[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 51 (Monday, March 17, 1997)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 12586-12590]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-6647]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------


ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 80

[FRL-5710-6]


Fuels and Fuel Additives; Elimination of Oxygenated Gasoline 
Program Reformulated Gasoline (OPRG) Category From the Reformulated 
Gasoline Regulations

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: In this action, EPA is proposing to amend the reformulated 
gasoline (RFG) regulations to eliminate the separate treatment for a 
category of gasoline used in oxygen averaging. This category, 
oxygenated gasoline program reformulated gasoline (OPRG), includes 
gasoline intended for use in a state oxygenated gasoline program 
control area during the winter time. Under the current RFG regulations, 
a refiner must meet the oxygen content standards for the entire pool of 
gasoline they produce, and for the pool of gasoline they produce that 
is non-OPRG. EPA is proposing this action because it no longer believes 
a distinction between OPRG and non-OPRG is necessary and because 
removal of the OPRG category would add flexibility and reduce 
compliance costs for regulated parties, without producing a negative 
environmental impact.

DATES: Comments on this proposed rule must be received by April 16, 
1997. EPA does not plan to hold a public hearing on this proposed rule, 
unless one is requested. If a request is received by April 1, 1997, a 
public hearing will be held. If such a hearing is held, comments must 
be received within 30 days of the date of such hearing.

ADDRESSES: Written comments on this proposed action should be addressed 
to Public Docket # A-97-01, Air Docket Section (Room M-1500, Waterside 
Mall), Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M Street, SW., Washington, 
DC 20460. Documents related to this proposed rule have been placed in 
the public docket and may be inspected between the hours of 8:00 a.m. 
to 5:30 p.m., Monday through Friday. A reasonable fee may be charged 
for copying docket material. Those wishing to notify EPA of their 
intent to request an opportunity for a public hearing on this action 
should contact Anne-Marie

[[Page 12587]]

Pastorkovich, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air and 
Radiation, (202) 233-9013.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Anne-Marie Pastorkovich, U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air and Radiation, (202) 
233-9013.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Regulatory Entities

    Regulatory categories and entities potentially affected by this 
action include:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Category                  Examples of regulated  entities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry..............................  Refiners, importers, oxygenate  
                                         blenders of reformulated       
                                         gasoline.                      
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a 
guide for readers regarding entities likely to be 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 existing provisions at 40 CFR sections 80.2, 80.65, 80.67, 80.69, 
80.75, 80.77, 80.78, and 80.128, dealing specifically with OPRG. If you 
have questions regarding the applicability of this action to a 
particular entity, consult the person listed in the preceding FOR 
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

