18696 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 73 / Wednesday, April 16, 1997 / Proposed Rules

1See 59 FR 7812 (February 16, 1994).

2See Title 13, California Code of Regulations

sections 2250–2272 (as amended January 26, 1996).

3 Id., sections 2265 and 2266.

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 80

[FRL–5812–2]

Fuels and Fuel Additives;

Amendments to the Enforcement

Exemptions for California Gasoline

Refiners

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: In this action, EPA is

proposing to amend certain

requirements of the reformulated

gasoline (RFG) regulations which are

applicable to California gasoline

refiners, importers and oxygenate

blenders. These amendments will

reduce the burden associated with the

overlapping California and federal

regulations of gasoline refiners and

oxygenate blenders located in California

and importers of California gasoline.

The first proposed amendment would

allow California gasoline refiners,

importers, and oxygenate blenders to

substitute the California RFG test

methods for federal RFG test methods

for their production of gasoline used in

California and conventional gasoline

used outside of California. The second

proposed amendment would allow

California gasoline refiners, importers

and oxygenate blenders to retain the

current exemption from various federal

recordkeeping, reporting, and other

enforcement-related provisions if they

produce California RFG, using one of

the California ‘‘alternative’’ certification

methods and containing less oxygen

than the federal RFG oxygen standard,

if it is supplied to areas within

California that are not required to

receive federal RFG. The California

gasoline refiners, importers and

oxygenate blenders would conduct an

annual gasoline quality survey for the

federally–covered RFG areas of

California to ensure the gasoline in each

federally–covered RFG area is in

compliance with the federal oxygen

standard. The third proposed

amendment would correct an omission

in existing 40 CFR 80.81(e)(1). The

fourth proposed amendment would

permit a refiner of California gasoline to

sample and test at off-site tankage that

is approved by the California Air

Resources Board (CARB) as part of the

refiner’s ‘‘production facility’’ if certain

conditions are met. EPA believes that

these proposed changes will grant

refiners flexibility without any

anticipated adverse environmental

impact.

DATES: Comments on this proposed rule

must be received by May 16, 1997. EPA

does not plan to hold a public hearing

on this proposed rule, unless one is

requested. If a request by May 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 No. A–97–06, Waterside

Mall (Room M–1500), Environmental

Protection Agency, Air Docket Section,

401 M Street, SW, Washington, D.C.

20460. Documents related to this rule

have been placed in public dockets A–

97–06 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

that they request an opportunity for a

public hearing on this action should

contact Anne-Marie C. Pastorkovich,

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,

Office of Air and Radiation, (202) 233–

9013.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Anne-Marie Cooney Pastorkovich, U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency,

Office of Air and Radiation, (202) 233–

9013.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Regulated Entities

Regulated categories and entities

potentially affected by this action

include:

Category Examples of regulated entities

Industry ......... Refiners, importers and oxygenate blenders in California.

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 an

entity is regulated by this action, one

should carefully examine the RFG

provisions at 40 CFR part 80,

particularly § 80.81 dealing specifically

with California gasoline. 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. RFG Standards and California

Covered Areas

Section 211(k) of the Clean Air Act

(the Act) requires EPA to establish

requirements for reformulated gasoline

(RFG) to be used in specified ozone

nonattainment areas (federally-covered

areas), as well as ‘‘anti-dumping’’

requirements for non-reformulated, or

conventional, gasoline used in the rest

of the country, beginning in January

1995. The RFG covered areas in

California are Los Angeles and San

Diego, and Sacramento. The Act

requires that RFG reduce ozone forming

volatile organic compound (VOC) and

toxics emissions from motor vehicles,

not increase emission of oxides of

nitrogen (NOX), and meet certain

content standards for oxygen, benzene

and heavy metals. The relevant

regulations for RFG and conventional

gasoline may be found at 40 CFR part

80, subparts D, E, and F.1

B. Exemptions Specifically Related to

California Gasoline

On September 18, 1992, the California

Air Resources Board (CARB) adopted

regulations requiring reformulation of

California gasoline. The CARB

regulations established a comprehensive

set of gasoline specifications designed to

achieve reductions in emissions of

VOCs, NOX, carbon monoxide (CO),

sulfur dioxide, and toxic air pollutants

from gasoline-fueled vehicles.2 The

CARB regulations set standards for eight

gasoline parameters—sulfur, benzene,

olefins, aromatic hydrocarbons, oxygen,

Reid vapor pressure (RVP), and

distillation temperatures for the 50

percent and 90 percent evaporation

points (T–50 and T–90, respectively)—

applicable starting March 1, 1996 for all

gasoline in the California distribution

network (except for gasoline being

exported from California). The CARB

regulations also provide for the

production and sale of alternative

gasoline formulations, with certification

under the CARB program based on a

predictive model or vehicle emission

testing.3

During the federal RFG rulemaking,

and in response to comments by

California refiners, EPA concluded (1)

that VOC and toxics emission

reductions resulting from the California

Phase 2 standards would be equal to or

more stringent than the federal Phase I

RFG standards (applicable from January
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 73 / Wednesday, April 16, 1997 / Proposed Rules 18697

4See 59 FR 7758, 7759 (February 16, 1994).

5Specifically, the federal RFG regulations at

§ 80.81 provide that, subsequent to March 1, 1996

(the start of the California Phase 2 program), the

specified parties are exempt from meeting the

enforcement requirements dealing with: compliance

surveys (§ 80.68), independent sampling and testing

(§ 80.65(f)), designation of gasoline (§ 80.65(d)),

marking of conventional gasoline (§§ 80.65(g) and

80.82), downstream oxygenate blending (§ 80.69),

record keeping (§§ 80.74 and 80.104), reporting

(§§ 80.75 and 80.105), product transfer documents

(§ 80.77), parameter value reconciliation

requirements (§ 80.65(e)(2)), reformulated gasoline

and RBOB compliance requirements (§ 80.65(c)),

annual compliance audit requirements (§ 80.65(h)),

and compliance attest engagement requirements

(subpart F). Various restrictions apply to the

exemptions, and the exemptions do not apply after

December 31, 1999.

