generally agree with the

appropriateness of eliminating the NOX

minimums, primarily as a way of

strengthening the RFG program by

improving its cost-effectiveness. They

express the belief, though, that a

strengthened survey program is needed

to substitute for protections that would

have been provided by the minimum

standards for NOX. They suggest some

specific ways to strengthen the surveys

as discussed below.

Almost all of the comments received

recognized the importance of the RFG

survey program in guarding against

uneven distribution of NOX benefits in

the absence of the minimum standards.

All of the industry comments that

addressed the topic cited the surveys as

the mechanism for providing the needed

insurance against uneven distribution.

Commenters disagreed, though, on the

question of whether the currently

prescribed survey program is adequate

to serve this purpose in the absence of

the NOX minimum standards; the

American Petroleum Institute (API) and

one other commenter supported the

proposed increase in the number of

surveys, while the National Petroleum

Refiners Association and one other

industry commenter questioned the

need for the additional surveys,

especially in light of the increased

sampling involved in each survey as a

result of the change to the complex

model. Of the latter comments, one

suggested that if the additional surveys

were imposed, they should be split

evenly between summer and winter

seasons. API’s comments took note of

the fact that the RFG final rule did not

prescribe summertime NOX surveys for

Phase II of the program and supported

the addition of such surveys, provided

that the NOX minimum standards are

eliminated.

STAPPA/ALAPCO’s comments on the

survey program made a number of

suggestions aimed at strengthening the

surveys’ ability to take over the

functions that would have been

performed by the NOX minimum

standards. They recommend weighted

representation of octane grades 5,

concentration of additional surveys in

the high ozone season, and a greater

emphasis on smaller, isolated RFG

markets that, on the simple basis of

gasoline volume, would tend to be

neglected. They would like for EPA to

work closely with stakeholders on

survey questions, and support

imposition of a severe penalty (in the

form of a ratcheted standard) where

NOX surveys are failed.

EPA believes that, without the NOX

minimum standards, the survey

program would be key to ensuring that

uneven distribution of gasoline NOX

quality did not result in air quality

problems. Since the most important

consideration in regulating NOX is its

contribution to the formation of groundlevel ozone, the Agency must be sure

that survey coverage during the high

ozone season is sufficiently intense to

both deter misuse of averaging and to

detect it if it should occur. To this end,

the Agency believes that the increase in

number of surveys proposed in the

NPRM is necessary to ensure adequate

coverage of opt-in areas. The suggestion

of one commenter that the additional

surveys should be split between

summer and winter would, if

implemented, defeat the purpose behind

the increase, even though it would

reduce the increase in survey costs

brought about by both the additional

surveys and the increase in the size of

each survey needed to meet precision

requirements for NOX.6 EPA agrees with

STAPPA/ALAPCO regarding the greater

attention that must be paid to the

distribution system when allocating

surveys. Isolated areas, while possibly

not large in population, are more

vulnerable to variability in the NOX

quality of gasoline shipments and

should receive somewhat

disproportionate coverage by the survey

program. The reverse is also true to

some extent—because of the severity

and scope of the ratchet provisions,

areas that share in a large fungible

supply of gasoline are protected with

some redundancy, a fact that could be

used to provide isolated areas with

greater protection when allocating

surveys. To summarize regarding the

surveys, in order to make elimination of

the minimum standards appropriate,

EPA believes that the survey program

must be augmented so it will adequately

perform the function previously

performed by the NOX per-gallon

minimums.

The RFG final rule did not provide for

summertime NOX surveys in Phase II of

the program on grounds that the pergallon minimum standards (established

under section 211(c) authority) were

more than adequate to satisfy the

requirements of section 211(k) of the

CAA (see 57 FR 7774). With the

minimum per-gallon standard for Phase

II summertime eliminated, the surveys

become necessary, as pointed out in

API’s comments, and will be required as

part of today’s action. EPA sees a

summertime NOX survey program in

Phase II as necessary to replace the

protections that were provided by the

NOX minimum standards.

Summary and conclusions regarding

NOX minimum standards

After a careful review of available

data on the NOX quality of gasolines

produced under the simple model and

study of the variability of the major

causes of high NOX emissions (sulfur
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 250 / Wednesday, December 31, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 68199

and olefins), EPA is convinced that the

per-gallon minimums for NOX would

impose severe limitations on refineries’

ability to make flexible use of averaging

in production of complex model

gasoline. In consequence, refiners’ costs

for compliance would exceed the cost of

meeting the average standard. Rather

than respond to this situation with

capital investments that might actually

further improve air quality, EPA

believes that refiners are more likely to

respond with costly and

environmentally unproductive strategies

for dealing with high NOX batches. The

added cost for making RFG would be an

unnecessary burden. EPA is thus acting

today to eliminate the averaging pergallon minimum standards for NOX

reduction in both Phase I and Phase II

of the RFG program.

As indicated in the NPRM, EPA

believes that the geographical and

temporal distribution objective that was

the chief reason for the NOX minimum

standards can be achieved by the RFG

survey program at lower cost to refiners

and the public and without sacrificing

air quality. Accordingly, in today’s

action EPA is increasing the number of

surveys in the initial schedule by 20, as

proposed, and requiring that week-long

NOX surveys be conducted in the

summertime in Phase II, as was not

previously required. EPA believes that

the intensified survey coverage, if

carefully allocated, coupled with the

wide-ranging and costly consequences

of NOX survey failures, will motivate

refiners to avoid actions that could

compromise air quality in areas covered

by the RFG program.