II. Background

A. The Oxygen Standard Under the RFG Program

    The federal RFG program is designed for the control of harmful 
ground level ozone and toxic air pollutants through reformulation of 
gasoline in ways that reduce emissions of air pollutants from motor 
vehicles. Federal RFG is required by section 211(k) of the Clean Air 
Act (``the Act'') in the nine largest cities with the worst ozone 
problems beginning in January, 1995. In addition, other ozone 
nonattainment areas are permitted to join the program (i.e., to ``opt 
in'') at the request of the Governor of the state wherein the 
nonattainment area(s) are located. EPA published final regulations for 
the RFG program in the Federal Register on February 16, 1994.<SUP>1 The 
covered areas for the RFG regulations are specified at 40 CFR section 
80.70.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 59 FR 7812 (February 16, 1994).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 211(k) of the Act requires that RFG must contain at least 
2.0 weight percent oxygen and further requires that the RFG regulations 
issued by EPA allow for oxygen credit trading. These oxygen credit 
provisions must ensure that each RFG area does not receive RFG with 
less oxygen than it would without such averaging.<SUP>2 Consistent with 
the requirements of the Act, the final RFG regulations issued by EPA 
allow refiners the option of electing to meet the oxygen standard on 
average, and allow the generation, sale, purchase, and use of oxygen 
credits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ See section 211(k)(2)(B) of the Act (2.0 percent oxygen by 
weight standard) and section 211(k)(7) of the Act (provisions 
dealing with averaging/credits).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Compliance with the RFG standards, including the oxygen standard, 
is met on a refinery basis. A refiner who elects to meet the oxygen 
standard on an averaging basis must meet an average oxygen content of 
<gr-thn-eq>2.1 weight percent across all of the RFG he produces in an 
averaging period,<SUP>3 and the minimum oxygen content for an 
individual gallon of gasoline is <gr-thn-eq>1.5 weight percent oxygen, 
for each of its refineries. In short, the average is met on a refinery-
by-refinery basis rather than on an RFG covered area-by-area basis. 
This type of averaging permits maximum operational flexibility for 
refiners. However, this type of averaging by a number of refiners also 
means that a substantial amount of RFG may be produced with an oxygen 
content that is higher than the standard, and a substantial amount that 
is lower than the standard. Although the fungible distribution system 
for gasoline means that the higher and lower oxygen content gasoline 
should generally produce the same average oxygen content throughout the 
covered areas where RFG is required, a general risk exists that one or 
more areas might end up receiving RFG that has a lower oxygen content 
on average than would occur if no averaging were allowed. To address 
this concern, the requirements for averaging also require that refiners 
who average must conduct gasoline quality surveys in each area where 
their gasoline is distributed. If a survey is failed (i.e., the average 
oxygen content in the area is less than 2.0 weight percent), the 
minimum oxygen standard is made more stringent. The combination of a 
survey requirement and tightening of the minimum standard upon a survey 
failure provides an incentive for refiners to avoid conduct that could 
lead to a survey failure, and reduces the likelihood of a problem 
continuing once a survey is failed.<SUP>4
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The averaging period for oxygen credits corresponds with the 
calendar year of January 1-December 31. See 40 CFR section 
80.67(f)(1).
    \4\ See 40 CFR 80.68 for gasoline quality survey requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The gasoline quality survey provisions require refiners who elect 
to meet RFG standards on average, including the oxygen standard, to 
either conduct surveys themselves or to participate in a consortium 
with other refiners. The consortium sponsors a series of gasoline 
quality surveys in each RFG area each year. If a survey shows that the 
average oxygen content for an area is < 2.0 weight percent, an 
additional 0.1 weight percent minimum would be applied to the per-
gallon minimum applicable to the averaging refiner. Therefore, although 
the oxygen average standard would still be 2.1 weight percent, the 
minimum oxygen standard for all refiners serving that failed area would 
be increased from 1.5 weight percent oxygen to 1.6 weight percent 
oxygen. Future survey failures would result in additional increases of 
the minimum standard to the 2.0 weight percent standard.<SUP>5 Based 
upon preliminary survey data received for 1996, EPA is aware that 
several RFG cities are reasonably expected to experience survey 
failures for oxygen and, therefore, would experience a required 
``ratcheting'' of the minimum oxygen standard for averaging from 1.5 
weight% to 1.6 weight%.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The regulations provide that the standard would be changed 
to be more stringent, based on minimum oxygen survey failures. The 
standard would subsequently be made less stringent, based on a 
pattern of successful surveys.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Agency acknowledges that, if the separate averaging category 
for OPRG is dropped, there is some marginal increase in the risk that 
an area might receive RFG with too low oxygen content. This is because 
oxygen credits generated in an oxygenated gasoline program area could 
now be transferred to a non-oxygenated gasoline program area, resulting 
in a lower ``actual'' oxygen content for the RFG used in that non-
oxygenated gasoline program area. However, the Agency believes that the 
oxygen surveys are adequately designed to address this type of concern 
and ``ratcheting'' of the minimum oxygen standard will be implemented 
in failing areas as appropriate. The ratcheting of the minimum oxygen 
standard should provide a strong incentive, over time, against conduct 
leading to survey failures. Given this incentive, the marginal increase 
in risk noted above does not warrant the regulatory burden from 
retraining OPRG as a separate RFG category.