6See letter from Mr. Steve Herman, Assistant

Administrator for Enforcement and Compliance

Assurance, EPA, to Mr. Douglas Henderson,

Executive Director, Western States Petroleum

Association, dated February 29, 1996. A copy of

this letter has been placed in the docket at the

location listed in the ADDRESSES section.

7 ‘‘Fuels and Fuel Additives—Reformulated

Gasoline Sold in California; Reid Vapor Pressure

lower limit adjustment—Direct Final Rule,’’ 61 FR

20736 (May 8, 1996).

8See 40 CFR 80.46(a),(e), (f) and (g) for Federal

RFG test method requirements.

9EPA estimates that the portion of gasoline

exported from California and used in neighboring

states is about twelve percent of the total California

gasoline production and imports.

1, 1995 through December 31, 1999), (2)

that the content standards for oxygen

and benzene under California Phase 2

would in practice be equivalent to the

federal content standards, and (3) that

the CARB’s compliance and

enforcement program is designed to be

sufficiently rigorous.4 As a result, 40

CFR 80.81 exempts certain refiners,

importers and oxygenate blenders of

California Phase 2 gasoline (hereafter

referred to as ‘‘refiners’’) from a number

of federal RFG and conventional

gasoline provisions intended to

demonstrate compliance with the

federal standards.5 While the federal

RFG and conventional gasoline

standards continue to apply in

California, refiners of gasoline sold in

California are exempt in most cases

from various enforcement-related

provisions. California refiners are not

exempt from these federal enforcement

requirements with regard to gasoline

that is delivered for use outside

California, because the California Phase

2 standards and the CARB enforcement

program do not cover gasoline exported

from California.

In letters of June 15, August 3 and

November 10, 1995, the Western States

Petroleum Association (WSPA), on

behalf of gasoline refiners in California,

petitioned EPA to revise the exemption

provisions at 40 CFR 80.81 to provide

additional flexibility. The three

principle areas discussed in the petition

are the gasoline testing methods, the

standard for Reid vapor pressure (RVP),

and production of gasoline not meeting

the federal standard for oxygen content.

In February 1996, EPA notified WSPA

that EPA would initiate rulemaking to

address these issues.6 Since the

California Phase 2 program was

scheduled to begin March 1, 1996, EPA

announced that it would grant

California refiners temporary relief

through specific exemptions from

enforcement related to test methods,

oxygen content of gasoline not used in

the RFG areas, and RVP until the

rulemakings could be completed.

A final rule related to the RVP

standard was published as a direct final

rule in the Federal Register on May 8,

1996, and became effective on July 8,

1996.7

Today’s proposal addresses the

remaining two issues: gasoline testing

methods and the use in conventional

gasoline areas of gasoline certified by

California that does not meet the federal

RFG standard for oxygen content. EPA

is proposing changes similar to the

temporary enforcement exemptions

granted to the California refiners in its

February 1996 letter.

III. Description of Proposed Action

A. Testing Methods

Both the federal RFG and the

California Phase 2 programs specify

testing methods to demonstrate

compliance with the standards

applicable under each programs.

However, in the case of the tests for four

parameters (benzene, sulfur, oxygen,

and aromatics) the methods 8 specified

under the two programs are different.

The 40 CFR 80.81(h) exemption in the

federal RFG regulation allows California

refiners to use the California test

methods prescribed in Title 13,

California Code of Regulations, sections

2260 et seq., instead of the federal test

methods prescribed at 40 CFR 80.46,

when producing California Phase 2

gasoline that is used in California.

Therefore, California refiners may use

either the federal or CARB methods for

gasoline used within the state. However,

under existing federal regulations,

California refiners are still required to

use the federal test methods prescribed

at 40 CFR 80.46 for gasoline that is used

outside California, including

conventional gasoline subject to the

anti-dumping standards specified at 40

CFR 80.101.9

WSPA, on behalf of California

refiners, has requested that EPA extend

the test method exemption at 40 CFR

80.81(h) to also cover the gasoline

produced by California refiners that is

exported from California to other states.

WSPA asked for this change because a

refiner who is utilizing the flexibility of

the CARB testing methods for gasoline

sold within California, would have to

implement federal test methods to

certify the same gasoline for export to

surrounding states.

EPA believes that WSPA has raised a

valid concern and that, under certain

conditions, it may be appropriate to

allow the use of non-federal test

methods for gasoline exported from

California. Absent such relief, California

refiners who export gasoline to other

states are required to certify such

gasoline using federal testing methods.

Both ‘‘downgraded’’ RFG and

conventional gasoline are exported from

California. If a California refiner chooses

to utilize the flexibility of the CARB

testing methods, they must also

implement the federal test methods in

order to certify gasoline for distribution

outside California.

EPA believes that the standards under

the California Phase 2 program are

expected to result in lower emissions

than will result from federal RFG and,

as discussed below, there may be

emissions benefits for areas receiving

‘‘downgraded’’ California RFG.

Moreover CARB is expected to enforce

these standards in a comprehensive,

aggressive manner that will result in

high compliance. The Agency does not

believe that any environmental

detriment would occur from allowing

the use of the CARB test methods for

gasoline produced in California, but

shipped out of state for use in non-RFG

areas. Because some of the gasoline

shipped out of California as

conventional gasoline may be

‘‘downgraded’’ RFG or gasoline meeting

California Phase 2 standards, an

environmental benefit may be expected

for areas receiving such gasoline

exported from California. Thus,

allowing flexibility in testing method for

California refiners might actually

produce an environmental benefit to

surrounding areas, because such

flexibility would make it easier and

more economical for California refiners

to export cleaner gasoline.

