Regulation of Fuels and Fuel Additives: Standards for Reformulated and Conventional Gasoline
Federal RegisterJul 20, 1994
Ask Donna
What actually matters in this document.
Text
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 80
[AMS-FRL-5007-9]
Regulation of Fuels and Fuel Additives: Standards for
Reformulated and Conventional Gasoline
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.
ACTION: Direct final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Clean Air Act, as amended in 1990 (CAA or the Act),
mandated that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA or the Agency)
promulgate regulations requiring that gasoline sold in certain areas be
reformulated to reduce vehicle emissions of toxic and ozone-forming
compounds and that gasoline sold outside these areas would not be more
polluting than it was in 1990. On February 16, 1994, EPA published the
final rule establishing performance standards and compliance provisions
for conventional and reformulated gasoline (RFG). This direct final
rule (DFRM) makes minor corrections, clarifications, and revisions to
various provisions in the final reformulated gasoline rule.
This action addresses the following issues: Work-In-Progress (WIP)
baseline adjustments; JP-4 baseline adjustments; summer/winter season
definition for baseline determination; complex model valid range
extension for conventional gasoline baselines; valid range limits for
aromatics, oxygen, benzene, and RVP; clarifications to the VOC and
NOX extrapolations in the complex model; clarifications of
seasonal condition inconsistencies; and enforcement corrections/
clarifications associated with the reformulated gasoline and anti-
dumping regulations, as well as several technical clarifications and
typographical corrections.
EFFECTIVE DATES: This rule will be effective September 19, 1994 unless
notice is received by August 19, 1994 that adverse or critical comments
will be submitted or that an opportunity to submit such comments at a
public hearing is requested. If such comments or a request for a public
hearing are received by the Agency, then EPA will publish a subsequent
Federal Register notice withdrawing from this action only those items
which are specifically listed in those comments or in the request for a
public hearing. See SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for further discussion on
submission of public comment.
ADDRESSES: Interested parties may submit written comments (in
duplicate, if possible) to Public Docket No. A-94-30, at Air Docket
Section, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Waterside Mall, Room M-
1500, 401 M Street SW., Washington, DC 20460. The Agency requests that
commenters also send a copy of any comments to David Korotney at the
address listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.
Materials relevant to the reformulated gasoline final rule and this
direct final rule are contained in Public Dockets A-91-02 and A-92-12,
located at room M-1500, Waterside Mall (ground floor), U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M Street SW., Washington, DC
20460. The docket may be inspected from 8 a.m. until 12 noon and from
1:30 p.m. until 3 p.m. Monday through Friday. A reasonable fee may be
charged by EPA for copying docket materials.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
David Korotney, U.S. EPA (RDSD-12), Regulation Development and Support
Division, 2565 Plymouth Road, Ann Arbor, MI 48105, Telephone: (313)
668-4507.
To Request Copies of this Action Contact: Delores Frank, U.S. EPA
(RDSD-12), Regulation Development and Support Division, 2565 Plymouth
Road, Ann Arbor, MI 48105, Telephone: (313) 668-4295.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Public Comments
For parties that submit adverse or critical comments, notify EPA of
intentions to submit adverse comments, or request a public hearing, the
Agency requests that commenters identify each of the items at issue by
the specific preamble section numbers that discuss those items. For
instance, adverse comments on the change to the oxygen valid range
limits should include a reference to Section (Item Number) II.A.1 of
the preamble. Adverse comments on any of the insubstantial errors in
Section I of the preamble should include a reference to the
identification code associated with each change in that section. For
instance, adverse comments on the paragraph reference change in
Sec. 80.41(h)(2)(iii) should include a reference to Item Number I-A.
The EPA will withdraw from this direct final action only those specific
provision(s) so identified. All other provisions included in today's
notice will become effective on September 19, 1994.
EPA believes that the use of a direct final rule is appropriate
because the changes made are generally minor in nature and all are
expected to be non-controversial. The DFRM will allow the Agency to
finalize such changes in a timely manner. For instance, many of the
changes contained herein clarify issues relevant to the development and
auditing of individual baselines which, in general, must be submitted
by either June 1, 1994 or September 1, 1994. Likewise, the reformulated
gasoline program will commence on December 1, 1994. The clarifications
and changes contained herein will promote successful implementation of
this program.
A copy of this action is available on the OAQPS Technology Transfer
Network Bulletin Board System (TTNBBS). The TTNBBS can be accessed with
a dial-in phone line and a high-speed modem (PH# 919-541-5742). The
parity of your modem should be set to none, the data bits to 8, and the
stop bits to 1. Either a 1200, 2400, or 9600 baud modem should be used.