[[Page 12588]]

B. State Oxygenated Gasoline Programs and the Purpose of the OPRG 
Category for RFG

    Section 211(m) of the Act required that certain states implement 
oxygenated gasoline programs by not later than November 1, 1992. The 
control period for these oxygenated gasoline programs are based upon 
the time period during which each area is prone to high ambient 
concentrations of carbon monoxide (CO) and must be at least four months 
in length. The oxygen content for gasoline in these areas is 2.7 weight 
percent minimum, higher than the levels required for RFG. Because CO 
tends to be a cold weather problem, the control periods tended to fall 
during the winter months. Control periods are adopted by each 
individual state as part of its oxygenated gasoline regulations. Four 
of the original East coast oxygenated gasoline program Consolidated 
Metropolitan Statistical Areas (CMSAs)/Metropolitan Statistical Areas 
(MSAs) were also RFG covered areas. The Baltimore, Maryland MSA 
(including areas within Maryland), the Washington DC-MD-VA CMSA 
(including areas within the District of Columbia, Maryland, and 
Virginia), and the Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, DE-MD-NJ-PA CMSA 
(including areas within Pennsylvania, Maryland, and Southern New Jersey 
<SUP>6) have redesignated to attainment for CO and are no longer 
required to implement oxygenated gasoline programs. The New York/New 
Jersey/ Connecticut CMSA (which includes the several New York City and 
State counties, Northern New Jersey, and Southern Connecticut areas) is 
the only oxygenated gasoline/RFG overlap area that still exists. <SUP>7
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Delaware did not contain any CO nonattainment areas and was 
not required to implement an oxygenated gasoline program.
    \7\ The OPRG distinction does not apply in California areas 
required to implement both the federal RFG and state oxygenated 
gasoline programs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Although the survey requirements, discussed above, were designed to 
reduce a risk that some areas might receive relatively low oxygen RFG, 
EPA believed, at the time it issued the final RFG regulation, that the 
overlap of these several winter oxygenated gasoline programs and the 
RFG program presented an additional risk that allowing averaging for 
oxygen might lead to certain RFG areas receiving, on average, RFG with 
lower oxygen content than they would if averaging were not allowed. 
Specifically, in developing the RFG regulations, EPA was concerned that 
the requirement that refiners supply RFG with 2.7 weight percent oxygen 
to oxygenated gasoline/RFG areas would lead, through the use of 
transferable credits and averaging, to the use of RFG in non-oxygenated 
gasoline/RFG areas with oxygen content significantly lower than would 
occur without such averaging. To prevent this, the final RFG 
regulations require refiners to designate all RFG as either OPRG 
(intended for use in an oxygenated gasoline/RFG area during an 
oxygenated gasoline control period), or as non-OPRG (gasoline other 
than OPRG, e.g., non-oxygenated gasoline program reformulated 
gasoline). Refiners are required to meet the oxygen standard separately 
for non-OPRG, as well as for all RFG.<SUP>8 In addition, OPRG and non-
OPRG oxygen credits must be identified and kept separate. OPRG and non-
OPRG also have physical segregation requirements and must be used 
consistently with their designations.<SUP>9
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Under the simple model, the oxygen average must be met 
separately for VOC-controlled RFG.
    \9\ See 59 FR 7772, footnote 56.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Why the OPRG Category May Be Eliminated Now