In its February 29, 1996 response to

WSPA, EPA indicated its intention to

change the federal RFG regulations to

allow additional testing flexibility for

California refiners and immediately

gave California refiners additional

flexibility for a limited time. In that

letter, EPA stated that it will not enforce

the requirement at 40 CFR 80.65(e)(1)

and 40 CFR 80.101(i)(1)(i)(A) to test

gasoline using the federal test methods

specified under 40 CFR 80.46 for

benzene, sulfur, oxygen or aromatics,
18698 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 73 / Wednesday, April 16, 1997 / Proposed Rules

10See Title 13, California Code of Regulations,

section 2262.5 for the oxygen standards, section

2265 for the alternative predictive model method,

and section 2266 for the alternative vehicle

emission testing method.

with regard to gasoline that is produced

in or imported into California but that

is used outside California.

In order to qualify for this

enforcement relief, the refiner or

importer must meet certain conditions,

designed to ensure that only gasoline

produced by refiners or importers

subject to CARB enforcement, and that

is sold in Federal conventional gasoline

areas outside California, is covered by

this flexibility and to ensure that only

gasoline meeting RFG standards will

actually be sold in Federal RFG areas.

Furthermore, it is necessary to establish

equivalency between CARB and Federal

test method results, since the methods

themselves are not necessarily

equivalent and therefore different

methods (if not correlated) would yield

different results. In the absence of

correlation, the possibility of one fuel

having more than one value associated

with it could cause disruption and

confusion in the distribution system.

EPA believes that the conditions, as

described in the next paragraph, are

necessary to protect the environmental

benefits associated with the Federal

RFG and anti-dumping program.

To qualify, the gasoline must be

produced at a refinery located in

California at which gasoline meeting the

California Phase 2 standards and

requirements is produced, or the

gasoline must be imported into

California from outside the United

States as California Phase 2 gasoline

(i.e., gasoline that meets the standards

and requirements of the California

Phase 2 program). When exported from

California, such gasoline must be

classified as federal conventional

gasoline, and may not be classified as

federal RFG. Furthermore, the refiner

must correlate the results from any nonfederal test method to the method

specified under 40 CFR 80.46 for any

gasoline that is used outside California,

and such correlation must be

demonstrated to EPA upon request.

The temporary enforcement flexibility

described above and in EPA’s February

29, 1996 letter will expire at the

conclusion of this rulemaking (i.e. upon

the effective date of the final rule).

EPA is proposing today to amend 40

CFR 80.81 to incorporate the

enforcement flexibility regarding test

methods that EPA temporarily granted

in its February 29, 1996 letter to WSPA.

EPA is proposing this action because the

Agency believes that it may result in

lower compliance costs and greater

flexibility for California refiners and

because there is no expected adverse

environmental impact from this

proposed action.

B. Standard for Oxygen

Section 211(k) of the Clean Air Act

requires that the RFG standard of 2.0

weight percent (wt%) minimum oxygen

must be met in each federally-covered

RFG area. When EPA promulgated the

California enforcement exemptions at 40

CFR 80.81, the statewide standards for

California Phase 2 gasoline would have

been equal to or more stringent than all

federal RFG standards. With regard to

oxygen content, the California Phase 2

standards included a statewide flat limit

of 1.8 to 2.2 wt% oxygen that EPA

considered, in practice, to be equivalent

to the federal standard of 2.0 wt%

minimum. As a result, EPA did not need

to distinguish between California Phase

2 gasoline used in the federally-covered

RFG areas within California from the

California Phase 2 gasoline used in the

other areas of California, in order to

have confidence that RFG standards

would be met in each federally covered

RFG area in California.

The final California Phase 2

requirements were changed, however,

and now allow gasoline that does not

meet the federal RFG standard for

oxygen. Under two alternative

California certification methods, the

California predictive model and the

vehicle emissions testing method, there

is no minimum oxygen content

requirement for summertime California

Phase 2 gasoline.10 Under 40 CFR

80.81(e)(2), certain enforcement

exemptions are withdrawn if a

California refiner uses one of the

alternative California certification

methods, unless within 30 days of

receiving the California certification it

notifies EPA and demonstrates that its

gasoline meets all federal RFG pergallon standards, including the 2.0

weight % oxygen standard.

Therefore, in order to retain the

enforcement exemptions, 40 CFR

80.81(e)(2) currently requires that all

California Phase 2 gasoline produced by

a refiner, regardless of whether it is sold

in a federally-covered RFG area, must

meet the federal RFG standard for

oxygen content. Because neither of the

two alternative California certification

methods ensure that the federal oxygen

content standard will be met, except

during designated winter months, a

refiner that uses an alternative

California certification method must

either additionally notify and

demonstrate to EPA that its gasoline

meets the federal RFG standard for

oxygen content or lose its eligibility for

certain federal exemptions under 40

CFR 80.81. This loss of eligibility

applies even if the gasoline not meeting

the federal RFG standard for oxygen

content is being distributed only to

those areas of California that are not

federally-covered RFG areas.

In its petition, WSPA asked EPA to

amend the enforcement exemption

provisions to allow California refiners to

supply California Phase 2 gasoline

containing less than 2.0 wt% oxygen to

markets within California that are not

federally-covered RFG areas without

having to comply with the notification

and demonstration requirements of 40

CFR 80.81(e)(2) and without losing the

federal enforcement exemptions. In its

February 29, 1996 response to WSPA,

EPA said it is appropriate to amend 40

CFR 80.81, provided that annual

gasoline quality surveys for oxygen

content are conducted in each federallycovered RFG area, in order to ensure the

gasoline in each federally-covered RFG

area in California is in compliance with

the federal oxygen content standard.