This final rule also makes minor

changes to other sections of the

regulations to delete references to the

NOX per gallon minimum standards and

reflect the additional survey

requirements. These changes affect the

following sections: § 80.41(m);

§ 80.67(e)(4); § 80.68(c)(3);

§§ 80.68(c)(13)(iv) (H) and (L));

§ 80.77(g)(2)(iv)(B); § 80.78(a)(1)(v)(C);

and § 80.79(c)(1). In addition, this final

rule modifies § 80.41(m) to clearly

indicate that its provisions apply to

failure of either a NOX survey or failure

of a NOX survey series. This change

conforms § 80.41(m) to other provisions

of the regulations referring to survey

activity involving NOX, such as:

§ 80.68(b)(4)(ii) describing the

consequences of failing to carry out an

approved survey program;

§ 80.68(c)(4)(ii) defining a NOX survey

series; and § 80.68(c)(10) describing the

conditions giving rise to failure of a

NOX survey or survey series.

III. Truck Carrier Defenses

(§ 80.79(c)(3); § 80.2(ss); § 80.28(g)(1)(iii)

and § 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 § 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 § 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 § 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 § 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 § 80.28(g)(1), and

violations of the diesel sulfur

requirements at § 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 §§ 80.28,

80.30, and 80.79, or the definition of

tank truck carrier at § 80.2, and these

provisions are being finalized as

proposed.

IV. Closely Integrated Facilities

(§ 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
68200 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 250 / Wednesday, December 31, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

7Combined 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.

8The July 11, 1997 NPRM proposed to reorganize

§ 80.101(g) and move the method for calculating the

a single refinery gate, and whose 1990

operations were significantly

interconnected in 1990. While the

existing provision permits EPA to set a

single baseline that would then apply

for each of several refineries, it does not

permit these ‘‘closely integrated

facilities’’ to be grouped together for all

compliance purposes (including

registration, record keeping and

reporting). Rather, the provision allows

a single baseline to be set for each

facility it represents, and sections

80.41(h) and 80.101(h) require that each

refinery comply with this baseline

separately, except where authorized to

group refineries for compliance

purposes. 7 Similarly, section

80.91(e)(1)(ii) permits EPA to set a

single baseline for a blending facility

which received 75 percent of its 1990

blendstock from a single refinery, or

from one or more refineries owned by

the same refiner and that are part of an

aggregate baseline.

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 (§ 80.101)

A. Application of Compliance Baselines

Under the Complex Model

(§ 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, § 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

§ 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 § 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 § 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 (§ 80.101(f)(3)) and Inclusion

of a Prohibition to Prevent Import

Gaming (§ 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

§ 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

§ 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

(§ 80.101(g)(3))

The current regulations at

§ 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 § 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

§ 80.101(g)(3) 8 to be appropriate for
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 250 / Wednesday, December 31, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 68201

emissions performance of blendstocks from

§ 80.101(g)(3) to § 80.101(g)(5). Today’s final rule

modifies the current § 80.101(g)(3), but does not

take final action on the reorganization of § 80.101(g)

proposed in the NPRM. EPA intends to address the

proposed reorganization of § 80.101(g) at the time

it takes final action on the remaining provisions

proposed in the NPRM.

9Although 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.

calculating the exhaust toxics and NOX

emissions performance of all

blendstocks, including oxygenates

blended downstream of the refinery.

The only comment on this proposal,

submitted by a refinery association and

an individual refiner, was that two

terms were switched in one of the

proposed equations. EPA agrees with

this comment. As a result, with the

exception of the revised equation the

provision is being finalized as proposed.

Under this revised methodology, a

refiner first determines the volume and

properties of each batch of blendstock

used. This determination requires the

refiner to sample and test each

blendstock batch, or in the case of

oxygenates the normal oxygenate

properties are used. The refiner then

determines the blending rate, or volume

fraction (F), of the blendstock.

Next, the refiner calculates the

properties of a hypothetical gasoline

that reflects the properties that result if

gasoline having the refinery’s ‘‘summer’’

or ‘‘winter’’ baseline values, as

appropriate, are blended with the

blendstock at the blending rate (F)

previously determined. This

calculation, which is a volume-weighted

average of the blendstock properties and

the gasoline properties, 9 is illustrated

by the following example.

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 § 80.45(b)(2) the ‘‘summer’’

benzene statutory baseline is 1.53 vol%.

The benzene content for the

hypothetical gasoline blend (Bh) is

calculated as 1.57 vol% using the

following equation:

Bh = × + ×

+

( . , ) ( . , )

, ,

1 53 300 000 2 10 25 000

300 000 25 000

In the case of the calculated values for

sulfur and oxygen, the specific gravities

of the blendstock and gasoline are

included in the calculation. The

measured specific gravity of the

blendstock is used, however the

regulations specify specific gravity

values that must be used for ‘‘summer’’

and ‘‘winter’’ gasolines.

The exhaust toxics and NOX

emissions performance of the

hypothetical gasoline (HEP), and of a

gasoline having the refinery’s baseline

values (BEP), are determined using the

complex model. Finally, the refiner

calculates the exhaust toxics and NOX

emissions performance of the

blendstock portion the hypothetical

gasoline blend, called the ‘‘equivalent

emissions performance’’ or EEP. The

exhaust toxics and NOX equivalent

emissions performance values for the

blendstock, together with the applicable

blendstock volume, is included in the

refinery’s compliance calculations as a

separate batch.