    Between 1993, when the final RFG rule was issued, and 1995, when 
the RFG program was implemented, the number of overlapping oxygenated 
gasoline program and RFG areas significantly decreased. Several areas 
were redesignated to attainment with the National Ambient Air Quality 
Standards (NAAQS) for CO and were no longer required to comply with the 
winter oxygenated gasoline program requirements. There is now only one 
area outside of California (see note 7), the New York/New Jersey/
Connecticut CMSA, that is still an oxygenated gasoline program/RFG 
overlapping program area.
    Although EPA is concerned that the statutory mandate for 2.0 weight 
percent oxygen for RFG is met, the Agency feels that the specific risk 
of uneven RFG quality due to overlapping oxygenated gasoline/RFG 
program areas is significantly less than was expected when the RFG 
regulations were promulgated. There is still some risk that an area 
might receive relatively low oxygen RFG because of averaging, but the 
risk is no longer as likely to be specifically caused by program 
overlap.
    There is only one oxygenated gasoline overlap area left outside of 
California and the volume of gasoline expected to fall under the OPRG 
category has been greatly reduced. Based upon EPA estimates made prior 
to the beginning of the first year of the RFG program, approximately 
one-third (33%) of all gasoline nationwide was predicted to be RFG. 
Oxygenated gasoline program overlap areas outside of California 
accounted for approximately one-third (33%) of the total RFG pool, with 
approximately 19% going to the New York CMSA.<SUP>10 EPA believes that 
any risk that an area might receive low oxygen RFG is significantly 
less than it appeared in 1993 or 1994. In 1994, roughly one-third of 
RFG was expected to be destined for several oxygenated gasoline overlap 
cities outside of California. In 1996, there is only one of these 
oxygenated gasoline overlap areas left (i.e. the New York City CMSA). 
Clearly, the New York CMSA consumes a large volume of RFG--based on 
1994 estimates, 19% of the total RFG was expected to be destined for 
New York--but this is still a significantly lower volume of gasoline 
than the 33% that was originally estimated to be destined for all non-
California oxygenated gasoline overlap areas. Under these 
circumstances, EPA believes that the risk that an area might receive 
low oxygen RFG can be adequately addressed through another existing 
compliance mechanism--the RFG surveys, discussed above, and the 
additional restrictions based on the OPRG category do not provide 
enough additional protection to warrant the burden they place on the 
regulated community.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ It should be noted that, since these estimates were made in 
1994, some areas have opted out of the RFG program and Sacramento, 
California joined the program as a required covered area, and 
comparative volume totals will have changed somewhat as a result. 
These estimates are not based upon the comparative volume of OPRG to 
RFG. Rather, they are ``straight'' estimates of program area's share 
of the total RFG ``pool'' and are not broken down into compliance 
categories. The reader should be aware that OPRG gasoline likely 
represents a smaller, subset of the total volume represented for 
each area. The document from which the volume estimates were taken 
has been placed in the public docket at the location indicated in 
the ADDRESSES section of this notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Description of Today's Proposed Rule

    EPA is proposing today to amend the Federal RFG regulations to 
remove the use of a separate OPRG category and to eliminate the 
distinction between OPRG and non-OPRG. The following sections would be 
affected by today's proposal. In most cases, the changes are minor and 
would remove references to, and distinctions between, the eliminated 
OPRG category and RFG which is non-OPRG.

[[Page 12589]]



------------------------------------------------------------------------
        40 CFR part 80, section               Description of change     
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 80.2--Definitions. 80.2(nn)....  Definition of ``Oxygenated     
                                          gasoline program reformulated 
                                          gasoline,'' or OPRG'' is      
                                          proposed to be deleted.       
Section 80.65--General requirements for  Requirements for designation of
 refiners, importers, and oxygenate       gasoline as OPRG or non-OPRG  
 blenders. 80.65(d)(2)(iii) (A) and (B).  are proposed to be deleted.   
Section 80.67--Compliance on average.    Propose to delete requirements 
 80.67(f)(2)(ii), 80.67(h)(v) (A) and     to meet oxygen average        
 (B).                                     separately and to segregate   
                                          credits for non-OPRG, since   
                                          the OPRG versus non-OPRG      
                                          distinction would be          
                                          eliminated.                   
Section 80.69--Requirements for          Propose to delete these sub-   
 downstream oxygen blending. 80.69(f)     sections, as there would no   
 (1) and (2).                             longer be a category known as 
                                          ``OPRG.''                     
Section 80.75--Reporting requirements.   For 80.75 (f)(2)(ii)(A) (1)    
 80.75(f)(2)(ii)(A) (1) through (4) and   through (4), propose to       
 (B) (1) and (2); 80.75 (f)(2)(iii)(B);   eliminate the OPRG and non-   
 80.75(h)(2) (i) and (ii).                OPRG distinction. Thus, the   
                                          only categories remaining     
                                          would be VOC-controlled       
                                          (divided into subcategories 1 
                                          and 2) and non-VOC-controlled 
                                          RFG. Propose to delete 80.75  
                                          (f)(2)(ii)(B) (1) and (2) and 
                                          to eliminate to OPRG and non- 
                                          OPRG distinction. Propose to  
                                          delete 80.75(f)(2)(iii)(B),   
                                          which refers to gasoline      
                                          designated as non-OPRG.       
Section 80.77--Product transfer          Propose to delete requirement  
 documentation. 80.77 (g)(1)(ii).         to identify gasoline as OPRG  
                                          or non-OPRG.                  
Section 80.78--Controls and              The existing section prohibits 
 prohibitions on reformulated gasoline.   addition of oxygen to finished
 80.78(a)(6).                             RFG, unless such RFG is       
                                          designated as OPRG used in an 
                                          oxygenated gasoline control   
                                          area during the oxygenated    
                                          gasoline control period.      
                                          Propose to amend this OPRG    
                                          ``exception'' to allow for    
                                          elimination of the OPRG/non-  
                                          OPRG categories. Specifically,
                                          the proposed amended section  
                                          would allow for addition of   
                                          oxygenate to RFG intended for 
                                          and used in an oxygenate      
                                          gasoline program area.        
Sections 80.128 and 80.129-- Agreed      Propose to remove requirement  
 upon procedures for refiners and         to compare PTD designation    
 importers and Agreed upon procedures     consistency for OPRG versus   
 for oxygenate blenders. 80.128(d)(2)     non-OPRG. Propose to remove   
 and 80.129 (d)(3)(iv).                   similar requirement for       
                                          downstream oxygenate blenders.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Statutory Authority