EPA reached these conclusions because

the statewide California Phase 2

standards, with the exception of oxygen

content, are more stringent than the

standards for federal RFG, including any

gasoline formulation certified using the

alternative methods. In addition, EPA

believes that these standards will be

appropriately enforced by CARB. EPA

believes that the California Phase 2

program provides emission reductions

that equal or exceed that of the federal

Phase I RFG program, except for the

oxygen content requirements. EPA

concluded that the federal RFG oxygen

requirements do not have to be met in

areas of California that are not subject to

the federal RFG standards, in order to

ensure compliance with the oxygen

requirements for areas that are subject to

the federal RFG standards. The annual

compliance survey is a more

appropriate mechanism to ensure such

compliance under these circumstances.

Consistent with, and as described in,

the February 29, 1996 letter, EPA is

proposing to amend 40 CFR 80.81 to

allow refiners to produce California

Phase 2 gasoline containing less than

2.0 wt% oxygen for use outside the

federally-covered RFG areas in

California, provided appropriate annual

gasoline quality surveys for oxygen are

conducted in each federally-covered

RFG area in California. These surveys

must show an average oxygen content in

each covered area of at least 2.0 wt%.

While EPA could require that all

gasoline batches being produced for the

federally-covered RFG areas be tested

for oxygen content at the refinery, or
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 73 / Wednesday, April 16, 1997 / Proposed Rules 18699

prior to importation as applicable, such

testing would not ensure that all

gasoline being sold in the federallycovered RFG areas contains at least 2.0

wt% oxygen. Even though each refinery

might meet its refinery gate standard for

oxygen on average, some areas might

still receive RFG with relatively low

oxygen content while others might

receive RFG with relatively high oxygen

content. The surveys are designed to

ensure that all Federal RFG program

areas receive RFG that meets at least the

minimum required oxygen standard.

As in the federal RFG program outside

of California, the compliance surveys

appear to be the most practical method

to assure that, on average, the federallycovered RFG areas in California receive

gasoline that meets the federal standard

for oxygen content. The federal RFG

program at 40 CFR 80.67 allows refiners,

importers, and oxygenate blenders to

meet certain federal RFG standards on

average, rather than on a per-gallon

basis for each batch of gasoline. The

requirement must then be met on

average, over the entire production,

without any averaging for each specific

covered area to which the gasoline is

distributed.

Refiners, importers and oxygenate

blenders producing gasoline to meet

standards on average are allowed to

produce some batches of gasoline that

are less stringent than the averaging

standards (within the limits of a pergallon minimum or maximum standard,

as applicable). But they must also

produce some batches of gasoline that

are more stringent than the averaging

standards, such that on average, the

applicable averaging standard is met.

The averaging standards are somewhat

more stringent than the per-gallon

standard (e.g., the oxygen content

averaging standard is 2.1 wt%, and the

per-gallon standard is 2.0 wt%). It is

expected that, if all refiners meet either

the per-gallon standards or the

averaging standards, the covered areas

receiving their gasoline should achieve

an average oxygen content no lower

than would occur without the allowance

for such averaging, based on the

extensive fungible distribution system

for gasoline products.

Because many gasoline distribution

systems are fungible, some uncertainty

exists as to where each batch of gasoline

from each supplier is ultimately

distributed, and what batches, or

portions of batches, from each supplier

that each covered area actually receives.

For example, under the averaging

program, the possibility still exists that

one or more covered areas may receive

too many batches of RFG that have a

relatively low oxygen content (e.g.

greater than or equal to 1.5 wt%, but

less than 2.0 wt%), so that the required

oxygen levels will not have been

achieved in that area.

Consequently, the federal RFG

program at 40 CFR 80.67 requires

compliance surveys under 40 CFR 80.68

for refiners that elect to meet the

standards on average under 40 CFR

80.41(b), (d) or (f), as applicable, rather

than to meet the per-gallon standards for

each batch of gasoline under 40 CFR

80.41(a), (c), or (e), as applicable. In

general, the compliance surveys are to

ensure that each covered area receives

gasoline that cumulatively (from all

suppliers and across time) has the same

oxygen content it would have if

averaging was not allowed. However,

the federal RFG regulations at 40 CFR

80.81(b)(1) exempts refiners of

California gasoline (with respect to

California gasoline) from the

compliance survey provisions at 40 CFR

80.68, for the reasons described earlier.

In response to the WSPA request

concerning oxygen content

requirements in California and the

changes in California Phase 2 standards

regarding oxygen content, EPA has

reconsidered the limited use application

of the compliance survey provisions.

EPA believes that a yearly survey

program, such as that required under 40

CFR 80.68 for averaging under the

federal RFG program, along with other

program requirements (such as

compliance by each refinery separately),

provides the most flexible alternative to

refiners and the most assurance to EPA

that complying gasoline is actually

being sold in the federally-covered RFG

areas.

As stated in its February 29, 1996

response to WSPA, EPA decided to

allow California refiners to produce

gasoline that contains less than 2.0 wt%

oxygen for use outside the federallycovered RFG areas, until appropriate

amendments to the RFG requirements

were been published in the Federal

Register and become effective. In

particular, EPA said it will not enforce

the requirement at 40 CFR 81(e)(2) that

California refiners must demonstrate

that federal RFG per-gallon standards

are met on each occasion California

Phase 2 gasoline is certified under Title

13, California Code of Regulations,

section 2265 (dealing with gasoline

certification based on the California

predictive model), provided that two

conditions are met. First, a program of

gasoline quality surveys must be

conducted in each RFG covered area in

California each year to monitor annual

average oxygen content. Second, the

surveys must be conducted in

accordance with each requirement

specified under 40 CFR 80.68(b) and (c),

dealing with surveys for RFG quality,

and 40 CFR 80.41(o) through (r), dealing

with the effects of survey failures,

except that the surveys need only

evaluate for oxygen content and a

minimum of four surveys (a survey

series) must be conducted in each

covered area each calendar year.