Consider again the example of the

terminal-refiner using reformate, and

assume the hypothetical gasoline blend,

when evaluated under the summer

complex model, had a NOX emissions

performance of 685.6 mg/mi. Using the

summer baseline emissions performance

for NOX under § 80.45(b)(3) (660.0 mg/

mi) and the blendstock volume fraction

previously calculated (0.077), the

blendstock’s NOX equivalent emissions

performance (EEP) is calculated to be

992.47 mg/mi using the following

equation:

EEP = 685 6 660 0 1 0 077 − ∗ −

0 077

. ( . ( . ))

.

The refiner in this example would

include in the refinery’s annual NOX

emissions performance compliance

calculations a batch with a volume of

25,000 gallons (the blendstock volume),

and a NOX emissions performance of

992.47 mg/mi.

It should be noted that certain

blendstocks, including oxygenates,

when blended with gasoline may reduce

exhaust toxics or NOX emissions

performance under the complex model.

In such cases, the calculated equivalent

emissions performance for the given

blending fraction may yield a negative

result under this methodology. Consider

for example a hypothetical refiner with

summer baseline fuel properties that

provide a baseline for exhaust toxics

(BEP) of 39.61 mg/mi under the

complex model. If this refiner blends

6,000 gallons of ethanol into 125,000

gallons of gasoline over one summer

month, resulting in a blendstock volume

fraction of 0.046, the hypothetical fuel

properties of that blend then result in

exhaust toxics emissions performance

(HEP) of 37.13 mg/mi. Using the

equation provided in the regulations,

the calculated equivalent emissions

performance for exhaust toxics for this

oxygenate blendstock is ¥14.3 mg/mi.

Thus, this refiner would include a batch

of 6,000 gallons at an exhaust toxics

emissions level of ¥14.3 mg/mi in its

compliance calculations.

EPA also is requiring refiners to keep

certain records for blendstocks included

in refinery compliance calculations

using the calculation procedures

described above. Section 80.104

currently requires refiners to keep

records of the test results for blendstock

batches included in refinery compliance

calculations. However, there is no

current record keeping requirement for

documents that support the blendstock

volume fraction (F). As a result, EPA is

including a new requirement in § 80.104

that refiners who include blendstock

batches in refinery compliance

calculations must keep records that

reflect the volume of blendstocks

blended and the volume of gasoline

with which the blendstock is blended,

the two terms used to calculate the

blendstock volume fraction. This record

keeping requirement was not

specifically included in the proposal,

but EPA believes it is a logical

outgrowth of the proposal for

calculating the exhaust toxics and NOX

emissions of blendstocks. In the absence

of this record keeping requirement EPA

could be unable to verify a refiner has

used the proper blendstock volume

fraction to calculate the exhaust toxics

and NOX emissions of blendstocks.

Moreover, EPA believes this

requirement normally would be met

using documents that already are

created and kept for commercial

business purposes, i.e., documents that

show movements of blendstock and

gasoline to the blending tank and

volume measurements of the blending

tank.

D. Conventional Gasoline Complex

Model Valid Range Limit as Standards

(§ 80.101(b)(3)) and Emissions

Performance Outside the Model Limits

(§ 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 §§ 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,

§§ 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.
68202 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 250 / Wednesday, December 31, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

10Under § 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.

11For example, if a refinery’s sulfur baseline is

1,050 ppm the annual average sulfur content of the

refinery’s conventional gasoline cannot exceed

1,050 ppm, which is less stringent than the

conventional gasoline valid range limit for sulfur of

1,000 ppm. However, if a refinery’s sulfur baseline

is 900 ppm the annual average limit would be the

less stringent valid range limit of 1,000 ppm.

Similarly, if a refinery’s baseline for E200 is 28%

the annual average E200 of the refinery’s

conventional gasoline cannot be less than 28%,

which is less stringent than the conventional

gasoline lower valid range limit for E200 of 30%.

This is in addition to the annual average

requirement for exhaust toxics and NOX.

12Thus, for example, if a refiner has a tested

sulfur value in excess of the valid range limit of

1,000 ppm, the exhaust toxics and NOX emissions

performance must be calculated under the Complex

Model using the tested sulfur value, because

emissions values increase as sulfur values increase

above 1,000 ppm. In contrast, if a refiner has a

tested RVP value of less than the 6.4 psi lower valid

range limit, the exhaust toxics and NOX emissions

performance must be calculated using the 6.4 psi

valid range limit, because emissions values

decrease as RVP values decrease below 6.4 psi.

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 § 80.45(f)(1)(i)

(Complex Model range limits for

reformulated gasoline) with

§ 80.45(f)(1)(ii) (Complex Model range

limits for conventional gasoline).

EPA always has considered the valid

range limits to constitute standards that

apply to reformulated and conventional

gasoline. Gasoline subject to simple or

Complex Model standards must be

evaluated for compliance with these

standards. Where gasoline has property

values outside the valid range limits, it

cannot be evaluated and, therefore, it is

unlawful to produce and sell such

gasoline.