When first signing on, the user will be required to answer some basic
informational questions for registration purposes. After completing the
registration process, proceed through the following series of menus:
(M) OMS
(K) Rulemaking and Reporting
(3) Fuels
(9) Reformulated gasoline
A list of ZIP files will be shown, all of which are related to the
reformulated gasoline rulemaking process. Today's action will be in the
form of a ZIP file and can be identified by the following title: RFG-
DFRM.ZIP. To download this file, type the following instructions and
transfer according to the appropriate software on your computer:
ownload, rotocol, xamine, ew, ist, or elp Selection
or to exit: D filename.zip
You will be given a list of transfer protocols from which you must
choose one that matches with the terminal software on your own
computer. The software should then be opened and directed to receive
the file using the same protocol. Programs and instructions for de-
archiving compressed files can be found via ystems Utilities from
the top menu, under rchivers/de-archivers. Please note that due to
differences between the software used to develop the document and the
software into which the document may be downloaded, changes in format,
page length, etc. may occur.
The remainder of this preamble is organized into the following
sections:
I. Insubstantial Errors
II. Valid Range Limits
III. Complex Model
IV. Enforcement Corrections and Clarifications
V. Summer/Winter Season
VI. Baseline Determination Adjustments
VII. Public Participation and Effective Date
VIII. Statutory Authority
IX. Administrative Designation
X. Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
I. Insubstantial Errors
The final rulemaking for the regulation of reformulated and
conventional gasoline contained a number of errors, ambiguities, and
misrepresentations of Agency intent which are being addressed by this
direct final rule. Of these errors, many are minor in both form and
effect. The minor errors do not require detailed discussions since they
all have at most a negligible effect on compliance with the
regulations, and require only simple corrections. Such minor errors
took the form of typographical errors, grammatical errors, inadvertent
omissions, and inadvertent insertions. The table below lists all the
insubstantial errors that are being corrected in this direct final
rule. Other errors are more substantial. The more substantial errors
and the associated corrections have been discussed on an item-by-item
basis in the following sections.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Identification code Regulation reference Correction
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A................... 80.41(h)(2)(iii).................. Correct the paragraph reference from 80.101(g) to
80.101(h).
B................... 80.41(j)(2)....................... Correct the paragraph reference from (j)(1)(i) to
(j)(1).
C................... 80.41(m)(1)....................... A missing word ``of'' is inserted into the text.
D................... 80.42(c)(1)....................... In the table, change the valid range limits for
``Oxygenate'' in volume percent to valid range limits
for ``Oxygen'' in weight percent to match the values
already present.
E................... 80.42(a).......................... Correct the definition of exhaust and nonexhaust VOC
from nonmethane hydrocarbons to nonmethane, nonethane
hydrocarbons. All calculations and equations are
correctly based on nonmethane, nonethane
hydrocarbons.
F................... 80.42(b)(1)(ii), 80.42(b)(2)(ii), Add a concluding sentence which clarifies that the use
and 8042(b)(3)(ii). of methanol and other non-alcohol, non-ether
oxygenates in reformulated gasoline is limited to
vehicle testing under the Complex Model.
G................... 80.45(b)(3)....................... Correct the inadvertent omission of the first decimal
place in the baseline values for exhaust VOC and NOX
in Table 3.
H................... 80.45(c)(1)(iv)(A)................ The footnotes to Table 6 are clarified to indicate
that the higher E300 limit can be no higher than 94
percent as described in paragraphs 80.45
(c)(1)(iv)(C)(6) and 80.45(c)(1)(iv)(D)(6).
I................... 80.45(c)(1)(iv)(B)................ Change the word ``and'' to ``and/or''.
J................... 80.45(c)(1)(iv)(C)(11)............ The paragraph references are corrected from
(c)(1)(iv)(C)(8) and (9)'' to ``(c)(1)(iv)(C)(9) and
(10).''
K................... 80.45(c)(1)(iv)(C)(12)............ Correct the second ``E300'' to ``E300''.
L................... 80.45(c)(1)(iv)(C)(14)............ The paragraph references are corrected from
``(c)(1)(iv)(C)(11) and (12)'' to
``(c)(1)(iv)(C)(13).''
M................... 80.45(c)(1)(iv)(D)(11)............ The paragraph references are corrected from
``(c)(1)(iv)(D)(8) and (9)'' to ``(c)(1)(iv)(D)(9)
and (10).''
N................... 80.45(c)(1)(iv)(D)(12)............ Correct ``E30' 0'' to ``E300''.
O................... 80.45(c)(1)(iv)(D)(14)............ The paragraph references are corrected from
``(c)(1)(iv)(D)(11) and (12)'' to ``(c)(1)(iv)(D)(12)
and (13).''