EPA proposes to retain as an option

the existing 30-day notification and

demonstration provisions at 40 CFR

80.81(e)(2).

Under the existing provision, gasoline

certified using an alternative California

certification method and not meeting

the federal standard for oxygen content

may not be marketed anywhere in

California without losing the

enforcement exemptions listed in

paragraph (e)(1). This is because EPA

cannot allow non-complying fungible

gasoline in California, unless there are

adequate enforcement procedures to

ensure compliance of the gasoline in the

federally-covered RFG areas with the

federal standards.

EPA considered whether it should

simply eliminate the exemption for

compliance surveys at 40 CFR

80.81(b)(1) for California gasoline.

However, such an action would impact

all refiners of California gasoline, even

for those that choose to not certify using

one of the alternative California

certification procedures, and those that

produce, import or blend only

California gasoline that meets the

federal oxygen content standard.

Instead, EPA proposes to offer the

compliance surveys as an option for

refiners of California gasoline that do

not choose the existing notification and

demonstration option at 40 CFR

80.81(e)(2), and that do not want to meet

the federal oxygen content standard for

gasoline being used in areas of

California that are not federally-covered

RFG areas. Further, EPA proposes some

exceptions to the compliance surveys as

specified for federally-covered RFG

areas outside of California.

First, EPA proposes that surveys

conducted under the proposed

compliance survey option of the

exemption provisions at 40 CFR

80.81(e)(2) not be considered for the

purposes of determining the required

number of surveys that must be

conducted for compliance with the

federal RFG program at 40 CFR 80.68.

Under 40 CFR 80.68(b), the required

number of compliance surveys required

in a year for federally-covered RFG areas

outside of California depends partly on

the number of areas required to be

surveyed in the year, the number of

surveys conducted the previous year,
18700 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 73 / Wednesday, April 16, 1997 / Proposed Rules

and the survey results from the previous

year.

EPA believes that the proposed

optional surveys for federally-covered

RFG areas in California should not

impact the required surveys for

federally-covered RFG areas outside of

California. This is because of the

differences in the purpose, scope and

desired consequences between the two

survey programs. The federal RFG

compliance surveys required at 40 CFR

80.68 are designed to detect and apply

remedial actions to geographical and

temporal noncompliance that may occur

due to the combination of averaging and

refinery based standards. Parameters for

all standards being averaged are

required to be measured, and the

ultimate consequence of multiple

failures of the survey series is to

effectively disallow the use of averaging.

In contrast, the proposed optional

surveys under 40 CFR 80.81(e)(2) are

designed to detect and apply remedial

actions to geographical and temporal

noncompliance with the oxygen content

standard that may occur due to the

absence of California oxygenate

standards and other enforcement

requirements intended to ensure the

delivery of RFG into RFG areas, such as

product transfer documents. The

ultimate consequence of multiple

failures of the survey series is to either

withdraw certain federal enforcement

exemptions, or require refiners to

produce California gasoline that meets

the federal oxygen content standard for

all areas within California (see fourth

issue of this section).

Second, EPA proposes a fixed number

of surveys for the proposed compliance

survey option, similar to the temporary

enforcement flexibility granted in the

February 29, 1996 letter to WSPA.

Under 40 CFR 80.68(b), a formula is

used to determine the number of

surveys required in a year, which

depends on a specified schedule, the

number of surveys required the previous

year, gasoline volume supplied to the

covered areas, and results of the survey

the previous year. However, EPA

believes that a minimum four surveys

each year for each federally-covered

RFG area is adequate to determine

whether the average oxygen content is

adequate. Therefore, EPA is proposing

that 40 CFR 80.81(e)(2) require only a

minimum of four surveys each year for

each federally-covered RFG area in

California. As with the surveys required

under 40 CFR 80.68 for federallycovered areas outside of California, EPA

will determine when these optional

surveys conducted in California under

40 CFR 80.81(e)(2) shall be conducted.

Third, the proposed consequences of

passing and failing an optional survey

series in a federally-covered RFG area in

California under 40 CFR 80.81(e)(2) is

different than the existing consequences

of passing and failing a required survey

series in federally-covered RFG areas

outside of California under 40 CFR

80.68. A failure of an oxygen content

compliance survey required at 40 CFR

80.68 for a federally-covered RFG area

outside of California will result in the

‘‘ratcheting’’ of the minimum per-gallon

oxygen standard to be more stringent

(i.e., to be closer to the averaging

standard) for the following year. As a

consequence, the allowable range, and

thus the flexibility, for averaging will be

reduced. For example, the per-gallon

minimum standard under averaging for

oxygen content is 1.5 wt%. Under 40

CFR 80.41(o), if a covered area fails the

survey series for a year, the per-gallon

minimum oxygen content standard for

the following year will be increased by

0.1 wt% to 1.6 wt%. If the covered area

fails the survey series in a subsequent

year, the per-gallon minimum oxygen

content standard for the following year

will be increased by 0.1 wt% to 1.7

wt%, and so on. If the covered area fails

the survey series any five years

(consecutive or non-consecutive), the

per-gallon minimum oxygen content

standard for the years following the fifth

failure will be equal to the federal pergallon oxygen standard of 2.0 wt%.

However, a one-time relaxation of the

per-gallon minimum standard by 0.1

wt% is allowed following two

consecutive years of survey series

passes for oxygen content.