    Section 114, 211, and 301(a) of the Clean Air Act as amended (42 
U.S.C. 7414, 7545, and 7601(a)).

V. Environmental Impact

    This rule is expected to have no environmental impact. The original 
reason for the OPRG category was concern that RFG quality might suffer 
in areas that were not both oxygenated gasoline program and RFG areas. 
There were several such areas when the RFG rules were promulgated. 
However, there is only one area, the New York/New Jersey/Connecticut 
CMSA, which has overlapping programs during the winter months.

VI. Economic Impact

    Today's proposed regulation would have a positive economic impact 
on parties covered by the RFG regulation. The elimination of the OPRG/
non-OPRG distinction would result in increased flexibility for 
regulated parties. Specifically, elimination of this distinction from 
the RFG regulations would alleviate the burden and cost associated with 
maintenance of separate recordkeeping, reporting, and product transfer 
documentation category for OPRG and non-OPRG gasoline. Elimination of 
the OPRG/non-OPRG distinction may also be expected to result in a 
general reduction of compliance costs associated with the need to meet 
the oxygen average separately for two classes of RFG.

VII. Regulatory Flexibility

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency 
to conduct a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to 
notice and comment rulemaking requirements unless the agency certifies 
that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small 
businesses, small not-for-profit enterprises, and small governmental 
jurisdictions. This proposed rule would not have a significant economic 
impact on a substantial number of small entities because it is not 
expected to result in any additional compliance costs to regulated 
parties. It should instead reduce costs and increase flexibility 
allowed under the regulations by removing one category of gasoline for 
oxygen averaging, the OPRG category, and eliminating in large part the 
distinction between OPRG and non-OPRG gasoline. Therefore, I certify 
that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small entities.

VIII. Executive Order 12866

    Under Executive Order 12866,<SUP>11 the Agency must determine 
whether a regulation is ``significant'' and therefore subject to 
interagency review under the Executive Order. The Order defines 
``significant regulatory action'' as one that is likely to result in a 
rule that may:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 58 FR 51735 (October 4, 1993).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more, 
or adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the 
economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public 
health or safety, or State, local or tribal governments of 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 
this Executive Order.<SUP>12
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ Id. at section 3(f) (1)-(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    It has been determined that this rule is not a ``significant 
regulatory action'' under the terms of Executive Order 12866 and is 
therefore not subject to interagency review under the Order.

IX. Unfunded Mandates

    Under Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 
(''UMRA''), P.L. 104-4, EPA must prepare a budgetary impact statement 
to accompany any general notice of proposed rulemaking or final rule 
that includes a Federal mandate which may result in estimated costs to 
State, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate,

[[Page 12590]]

or to the private sector, of $100 million or more. Under Section 205, 
for any rule subject to Section 202 EPA generally must select the least 
costly, most cost-effective, or least burdensome alternative that 
achieves the objectives of the rule and is consistent with statutory 
requirements. Under Section 203, before establishing any regulatory 
requirements that may significantly or uniquely affect small 
governments, EPA must take steps to inform and advise small governments 
of the requirements and enable them to provide input.
    EPA has determined that the rule proposed today does not include a 
federal mandate as defined in UMRA. The rule does not include a Federal 
mandate that may result in estimated annual costs to State, local or 
tribal governments in the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100 
million or more, and it does not establish regulatory requirements that 
may significantly or uniquely affect small governments.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 80

    Environmental protection, Fuel additives, Gasoline, Imports, 
Labeling, Motor vehicle pollution, Penalties, Reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: March 10, 1997.
Carol M. Browner,
Administrator.