For this reason EPA proposed the

parameter values of conventional

gasoline would have to be within the

applicable Complex Model valid range

limits when the gasoline is certified by

the refiner or importer.10

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 antidumping program (that refiners should

be allowed to produce conventional

gasoline with parameter values that are

the same as for gasoline produced in

1990) conflicts with the limited ability

of the Complex Model to reliably

predict emissions when parameter

values are outside the model’s range

limits.

EPA has decided to resolve this

conflict by allowing refiners to produce

individual batches of conventional

gasoline with parameter values that are

outside the Complex Model’s valid

range limits. EPA also is adopting

additional requirements intended to

minimize the volume of gasoline in this

category and the risk of adverse

environmental effects.

Thus, today’s rule allows refiners to

produce conventional gasoline without

any per-batch restriction on parameter

values, regardless of the complex

model’s valid range limits. This gives

refiners and importers the same

flexibility to produce particular batches

of conventional gasoline having widely

disparate parameter values as they had

in 1990.

To mitigate the potential to cause

harm to the environment from removing

this per-gallon batch restriction, EPA is

adding two additional requirements for

conventional gasoline compliance. First,

a limit on annual average parameter

values is included. This standard,

which applies for each parameter, is

equal to the conventional gasoline

complex model valid range limit or the

refinery’s baseline values, whichever is

less stringent.11 EPA believes this

standard is appropriate because it is

consistent with the refinery’s 1990

baseline value for the parameter, which

reflects the refinery’s 1990 annual

average for the parameter.

Second, where a refiner has parameter

test results for conventional gasoline

that are outside the current valid range

limits, the regulations specify whether

the exhaust toxics and NOX emissions

performance are calculated using the

tested parameter value, or the valid

range limit value. For each parameter,

and for each emissions performance

category, EPA has specified that the

value which is most protective of the

environment must be used.

For each parameter EPA evaluated

whether higher exhaust toxics or NOX

emissions result if the valid range limit

is used, or if a value outside the valid

range limit is used. In each case the

value that gives the higher emissions

must be used, as specified in a table

included in the regulations at

§ 80.101(g)(8).12

EPA believes it is appropriate to use

the Complex Model to predict emissions

in this manner, even though in certain

cases parameter values outside the valid

range limits are used. Based on

engineering judgment it is likely the

direction of a parameter’s effect on

emissions at the valid range limit

continues outside the valid range limit,

even though the magnitude of the effect

becomes more speculative as the value

moves away from the range limit.

Thus, for example, the Complex

Model reports that both exhaust toxics

and NOX emissions increase as sulfur

values increase from 950 ppm to 1,000

ppm, based on vehicle emissions test

data. In addition, the Complex Model

reports that exhaust toxics and NOX

emissions continue to increase as sulfur

values increase above the 1,000 ppm

valid range limit. These outside-therange-limit-results reflect only an

assumption that emissions effects

outside the range limit are similar to

emissions results inside the range limit,

and do not reflect vehicle emissions test

data for fuels having higher sulfur

values. However, engineering judgment

supports the likelihood that actual

exhaust toxics and NOX emissions

continue to increase with sulfur values

higher than 1,000 ppm.

The relative lack of confidence in the

magnitude of the effect on emissions of
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 250 / Wednesday, December 31, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 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 § 90.91(f)(2)(ii). In

addition, EPA proposed to modify

§ 80.91(f)(2)(ii) to allow extended valid

range limits for sulfur for certain

refiners. These provisions apply to

refiners with baseline values for

parameter values that are outside the

valid range limits, and allow such

refiners to use the Complex Model to

calculate the emissions of gasolines

having properties outside the valid

range limits.

However, in light of the changes being

promulgated today that allow parties to

calculate exhaust toxics and NOX

emissions for any conventional gasoline

batch without constraint of the Complex

Model’s valid range limits, the valid

range extension provisions at

§ 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 § 211(k), but not under

§ 211(c). EPA believed that it was not

necessary to promulgate the valid range

limits as standards under the authority

of § 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

§ 211(k). Since the issue of whether to

promulgate the complex model valid

range limits as standards under § 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 §§ 211(k) and

301.

VI. Environmental and Economic

Impacts

The Agency does not expect today’s

rule to have any adverse impact on the

environment. Many of the revisions

finalized today correct typographical

and other minor errors in the final rule.

The provisions relating to use of the

Complex Model are the result of a

determination that the existing

regulatory requirements may be revised

without detriment to the environment.

Economic impacts will be generally

beneficial to affected parties due to the

additional flexibility adopted in today’s

final rule. In particular, the deletion of

the NOX per-gallon minimum standards

for averaged RFG will relieve industry

of a substantial cost burden, while the

increased compliance surveys for NOX

will ensure that the full environmental

benefits of the NOX RFG standards are

achieved. The environmental and

economic impacts of the RFG and

conventional gasoline programs are

described in the Regulatory Impact

Analysis supporting the December 1993

rule, which is available in Public Docket

A–92–12 located at Room M–1500,

Waterside Mall (ground floor), U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency, 401

M Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20460.

VII. Public Participation

EPA solicited comments on the need

to take the actions proposed in the July

11, 1997 NPRM, including the actions

finalized today. EPA met with

representatives of the petroleum

industry and other interested parties

and considered their concerns and ideas

in the development of this final rule.

EPA also reviewed and considered all

written comments on the provisions

finalized today. Responses to comments

are contained in the preamble to this

final rule. All comments received by

EPA are located in the EPA Air Docket,

Docket A–97–03 (See ADDRESSES).