For this survey option, EPA proposes

that only one year of passing the survey

series in a covered area will be needed

to initiate relaxation of the minimum

oxygen content standard for the

following year. EPA proposes that the

minimum oxygen content standard be

relaxed by 0.1 wt% for each year

following a year in which the survey

series passes in a federally-covered RFG

area in California. However, EPA will

not allow the minimum oxygen content

standard to be less than 1.5 wt%, the

minimum oxygen content standard for

federal RFG under averaging. As with

failures of survey series required under

40 CFR 80.68 in federally-covered RFG

areas outside of California in accordance

with 40 CFR 80.41(q)(4), adjusted

standards under the compliance survey

option of 40 CFR 80.81(e)(2) apply to all

averaged gasoline produced by a refiner

for use in any federally-covered RFG

area. However, the proposed procedures

and consequences of the oxygen surveys

contained in this notice differ somewhat

from the survey coincidences under 40

CFR 80.68. The surveys proposed today

are much smaller in scope than the

existing, ‘‘general’’ survey provisions

and the consequences for successive

failures, as discussed in greater detail in

this section, may be the subject of future

Agency rulemaking action to remove

some or all of the California

enforcement exemptions.

EPA proposes that the ultimate

consequence of multiple failures of the

optional compliance surveys be

withdrawal of the survey option, rather

than the effective withdrawal of the

averaging option, as with the required

compliance surveys conducted under 40

CFR 80.68 for federally-covered RFG

areas outside of California. The

compliance survey option provides

refiners of California gasoline additional

flexibility under the federal exemption

provisions, conditioned on the premise

that those refiners will control the

oxygen content of the gasoline being

distributed to the federally-covered RFG

areas within California. If the refiners do

not control the oxygen content of the

gasoline going to those areas as

determined by the results of the surveys,

EPA believes that it may be reasonable

to remove the flexibility provided under

this option. Consequently, EPA

proposes that a failure of a survey series

in one federally-covered RFG area in

California for three consecutive years, or

an equivalent ‘‘net’’ failure of three

years over any number of years (i.e.,

number of years the survey series failed

subtracted from the number of years the

survey series passed), the compliance

survey option will no longer be

applicable for any federally-covered

RFG area in California. In practice, this

situation will occur if a survey series

fails for a covered area in a year in

which the minimum oxygen content

standard had been raised to 1.7 wt%

due to a survey series failure in that

covered area the previous year.

Consistent with the existing

compliance survey requirements for

federally-covered RFG areas outside of

California, EPA proposes to allow the

optional compliance survey under 40

CFR 80.81(e)(2) to be conducted either

by individual refiners under 40 CFR

80.68(a) or as a group of refiners under

40 CFR 80.68(b). The temporary

enforcement flexibility granted by the

February 29, 1996 response to WSPA

omitted the individual survey option of

40 CFR 80.68(a), because that survey

option is not currently being used and

is not expected to be used for practical

reasons. Under either 80.68(a) or (b),

covered refiners are required to actively

participate in a survey program. The

consequences of any survey failure will
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 73 / Wednesday, April 16, 1997 / Proposed Rules 18701

11Under 40 CFR 80.2 (h), a ‘‘refinery’’ is ‘‘a plant

where gasoline or diesel fuel is produced.’’

apply to all suppliers serving the failed

area.

It should be noted that the California

Phase 2 gasoline that does not meet the

federal RFG standards, including the

oxygen standard, is classified under the

federal regulations as conventional

gasoline. In addition, the flexibility

allowed by today’s proposed

amendments does not alter the

prohibitions under section 211(k)(5) of

the Clean Air Act, and 40 CFR

80.78(a)(1) against selling or dispensing

conventional gasoline to ultimate

consumers in federally-covered RFG

areas, and against selling conventional

gasoline for resale in federally-covered

RFG areas unless the gasoline is

segregated and marked as ‘‘conventional

gasoline, not for sale to ultimate

consumers in a covered area.’’ Nothing

in today’s proposal would change the

requirement that refiners and importers

in California meet all other Federal RFG

standards, including the oxygen

standard, for gasoline produced or

imported for use in Federal RFG

covered areas in California. These

standards must be met separately for

each refinery and by each importer.

The proposed amendments to 40 CFR

80.81 are generally consistent with the

February 29, 1996 letter to WSPA.

C. Correction to 80.81(e)(1)

EPA proposes to correct 40 CFR

80.81(e)(1), which erroneously omits

one provision, paragraph (f), from the

list of enforcement exemption

provisions that would not apply under

the conditions of paragraphs (e)(2) or

(e)(3). Paragraph (e)(2) specifies that the

exemption provisions listed in

paragraph (e)(1) do not apply if a refiner

certifies California gasoline under one of

the alternative California certification

procedures, unless the refiner notifies

EPA of that alternative certification and

demonstrates to EPA that its gasoline

meets all federal per-gallon standards.

(This proposal adds a compliance

survey option to section (e)(2)(ii).)

Paragraph (e)(3) specifies that the

exemption provisions listed in

paragraph (e)(1) do not apply in the case

of a refiner of California gasoline that

has been assessed a civil, criminal or

administrative penalty for certain

violations of federal or California

regulations, except upon a showing of

good cause.

Paragraph (f) specifies that for

California phase 2 gasoline (California

gasoline that is sold or made available

for sale after March 1, 1996) the

following federal RFG enforcement

requirements are waived: the

oxygenated fuels provisions of

80.78(a)(1)(iii), the product transfer

provisions of 80.78(a)(1)(iv), the

oxygenate blending provisions

contained in 80.78(a)(7), and the

segregation of simple and complex

model certified gasoline provision of

80.78(a)(9). Under the conditions of

either paragraph (e)(2) or (e)(3), EPA

would need those enforcement

provisions to ensure that gasoline being

used in federally-covered RFG areas in

California complies with the federal

standards. Therefore, EPA proposes to

amend paragraph 40 CFR 80.81(e)(1) to

include paragraph (f) in the list of

enforcement exemptions that would

become inapplicable under the

conditions of paragraphs (e)(2) or (e)(3).