    For the reasons set out in the preamble, 40 CFR part 80 is proposed 
to be amended as follows:

PART 80--REGULATION OF FUELS AND FUEL ADDITIVES

    1. The authority citation for part 80 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: Secs. 114, 211, and 301(a) of the Clean Air Act as 
amended (42 U.S.C. 7414, 7545, and 7601(a)).


Sec. 80.2  [Amended]

    2. Section 80.2 is proposed to be amended by removing and reserving 
paragraph (nn).


Sec. 80.65  [Amended]

    3. Section 80.65 is proposed to be amended by removing and 
reserving paragraph (d)(2)(iii).
    4. Section 80.67 is proposed to be amended by removing and 
reserving paragraph (f)(2)(ii) and by revising paragraphs 
(h)(1)(v)(A)(1) and (h)(1)(v)(A)(2) and by removing and reserving 
paragraph (h)(1)(v)(B) to read as follows:


Sec. 80.67  Compliance on average.

* * * * *
    (f) * * *
    (2) * * *
    (ii) [Reserved]
* * * * *
    (h) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (v) * * *
    (A) * * *
    (1) VOC controlled; and
    (2) Non-VOC controlled.
    (B) [Reserved]
* * * * *


Sec. 80.69  [Amended]

    5. Section 80.69 is proposed to be amended by removing paragraph 
(f).
    6. Section 80.75 is proposed to be amended by revising paragraphs 
(f)(2)(ii)(A)(1), (f)(2)(ii)(A)(2), (h)(2)(i)(A) and (h)(2)(i)(B) and 
by removing paragraphs (f)(2)(ii)(A)(3), (f)(2)(ii)(A)(4), 
(h)(2)(i)(C), (h)(2)(i)(D), and removing and reserving (h)(2)(ii) to 
read as follows:


Sec. 80.75  Reporting requirements.

* * * * *
    (f) * * *
    (2) * * *
    (ii) * * *
    (A) * * *
    (1) Gasoline designated as VOC-controlled; and
    (2) Gasoline designated as non-VOC-controlled.
* * * * *
    (h) * * *
    (2) * * *
    (i) * * *
    (A) VOC-controlled; and
    (B) Non-VOC-controlled.
* * * * *


Sec. 80.77  [Amended]

    7. Section 80.77 is proposed to be amended by removing and 
reserving paragraph (g)(1)(ii).
    8. Section 80.78 is proposed to be amended by revising paragraph 
(a)(6) to read as follows:


Sec. 80.78  Controls and prohibitions on reformulated gasoline.

    (a) * * *
    (6) No person may add any oxygenate to reformulated gasoline, 
except that such oxygenate may be added to reformulated gasoline 
provided that such gasoline is used in an oxygenated fuels program 
control area during an oxygenated fuels control period.
* * * * *
    9. Section 80.128 is proposed to be amended by revising paragraph 
(d)(2) to read as follows:


Sec. 80.128  Agreed upon procedures for refiners and importers.

* * * * *
    (d) * * *
    (2) Compare the product transfer documents designation for 
consistency with the time and place, and compliance model designations 
for the tender (VOC-controlled or non-VOC-controlled, VOC region for 
VOC-controlled, summer or winter gasoline, and simple or complex model 
certified); and
* * * * *
    10. Section 80.129 is proposed to be amended by revising paragraph 
(d)(3) (iv) to read as follows:


Sec. 80.129  Agreed upon procedures for downstream oxygenate blenders.

* * * * *
    (d) * * *
    (3) * * *
    (iv) Review the time and place designations in the product transfer 
documents prepared for the batch by the blender, for consistency with 
the time and place designations in the product transfer documents for 
the RBOB (e.g. VOC-controlled or non-VOC-controlled, VOC region for 
VOC-controlled, and simple or complex model).
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 97-6647 Filed 3-14-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE: 6560-50-P