VIII. Regulatory Flexibility

EPA has determined that it is not

necessary to prepare a regulatory

flexibility analysis in connection with

this final rule. EPA has also determined

that this rule will not have a significant

economic impact on a substantial

number of small entities.

Although the revisions to the

reformulated and conventional gasoline

regulations contained in today’s final

rule will affect small business refiners,

importers and gasoline tank truck

carriers, EPA has determined that this

final rule will not have an adverse

economic impact on these entities.

Several actions taken in today’s final

rule will provide increased flexibility

for all refiners and importers of

gasoline, including small business

refiners and importers. The deletion of

the NOX per-gallon minimum standards,

in particular, will provide refiners and

importers with greater flexibility to

comply with the RFG regulations

without compromising the

environmental effect of the RFG

program. In addition, this action

eliminates the requirement for refiners

of conventional gasoline who also

import gasoline to calculate a special

baseline for their imported product, and

aids refiners and importers by allowing

them to use a more flexible way of

demonstrating compliance with the

anti-dumping standards under the

Complex Model. This action also

provides additional affirmative defenses

for truck carriers of motor vehicle fuel.

The EPA prepared a Regulatory

Flexibility Analysis (RFA) for the final

rule establishing standards for

reformulated and conventional gasoline

(59 FR 7716 (February 16, 1994)), which

includes an analysis of the impact of the

reformulated gasoline and anti-dumping

regulations on small business entities.

The RFA is in the docket for that

rulemaking: EPA Air Docket A–92–2.

IX. Submission to Congress and the

General Accounting Office

Under 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A) as added

by the Small Business Regulatory

Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, EPA

submitted a report containing this rule

and other required information to the

U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of

Representatives, and the Comptroller

General of the General Accounting

Office prior to publication of the rule in

today’s Federal Register. This rule is

not a ‘‘major rule’’ as defined by 5

U.S.C. 804(2).

X. Executive Order 12866

Under Executive Order 12866 [58 FR

51735 (October 4, 1993)], the Agency

must determine whether the regulatory

action is ‘‘significant’’ and therefore

subject to OMB review and the

requirements of the Executive Order.

The Order defines ‘‘significant

regulatory action’’ as one that is likely

to result in a rule that may:

(1) have an annual effect on the

economy of $100 million or more or
68204 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 250 / Wednesday, December 31, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

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 pergallon NOX minimum standards for

Complex Model averaged RFG, and

increases the initial number of

compliance surveys required beginning

in 1998 and thereafter from 50 to 70.

EPA is eliminating the NOX per-gallon

minimum standards because these

standards may impose substantial costs

in producing RFG without

commensurate benefits to the

environment. (See Preamble Section II).

The NOX per-gallon minimum standards

were included in the final rule as a tool

to assure an even distribution of NOX

benefits from area to area. However,

EPA believes that a less costly

alternative, an increase in the number of

required surveys, will achieve a similar

level of assurance of even distribution of

NOX benefits.

The actual number of surveys

required to be conducted by industry is

based on the initial number of required

surveys adjusted to take into account

areas that opt into the RFG program and

any additional surveys required as a

result of any survey ratchets. EPA

estimates that the incremental cost

burden of the additional 20 surveys will

be roughly $1,100,000 industry-wide (20

additional surveys at approximately

$55,000 each). With adjustments for optin and ratcheted areas, EPA estimates

that the increase in the total number of

surveys required in 1998 due to the

regulatory change finalized today will

be 39, at a cost of approximately

$2,145,000 industry-wide, or about

$14,300 per RFG refiner or importer

($2,145,000 ÷ 150 refiners/importers).

The increased cost burden due to the

additional survey requirements,

however, will be more than offset by the

elimination of the burden on industry

imposed by the per-gallon NOX

minimum standards.

Burden means the total time, effort, or

financial resources expended by persons

to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose

or provide information to or for a

Federal agency. This includes the time

needed to review instructions; develop,

acquire, install, and utilize technology

and systems for the purposes of

collecting, validating, and verifying

information, processing and

maintaining information, and disclosing

and providing information; adjust the

existing ways to comply with any

previously applicable instructions and

requirements; train personnel to be able

to respond to a collection of

information; search data sources;

complete and review the collection of

information; and transmit or otherwise

disclose the information.

Send comments on the Agency’s need

for this information, the accuracy of the

provided burden estimates, and any

suggested methods for minimizing

respondent burden, including through

the use of automated collection

techniques. Send comments on the ICR

to the Director, OPPE Regulatory

Information Division; U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency

(2137); 401 M St., S.W.; Washington, DC

20460; and to the Office of Information

and Regulatory Affairs, Office of

Management and Budget, 725 17th St.,

N.W., Washington, DC 20503, marked

‘‘Attention: Desk Officer for EPA.’’

Comments are requested by January 30,

1998. Include the ICR number in any

correspondence.

An agency may not conduct or

sponsor, and a person is not required to

respond to, a collection of information

unless it displays a currently valid OMB

control number. The OMB control

numbers for EPA’s regulations are listed

in 40 CFR Part 9 and 48 CFR Chapter

15.