D. Proposed Amendment to Sampling

and Testing Requirements for California

refiners

Under 40 CFR 80.65(e)(1), a refiner

must determine the properties of each

batch of RFG it produces prior to the

gasoline leaving the refinery.11 Under

the California RFG program, refiners

may obtain approval to sample and test

gasoline for compliance with California

RFG standards at off-site ‘‘production’’

tankage. This approval would have to be

obtained under Title 13, Section

2260(a)(28) of the California Code of

Regulations, which states:

(28) ‘‘Production facility’’ means a facility

in California at which gasoline * * * is

produced. Upon request of a producer, the

executive director [of CARB] may designate,

as part of the producer’s production facility,

a physically separate bulk storage facility

which (A) is owned or leased by the

producer, and (B) is operated by or at the

direction of the producer, and (C) is not used

to store or distribute gasoline * * * that is

not supplied from the production facility.’’

It is EPA’s understanding that the

third requirement, (C), is interpreted by

CARB to require that the gasoline must

be transported to the off-site tankage

served via a dedicated pipeline.

In this notice, EPA is proposing

amendments to 40 CFR 80.81(h), which

would allow California refiners who

have obtained approval from the State of

California to conduct sampling and

testing at off-site tankage served by a

dedicated pipeline to use this approach

under the federal RFG program as well.

Specifically, the proposed rule would

allow a California refiner who has

obtained approval from the State of

California to conduct sampling and

testing at off-site tankage under

California Code of Regulations Title 13,

Section 2260(a)(28), to conduct

sampling and testing at such approved

off-site tankage for purposes of the

federal RFG program. The gasoline must

be sampled and tested under the terms

of a current, valid protocol agreement

between the refiner and CARB. The

refiner must provide a copy of the

current, valid protocol agreement

specifying the off-site tankage as part of

the production facility, to the EPA

Administrator or the Administrator’s

designated agent, upon request.

EPA believes that this proposed

approach is justified because of the

unique situation that exists in the case

of refiners subject to the California RFG

requirements, including the

enforcement sampling and testing

program that is carried out by the State

of California at refineries producing

California RFG. EPA also believes that

this proposed approach will minimize

any unnecessary inconsistencies

between the federal and California RFG

requirements which do not result in

differences in environmental or public

health impacts.

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

negative environmental impact. These

amendments are intended to eliminate

duplicative enforcement requirements,

and do not relax the federal standards.

EPA has determined that the statewide

California Phase 2 program is equal to

or more stringent than the federal Phase

I RFG program, except for the oxygen

standard. In fact, as described above, the

California Phase 2 program is designed

to, and may result in, greater emissions

reductions that the federal RFG

program. The additional testing

flexibility allowed certain refiners of

California gasoline under today’s

proposed regulation may, in fact, result

in an environmental benefit because it

would give California refiners flexibility

to sell gasoline meeting California Phase

2 standards as federal conventional

gasoline in other areas. It is reasonable

to expect that such gasoline would be

‘‘cleaner’’ than other conventional

gasoline and could result in an

environmental benefit to the areas

receiving it.

VI. Economic Impact

Today’s proposed regulation is

expected to give refiners of California

gasoline additional operational

flexibility and is not expected to result

in additional compliance costs for

regulated parties, including small

entities.
18702 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 73 / Wednesday, April 16, 1997 / Proposed Rules

12 58 FR 51736 (October 4, 1993).

13 Id. at section 3(f)(1)–(4).

The Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5

U.S.C. 601–612, requires that Federal

Agencies examine the impacts of their

regulations on small entities. The act

requires an Agency to prepare a

regulatory flexibility analysis in

conjunction with notice and comment

rulemaking, unless the Agency head

certifies that the rule will not have a

significant impact on a substantial

number of small entities. 5 U.S.C.

605(b). The Administrator certifies that

this rule will not have a significant

impact on a substantial number of small

entities. This rule is not expected to

result in any additional compliance cost

to regulated parties and may be

expected to reduce compliance cost.

Specifically, the additional flexibility

allowed by permitting use of CARB

testing methods for California gasoline

exported to surrounding areas, the

proposed oxygen survey option, and the

proposed off-site sampling and testing

allowance would grant all California

refiners (regardless of size), additional

compliance flexibility and would permit

them options that could significantly

lower compliance costs. The changes

proposed today are expected to be

beneficial for all affected industry

parties, including affected small

entities.

VII. Executive Order 12866

Under Executive Order 12866,12 the

Agency must determine whether a

regulation 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

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.13

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

OMB review.

VIII. 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,

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 costeffective, 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.

IX. Paperwork Reduction Act

The information collection

requirements in this proposed rule will

be submitted for approval to the Office

of Management and Budget (OMB)

under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44

U.S.C. 3501 et seq. An information

Collection Request (ICR) document has

been prepared by EPA (ICR NO.

1591.07) covering this and related

collections. OMB has approved the

remainder of the information collection

requirements for the Standards for

Reformulated Gasoline Regulations and

has assigned OMB control number

2060–0277. A copy may be obtained

from Sandy Farmer, OPPE Regulatory

Information Division; U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency

(2137); 401 M St., S.W.; Washingtion,

DC 20460 or by calling (202) 260–2740.

Today’s proposal rule includes

optional oxygen surveys applicable in

RFG program areas located within the

state of California. This survey option is

necessary to ensure that the

environmental and public health

benefits of the RFG program are met in

California RFG areas and is designed to

preserve the California enforcement

exemptions contained in 40 CFR 80.81.

Specifically, today’s proposed rule

allows refiners to produce California

Phase 2 gasoline containing less than

2.0 weight% oxygen for use outside

federally covered areas provided

appropriate annual gasoline quality

surveys for oxygen are conducted in

each covered area in California.

EPA estimates the cost of all the

required RFG surveys to be

approximately 2.3 million for 1997 and

approximately $6.0 million for 1998 and

beyond (when complex model standards

apply). The vast majority of the cost is

attributable to the comprehensive

surveys required under 40 CFR 80.68.

Section 80.68 surveys are applicable

in all Federal RFG covered areas outside

California and cover a broader range of

parameters than the proposed California

surveys, which are designed to monitor

annual average oxygen content only.