P................... 80.45(c)(8)(ii)................... An extraneous word ``for'' at the end of the paragraph
is removed.
Q................... 80.45(d)(1)(iv)(B)................ Change the word ``and'' to ``and/or''.
R................... 80.45(e)(1)(ii)................... Correct the toxic emissions baseline values in the
equations which were rounded incorrectly to mimic the
correct values in Table 5 of 80.45(b)(3):
In Phase I,
``TOXICS2%=[100% x (TOXICS2-47.58mg/mi)]/(47.58 mg/
mi)''
In Phase II,
``TOXICS1%=[100% x (TOXICS1-86.34mg/mi)]/(86.34 mg/
mi)''
S................... 80.45(e)(4)(iii).................. A missing word ``an'' is inserted into the last
sentence.
T................... 80.45(e)(5)(iv) & 80.45(e)(6)(iv). Add a concluding sentence which clarifies that the use
of methanol and other non-alcohol, non-ether
oxygenates in the Complex Model is limited to
augmentation through vehicle testing.
U................... 80.45(e)(9) & 80.45(e)(10)........ Correct the variable names in the equations to mimic
the variable names in the definition list: ``HSVOC1''
is corrected to ``VOCHS1'', ``DIVOC1'' is corrected
to ``VOCD11'', ``RLVOC1'' is corrected to ``VOCRL1'',
``RFVOC1'' is corrected to ``VOCRF1'', ``HSVOC2'' is
corrected to ``VOCHS2'', ``DIVOC2'' is corrected to
``VOCDI2'', ``RLVOC2'' is corrected to ``VOCRL2'',
``RFVOC2'' is corrected to ``VOCRF2''.
V................... 80.45(f)(1)....................... The paragraph references are corrected from ``(a),
(c), and (d)'' to ``(c), (d), and (e)''.
W................... 80.45(f)(1) (i) & (ii)............ The units for E200 and E300 are corrected from
``volume percent'' to ``percent evaporated''.
X................... 80.48(c)(1)....................... Correct the paragraph reference from ``(c)(1)(iv) of
this section'' to ``(c)(1)(iv) of this section and
80.49(d)''.
Y................... 80.48(c)(1)(v).................... Revise last sentence to clarify that the model must be
re-estimated after dropping the Bi term.
Z................... 80.48(c)(2)(iii).................. A concluding sentence is added indicating that the
centered form of the Complex Model will be made
available upon request.
AA.................. 80.48(g).......................... Correct ``the augmentation petition'' to ``other
augmentation petitions''.
AB.................. 80.49(a)(5)(i).................... The ``Candidate parameter'' entry is deleted from the
table.
AC.................. 80.49(b)(3)(iii).................. The paragraph reference is corrected from ``(b)(2)(ii)
and (b)(3)'' to ``(b)(2)(ii)''.
AD.................. 80.59(a).......................... Revise last sentence to clarify that closed-loop
systems and adaptive learning components are minimum
requirements.
AE.................. 80.65(d)(3)....................... A cross-reference to the blendstock accounting
requirement in 80.102(e) is corrected.
AF.................. 80.66(g)(1) and (g)(2)(ii)........ Cross-references to 80.45, pertaining to the
calculation of per-gallon values for VOC, NOX, and
toxics emissions performance reduction, are
corrected.
AG.................. 80.68(c)(8)(ii)(A) and Cross-references to the complex model in 80.45 are
(c)(9)(ii)(A). corrected.
AH.................. 80.68(c)(9)(ii)(B)................ A cross-reference to the annual toxics emissions
weighting formula in 80.68(c)(9)(i)(B) is corrected.
AI.................. 80.68(c)(10(i).................... A cross-reference to the NOX emissions reduction
percentage in 80.45 is corrected.
AJ.................. 80.69(a)(7)(ii)................... A cross-reference to the applicable correlation ranges
in 80.65(e)(2)(i) is corrected.
AK.................. 80.69(b)(3)....................... A cross-reference to the oxygen averaging requirements
in 80.67(f) is corrected.
AL.................. 80.70(j)(11)...................... The spelling of Allegheny County, Pennsylvania, is
corrected.
AM.................. 80.75(j).......................... A cross-reference to the survey provisions in
80.41(q)(2) is corrected.
AN.................. 80.81(h).......................... A cross-reference to the sampling and analysis
methodology in 80.46 is corrected.
AO.................. 80.90(b)(1)....................... In the equation, correct the variable ``BX'' to
``BZ''.
AP.................. 80.90(e)(2)....................... The paragraph reference is corrected from ``(e)(2)''
to ``(e)(1)''.