XII. Unfunded Mandates Act

Under section 202 of the Unfunded

Mandates Reform Act of 1995

(‘‘Unfunded Mandates Act’’), signed

into law on March 22, 1995, EPA must

prepare a budgetary impact statement to

accompany any proposed or final rule

that includes a Federal mandate that

may result in expenditure by State,

local, and tribal governments, in the

aggregate; or by the private section, of

$100 million or more. Under § 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.
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 250 / Wednesday, December 31, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 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:

§ 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:

§ 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

§ 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:

§ 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

§ 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:

§ 80.41 Standards and requirements for

compliance.

* * * * *

(d) Phase I complex model averaged

standards. The Phase I ‘‘complex

model’’ standards for compliance when

achieved on average are as follows:

PHASE I COMPLEX MODEL AVERAGED STANDARDS

VOC emissions performance reduction (percent)

Gasoline designated for VOC-Control Region 1:

Standard ........................................................................................................................................................................................ ≥36.6

Per-Gallon Minimum ...................................................................................................................................................................... ≥32.6

Gasoline designated for VOC-Control Region 2:

Standard ........................................................................................................................................................................................ ≥17.1

Per-Gallon Minimum ...................................................................................................................................................................... ≥13.1

Toxics air pollutants emissions performance reduction (percent) ............................................................................................................... ≥16.5

NOX emissions performance reduction (percent) ....................................................................................................................................... ≥1.5

Oxygen content (percent, by weight):

Standard ............................................................................................................................................................................................... ≥2.1

Per-Gallon Minimum ............................................................................................................................................................................. ≥1.5

Benzene (percent, by volume):

Standard ............................................................................................................................................................................................... ≤0.95

Per-Gallon Maximum ............................................................................................................................................................................ ≤1.30

* * * * *

(f) Phase II complex model averaged

standards. The Phase II ‘‘complex

model’’ standards for compliance when

achieved on average are as follows:

PHASE II COMPLEX MODEL AVERAGED STANDARDS

VOC emissions performance reduction (percent):

Gasoline designated for VOC-Control Region 1:

Standard ........................................................................................................................................................................................ ≥29.0

Per-Gallon Minimum ...................................................................................................................................................................... ≥25.0

Gasoline designated for VOC-Control Region 2:

Standard ........................................................................................................................................................................................ ≥27.4

Per-Gallon Minimum ...................................................................................................................................................................... ≥23.4

Toxics air pollutants emissions performance reduction (percent) ............................................................................................................... ≥21.5

NOX emissions performance reduction (percent):

Gasoline designated as VOC-Controlled ............................................................................................................................................. ≥6.8

Gasoline not designated as VOC-Controlled ....................................................................................................................................... ≥1.5
68206 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 250 / Wednesday, December 31, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

PHASE II COMPLEX MODEL AVERAGED STANDARDS—Continued

Oxygen content (percent, by weight):

Standard ............................................................................................................................................................................................... ≥2.1

Per-Gallon Minimum ............................................................................................................................................................................. ≥1.5

Benzene (percent, by volume):

Standard ............................................................................................................................................................................................... ≤0.95

Per-Gallon Minimum ............................................................................................................................................................................. ≤1.30

* * * * *

(m) Effect of NOX survey or survey

series failure.

(1) On each occasion that a covered

area fails a NOX emissions reduction

survey or survey series conducted

pursuant to § 80.68, the required average

NOX emissions reductions for that

covered area beginning in the year

following the failure shall be increased

in stringency by an additional 1.0%.

(2) In the event that a covered area for

which required NOX emissions

reductions have been made more

stringent passes all NOX emissions

reduction surveys and survey series in

two consecutive years, the required

average NOX emissions reductions for

that covered area beginning in the year

following the second year of passed

surveys and survey series shall be

decreased in stringency by 1.0%.

(3) In the event that a covered area for

which the required NOX emissions

reductions have been made less

stringent fails a subsequent NOX

emissions reduction survey or survey

series:

(i) The required average NOX

emission reductions for that covered

area beginning in the year following this

subsequent failure shall be increased in

stringency by 1.0%; and

(ii) The required NOX emission

reductions for that covered area

thereafter shall not be made less

stringent regardless of the results of

subsequent NOX emissions reduction

surveys or survey series.

* * * * *

6. Section 80.45 is amended by

revising paragraphs (c)(1)(iv)(B),

(c)(1)(iv)(D)(12), (c)(1)(iv)(D)(13);

(d)(1)(iv)(B); and (f)(1)(ii) to read as

follows:

§ 80.45 Complex emissions model.

* * * * *

(c) * * *

(1) * * *

(iv) * * *

(B) For fuels with E200, E300 and/or

ARO levels outside the ranges defined

in Table 6, YVOC(t) shall be defined:

(1) For Phase I:

YVOC(t)=100% × 0.52 × [exp(v1(et))/

exp(v1(b))—1]

+ 100% × 0.48 × [exp(v2(et))/

exp(v2(b))—1]

+ {100% × 0.52 × [exp(v1(et))/

exp(v1(b))]

× [{[(0.0002144 × E200et)—0.014470] ×

∆E200}

+ {[(0.0008174 × E300et)—0.068624

¥ (0.000348 × AROet)] × ∆E300}

+ {[(¥0.000348 × E300et) +

0.0323712] × ∆ARO}]}

+ {100% × 0.48 × [exp(v1(et))/

exp(v2(b))}]

× [{[(0.000212 × E200et) ¥ 0.01350] ×

∆E200}

+ {[(0.000816 × E300et)—0.06233

¥ (0.00029 × AROet)] × ∆E300b

+ {[(¥0.00029 × E3002et) + 0.028204]