The proposed California surveys are

limited in their number. Four surveys

are proposed to be conducted each year

in each of three California Federal RFG

covered areas, for a total of 12 surveys.

Industry has generally welcomed this

California survey option, since it grants

flexibility and potentially reduces

compliance burdens.

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 Ageny. This includes the time

needed to review instructions; develop,

acquire, install, utilize technology and

systems for the purposes of collecting,

validating, and verifing information,

processing and maintaining

information, and disclosing and

providing 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.

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 OMG

control number. The OMB control

numbers for EPA’s regulations are listed

in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR chapter 15.

Comments are requested 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

March 17, 1997 C 20460 and to the
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 73 / Wednesday, April 16, 1997 / Proposed Rules 18703

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. Include the ICR number

in any correspondence. Since OMB is

required to make a decision concerning

the ICR between 30 and 60 days after

April 16, 1997, a comment to OMB is

best assured of having its full effect, if

OMB receives it by May 16, 1997. The

final rule will respond to any OMB or

public comments on the information

collection requirements contained in

this proposal.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 80

Environmental protection, Air

pollution control, California

exemptions, Gasoline, Reformulated

gasoline, Motor vehicle pollution.

Dated: April 9, 1997.

Carol M. Browner,

Administrator.

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)).

2. Section 80.81 is amended by

revising paragraphs (e)(1), (e)(2) and (h)

to read as follows:

§ 80.81 Enforcement exemptions for

California gasoline.

* * * * *

(e)(1) The exemption provisions

contained in paragraphs (b)(2), (b)(3),

(c), and (f) of this section shall not apply

under the circumstances set forth in

paragraphs (e)(2) and (e)(3) of this

section.

(2) Such exemption provisions shall

not apply to any refiner, importer, or

oxygenate blender of California gasoline

with regards to any gasoline formulation

that it produces or imports is certified

under Title 13, California Code of

Regulations, section 2265 or section

2266, unless:

(i)(A) Written notification option. The

refiner, importer, or oxygenate blender,

within 30 days of the issuance of such

certification:

(1) Notifies the Administrator of such

certification;

(2) Submits to the Administrator

copies of the applicable certification

order issued by the State of California

and the application for certification

submitted by the regulated party to the

State of California; and

(3) Submits to the Administrator a

written demonstration that all gasoline

formulations produced, imported or

blended by the refiner, importer or

oxygenate blender for use in California

meets each of the complex model pergallon standards specified in § 80.41(c).

(B) If the Administrator determines

that the written demonstration

submitted under paragraph (e)(2)(i)(A)

of this section does not demonstrate that

all certified gasoline formulations meet

each of the complex model per-gallon

standards specified in § 80.41(c), the

Administrator shall provide notice to

the party (by first class mail) of such

determination and of the date on which

the exemption provisions specified in

paragraph (e)(1) of this section shall no

longer be applicable, which date shall

be no earlier than 90 days after the date

of the Administrator’s notification; or

(ii) Compliance survey option. The

compliance survey requirements of

§ 80.68 are met for each covered area in

California for which the refiner,

importer or oxygenate blender supplies

gasoline for use in the covered area,

except that:

(A) The survey series must determine

compliance only with the oxygen

content standard of 2.0 weight-percent;

(B) The survey series must consist of

at least four surveys a year for each

covered area;

(C) The surveys shall not be included

in determining the number of surveys

under § 80.68(b)(2);

(D) In the event a survey series

conducted under this paragraph

(e)(2)(ii) fails in accordance with

§ 80.68(c)(12), the provisions of

§§ 80.41(o), (p) and (q) are applicable,

except that if the survey series failure

occurs in a year in which the applicable

minimum oxygen content is 1.7 weight

percent, the compliance survey option

of this section shall not be applicable for

any future year; and

(E) Not withstanding § 80.41(o), in the

event a covered area passes the oxygen

content series in a year, the minimum

oxygen content standard for that

covered area beginning in the year

following the passed survey series shall

be made less stringent by decreasing the

minimum oxygen content standard by

0.1%, except that in no case shall the

minimum oxygen content standard be

less than that specified in § 80.41(d).

* * * * *

(h)(1) For the purposes of the batch

sampling and analysis requirements

contained in § 80.65(e)(1), any refiner,

importer or oxygenate blender of

California gasoline may use a sampling

and/or analysis methodology prescribed

in Title 13, California Code of

Regulations, sections 2260 et seq., in

lieu of any applicable methodology

specified in § 80.46, with regards to

(i) Such gasoline; or

(ii) That portion of its gasoline

produced or imported for use in other

areas of the United States, provided that

(A) The gasoline must be produced by

a refinery that is located in the state of

California that produces California

gasoline, or imported by an importer of

California gasoline;

(B) The gasoline must be classified as

conventional gasoline upon exportation

from the California, or upon release or

shipment from the refinery if the

refinery is located outside of California;

and

(C) The refiner or importer must

correlate the results from the applicable

sampling and /or analysis methodology

prescribed in Title 13, California Code

of Regulations, sections 2260 et seq.,

with the method specified at § 80.46,

and such correlation must be adequately

demonstrated to EPA upon request.

(2) Nothwithstanding the

requirements of § 80.65(e)(1) regarding

when the properties of a batch of

reformulated gasoline must be

determined, a refiner of California

gasoline may determine the properties

of gasoline as specified under

§ 80.65(e)(1) at off site tankage provided

that:

(i) The samples are properly collected

under the terms of a current and valid

protocol agreement between the refiner

and the California Air Resources Board

with regard to sampling at the off site

tankage and consistent with

requirements prescribed in Title 13,

California Code of Regulations, sections

2260 et seq.; and

(ii) The refiner provides a copy of the

protocol agreement to EPA upon

request.

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 97–9867 Filed 4–15–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P