AQ.................. 80.91(e)(2)(iv)................... In the equation only, the variable ``Njs'' is
corrected to njs'', the variable ``ns'' is corrected
to ``Ns'', the variable ``pj'' is corrected to
``pjs''.
AR.................. 80.91(e)(4)(i)(A)................. Correct the equation to include division by 100 as
follows:
UV=[AV/(100-OV)]-100
AS.................. 80.91(e)(4)(i)(B)................. Correct the equation to include division by 100 in two
places:
UR=[BR-{(OVi x ORi)}/100]/[{100-OVi}
/100]
AT.................. 80.91(e)(4)(ii)(A)................ Correct the equation to include division by 100 as
follows:
AV=UV(100-OV)/100
AU.................. 80.91(e)(4)(ii)(A)................ Correct the definition of UV from ``nonoxygenated
parameter value'' to ``non-oxygenated parameter
value''.
AV.................. 80.91(e)(4)(ii)(B)................ Correct the equation to include division by 100 as
follows:
BR={UR x [100-(OVi)]+(OVi x ORi)}/10
0
AW.................. 80.93(a)(3)(ii)................... Re-word the first sentence to read ``Petitions,
`showings' and other associated proof may be
submitted to EPA prior to submittal of the individual
baseline (per paragraphs (a)(1) and (a)(2) of this
section)''.
AX.................. 80.93(c)(9)....................... A cross-reference to 80.93 (c)(8) is clarified.
AY.................. 80.101(e)(3) & (f)(4)............. References to California gasoline are clarified.
AZ.................. 80.102(b)(1)...................... An extraneous word is deleted.
BA.................. 80.102(e)(2)(i)................... A cross-reference to 80.101(g) is added.
BB.................. 80.102(f)(2)(i)................... A typographical error is corrected.
BC.................. 80.125(a)......................... A cross-reference to the reports required by 80.105 is
corrected.
BD.................. 80.128(e)(2)...................... A cross-reference to the assumptions pertaining to the
use of RBOB in 80.69(a)(9) is corrected.
BE.................. 80.128(e)(5)...................... A cross-reference to the sampling and testing rates in
80.69(a)(7) is corrected.
BF.................. 80.128(g)(3)(iii)................. A typographical error is corrected.
BG.................. 80.129(e)......................... A cross-reference to the sampling and testing rates in
80.69 is corrected.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. Valid Range Limits
The valid range limits in both the Simple and Complex Models
specify the range for each fuel parameter outside of which the models
cannot be used for the evaluation of emission performances. These
limits ensure that the models will not be used for extremely high or
low fuel parameter values which would compromise the validity of the
models. Thus the valid range limits were instituted as a means toward
maintaining the accuracy of the compliance calculations, and thus the
integrity of the reformulated gasoline and anti-dumping programs.
The Agency made every attempt to make the valid range limits as
wide as possible to provide flexibility to refiners while maintaining a
focus on the need for accurate performance estimates. This was
especially true for the conventional gasoline valid range limits, as
EPA wanted to avoid, to the extent possible, establishing provisions
which would require refiners to reformulate their conventional fuels.
To provide additional flexibility, the Agency also allowed the
extension of the specified valid range for the Complex Model for
conventional gasoline when a refiner's individual 1990 baseline fuel
exceeds the valid range in one or more fuel parameters.
Since publication of the final rule, the Agency has determined that
the flexibility provided to refiners in the valid range limits requires
some revision and clarification to avoid unnecessary and costly
refinery modifications which have no long term environmental benefit.
The changes to the regulations can be separated into two categories:
changes to the specified valid range limits, and clarification of the
provision for extending the valid range for individual refiner baseline
fuels. Both of these topics will be described in detail below.
A. Revised Valid Range Limits
The valid range limits for the Simple and Complex Models were based
on two different sets of data and were developed using different
assumptions. The Simple Model valid range limits were determined
following the regulatory negotiations held in 1991. The Complex Model
valid range limits were based upon an examination of the sufficiency of
data in the Complex Model database and the accuracy of extrapolations
(See the Regulatory Impact Analysis for the final rule, Section IV.D).
Because the valid range limits for the Simple and Complex Models were
established independently and through different processes, the valid
range limits for the two models were different from one another. Since
promulgation of the final rule, the Agency has learned that the
specified valid ranges may force refiners to make refinery
modifications to comply with the regulations that are unwarranted under
the Simple Model, and unnecessary under the Complex Model. Thus EPA is
revising the valid range limits for oxygen content, RVP, aromatics
content, and benzene content for the Simple Model, and oxygen content
for the Complex Model.