× ∆ARO}]}

(2) For Phase II:

YVOC(t)=100% × 0.444 × [exp(v1(et))/

exp(v1(b))—1]

+ 100% × 0.556 × [exp(v2(et))/

exp(v2(b))—1]

+ {100% × 0.444 × [exp(v1(et))/

exp(v1(b))]

× [{[(0.0002144 × E200et)—0.014470] ×

∆E200}

+ {[(0.0008174 × E300et)—0.068624

¥ (0.000348 × AROet)] × ∆E300}

+ {[(¥0.000348 × E300et) +

0.0323712] × ∆ARO}]}

+ § 100% × 0.556 × [exp(v2(et))/

exp(v2(b))]

× [{[(0.000212 × E200et)—0.01350] ×

∆E200}

+ {[(0.000816 × E300et)—0.06233

¥ (0.00029 × AROet)] × ∆E300}

+ {[(-0.00029 × E300et) + 0.028204] ×

∆ARO}]}

* * * * *

(D) * * *

(12) If the E300 level of the target fuel

is less than 72 percent, then ∆E300 shall

be set equal to (E300 ¥ 72 percent).

(13) If the E300 level of the target fuel

is greater than 94 volume percent and

(79.75 + (0.385 × ARO)) also is greater

than 94, then ∆E300 shall be set equal

to (E300 ¥ 94 volume percent). If the

E300 level of the target fuel is greater

than 95 volume percent and (79.75 +

(0.385 × ARO)) also is greater than 94,

then ‘‘E300 shall be set equal to 1

volume percent.

* * * * *

(d) * * *

(1) * * *

(iv) * * *

(B) For fuels with SUL, OLE, and/or

ARO levels outside the ranges defined

in Table 7 of paragraph (d)(1)(iv)(A) of

this section, Ynox(t) shall be defined as:

(1) For Phase I:

YNox(t)=100% x 0.82 x [exp(n1(et))/

exp(n1(b))–1]

+100% x 0.18 x [exp(n2(et))/

exp(n2(b))–1]

+{100% x 0.82 x [exp(n1(et))/

exp(n1(b))]

×[{[(¥0.00000133 x SULet) +

0.000692] x ∆SUL}

+{[(¥0.000238 x AROet) + 0.0083632]

x ARO}

+{[(0.000733 x OLEet) ¥0.002774] x

∆OLE}]}

+{100% x 0.18 x [exp(n2(et))/

exp(n2(b))]

×[{0.000252 x ∆SUL} +

+ {[(¥0.0001599 x AROet) +

0.007097] x ∆ARO}

+{[(0.000732 x OLEet) ¥0.00276] x

∆OLE{]}

(2) For Phase II:

* * * * *

(f) * * *

(1) * * *

(ii) For conventional gasoline:

Fuel property ...................................................... Acceptable range

Oxygen ................................................................ 0.00–4.0 weight percent.

Sulfur .................................................................. 0.0–1000.0 parts per million by weight.

RVP ..................................................................... 6.4–11.0 pounds per square inch.

E200 .................................................................... 30.0–70.0 evaporated percent.

E300 .................................................................... 70.0–100.0 evaporated percent.

Aromatics ........................................................... 0.0–55.0 volume percent.

Olefins ................................................................ 0.0–30.0 volume percent.

Benzene .............................................................. 0.0–4.9 volume percent.
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 250 / Wednesday, December 31, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 68207

* * * * *

7. In § 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:

§ 80.68 Compliance Surveys.

* * * * *

(b)* * *

(1)* * *

(iv) 70 surveys shall be conducted in

1998 and thereafter.

* * * * *

(c) * * *

(3) A VOC survey and a NOX survey

shall consist of any survey conducted

during the period June 1 through

September 15.

* * * * *

(13) * * *

(v) * * *

(H) The results of the analyses of

complex model samples for oxygenate

type and oxygen weight percent,

benzene, aromatic hydrocarbon, and

olefin content, E–200, E–300, and RVP,

the calculated NOX and toxics emissions

reduction percentage, and for each

survey conducted during the period

June 1 through September 15, the

calculated VOC emissions reduction

percentage;

* * * * *

(L) The average toxics emissions

reduction percentage for simple model

samples and the percentage for complex

model samples, the average benzene and

oxygen percentages, and for each survey

conducted during the period June 1

through September 15, the average VOC

emissions reduction percentage for

simple model samples and the

percentage for complex model samples,

and the average NOX emissions

reduction percentage for all complex

model samples;

* * * * *

9. Section 80.77 is amended by

revising paragraph (g)(2)(iv)(B) to read

as follows:

§ 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:

§ 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 § 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:

§ 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

§ 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:

§ 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 §§ 80.76 and

80.103; and

(C) Record keeping requirements

under §§ 80.74 and 80.104 and reporting

requirements under §§ 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).

§ 80.101 Standards applicable to refiners

and importers.

* * * * *

(b) * * *

(3) Complex model standards.

(i) Annual average levels of exhaust

toxics emissions and NOX emissions,

weighted by volume for each batch and

calculated using the applicable complex

model under § 80.45, shall not exceed

the refiner’s or importer’s compliance

baseline for exhaust toxics and NOX

emissions, respectively.

(ii) Annual average levels of RVP,

benzene, aromatics, olefins, sulfur, E200

and E300 shall not be greater than the

conventional gasoline complex model

valid range limits for the parameter

under § 80.45(f)(1)(ii), or the refiner or

importer’s annual 1990 baseline for the

parameter if outside the valid range

limit, whichever is greater.

* * * * *

(f) Compliance baseline

determination.

* * * * *

(3) [Reserved]

(4) Any compliance baseline under

paragraph (f)(1) of this section shall be

adjusted for each averaging period as

follows:

* * * * *

(g) Compliance calculations.

* * * * *

(3) Exhaust toxics and NOX emissions

performance of a blendstock batch shall

be determined as follows:

(i) Determine the volume and

properties of the blendstock.

(ii) Determine the blendstock volume

fraction (F) based on the volume of

blendstock, and the volume of gasoline

with which the blendstock is blended,

using the following equation:

F V

V V

b

b g

= +

Where:

F=blendstock volume fraction

Vb=volume of blendstock
68208 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 250 / Wednesday, December 31, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

Vg=volume of gasoline with which the

blendstock is blended.

(iii) For each parameter required by

the complex model, calculate the

parameter value that would result by

combining, at the blendstock volume

fraction (F), the blendstock with a

gasoline having properties equal to the

refinery’s or importer’s baseline, using

the following formula:

CP

BAP V BLP V

V V j

j g j b

g b

= ( ) × + × ( )

+

Where:

CPj=calculated value for parameter j

BAPj=baseline value for parameter j

BLPj=value of parameter j for the

blendstock or oxygenate

j=each parameter required by the

complex model

(A) The baseline value shall be the

refinery’s ‘‘summer’’ or ‘‘winter’’

baseline, based on the ‘‘summer’’ or

‘‘winter’’ classification of the gasoline

produced as determined under

paragraphs (g)(5) or (g)(6) of this section.

In the case of a refinery that is

aggregated under paragraph (h) of this

section, the refinery baseline shall be

used, and not the aggregate baseline.

(B) The sulfur content and oxygen

wt% computations under paragraph

(g)(3)(iii) of this section shall be

adjusted for the specific gravity of the

gasoline and blendstock using specific

gravities of 0.749 for ‘‘summer’’ gasoline

and of 0.738 for ‘‘winter’’ gasoline.

(C) In the case of ‘‘summer’’ gasoline,

where the blendstock is ethanol and the

volume fraction calculated under

paragraph (g)(3)(ii) is equal to or greater

than 0.015, the value for RVP calculated

under paragraph (g)(3)(iii) of this section

shall be 1.0 psi greater than the RVP of

the gasoline with which the blendstock

is blended.

(iv) Using the summer or winter

complex model, as appropriate,

calculate the exhaust toxics and NOX

emissions performance, in mg/mi, of:

(A) A hypothetical gasoline having

properties equal to those calculated in

paragraph (g)(3)(iii) of this section

(HEP); and

(B) A gasoline having properties equal

to the refinery’s or importer’s baseline

(BEP).

(v) Calculate the exhaust toxics and

NOX equivalent emissions performance

(EEP) of the blendstock, in mg/mi, using

the following equation:

EEP

HEP BEP F

F j

j j = − ∗ − ( ) ( ) 1

Where:

EEPj=equivalent emissions performance

of the blendstock for emissions

performance j

BEPj=emissions performance j of a

gasoline having the properties of

the refinery’s baseline.

HEPj=emissions performance j of a

hypothetical blendstock/gasoline

blend

F=blendstock volume fraction

j=exhaust toxics or NOX emissions

performance

(vi) For each blendstock batch, the

volume, and exhaust toxics and NOX

equivalent emissions performance (EEP)

shall be included in the refinery’s

compliance calculations.

* * * * *

(8) Emissions performance of

conventional gasoline with parameters

outside the complex model valid range

limits. Notwithstanding the provisions

of § 80.45(f)(2), in the case of any

parameter value that does not fall

within the complex model range limit in

§ 80.45(f)(1)(ii), the refiner or importer

shall determine the emissions

performance of the batch using the

following parameter values:

Parameter outside the range limit

Parameter value to use for calculating

Exhaust toxics NOX

Sulfur ......................................................................................................................................................... Test value1 ................ Test value.1

RVP (summer only):

< 6.4 psi ............................................................................................................................................. 6.4 psi ........................ 6.4 psi.

> 11.0 psi ........................................................................................................................................... Test value1 ................ Test value.1

Aromatics .................................................................................................................................................. Test value1 ................ Test value.1

Olefins ....................................................................................................................................................... Test value1 ................ Test value.1

Benzene .................................................................................................................................................... Test value1 ................ Test value.1

E200:

< 30% ................................................................................................................................................. Test value1 ................ 30%

> 70% ................................................................................................................................................. 70% ........................... Test value.1

E300 < 70% .............................................................................................................................................. Test value1 ................ Test value.1

1Test 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:

§ 80.104 Recordkeeping requirements.

* * * * *

(a) * * *

(2) * * *

(xi) In the case of blendstocks that are

included in refinery compliance

calculations using the procedures under

§ 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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 180

[OPP–300595; FRL–5762–1]

RIN 2070–AB78

Hexythiazox; Pesticide Tolerances for

Emergency Exemptions

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: This regulation establishes a

time-limited tolerance for combined

residues of hexythiazox (trans-5-(4-