1. Change to High End of Oxygen Valid Range
The high end of the valid range limit for oxygen in both the Simple
and Complex Models was based on the maximum amount of oxygen that an
oxygenated fuel was expected to lawfully contain. Of all the oxygenates
that will likely be used in the reformulated gasoline program, ethanol
has the highest oxygen content at 0.35 grams of oxygen per gram of
ethanol. The Agency used this value as a benchmark in determining the
high end of the valid range for oxygen, assuming a 10 volume percent
ethanol blend. However, since promulgation of the final rule, the
Agency has learned that density variations in gasoline blendstocks may
result in wide variations in the oxygen content of an oxygenated fuel
on a weight percent basis despite the fact that the volume percent
remains fixed. For instance, blending 10 volume percent ethanol into a
higher density gasoline could produce a blend with an oxygen content as
low as 3.4 weight percent, while blending 10 volume percent ethanol
into a lower density gasoline could produce a blend with an oxygen
content as high as 4.0 weight percent.
Since the largest excise tax exemption available to refiners for
the use of ethanol in gasoline blends is for oxygenated fuels that
contain 10 volume percent, many ethanol blends will contain 10 volume
percent ethanol. Thus it is essential that the high end of the valid
range for both the Simple and Complex Models be raised to 4.0 weight
percent. This change will allow fuels which are already being produced
to be evaluated with the Simple and Complex Models. The change will
also guarantee that no fuel oxygenated with ethanol will be excluded
from the reformulated gasoline program due to an oxygen content that is
outside the range of the model, as long as it complies with the volume
limits applicable in a waiver issued under section 211(f) of the Clean
Air Act. Since fuels with oxygen contents of 4.0 weight percent are
already being produced, the change will have no additional impact on
vehicle driveability. Also, since the models continue to be accurate
between 3.5 and 4.0 weight percent, and the emission standards are not
being changed, this change to the high end of the valid range for
oxygen content will have no adverse impact on the environment.
2. Change to Low End of RVP Valid Range in the Simple Model
The low end of the valid range for RVP in the Simple Model was
based on the distribution of data used in the model's development, as
well as a consideration of the needs of the reformulated gasoline and
anti-dumping programs under the Simple Model. Since VOC emission
reductions under the Simple Model are accomplished primarily through
limits on maximum RVP levels, the valid range for RVP in the Simple
Model only affects toxics compliance calculations. In promulgating the
final regulations, the Agency determined that refiners had no incentive
to reduce RVP below 6.6 psi for the purposes of complying with the
toxics standards since reductions in fuel benzene and aromatics are
much more effective in reducing emissions of toxic compounds.
In contrast to the Simple Model, the absence of RVP caps and the
impact of other fuel parameters on emissions under the Complex Model
will likely result in large variations in RVP levels in reformulated
gasoline. RVP control will continue to be the primary mechanism through
which VOC emissions are reduced because RVP is the most cost-effective
fuel parameter to control, and because the RVP effect on VOC in the
Complex Model is quite large. As in the Simple Model, the valid range
for RVP in the Complex Model was determined from an examination of the
distribution of data used in the model's development and the needs of
the reformulated gasoline and anti-dumping programs. The low end of the
valid range was set at 6.4 psi to accommodate large reductions in RVP
while maintaining the accuracy of the Complex Model. Fuel RVPs are
expected to reach this low level in Phase II of the reformulated
gasoline program, and the potential exists for them to be reached in
Phase I as well.
California has been developing its own program in which
reformulated gasoline must meet more stringent requirements than in the
federal program during the years 1996 and 1997 that the Simple Model
will be in effect. Given California's more stringent requirements, the
potential exists for fuel having an RVP of less than 6.6 psi to be
either sold or used as a blendstock in and outside of California. With
the low end of the valid range for RVP set at 6.6 psi, these California
reformulated gasolines might not be certifiable as federal reformulated
gasoline. Also, refiners trying to blend down tanks quickly at
terminals in the spring to meet summer volatility requirements may end
up with fuels that have RVPs as low as 6.4 psi.
Since the low end of the valid range for RVP under the Complex
Model is 6.4 psi, the Agency has determined that the low end of the
valid range for RVP under the Simple Model should likewise be 6.4 psi.
The change from 6.6 psi to 6.4 psi makes the low end of the valid range
for RVP consistent throughout Phase I of the federal reformulated
gasoline program, and provides an additional element of flexibility for
refiners to complement the already established blending and enforcement
tolerances. The change should have no effect on the environment, since
presumably only cleaner fuels would be allowed certification under the
Simple Model. Both the Simple and Complex Models are linear with
respect to RVP for all pollutants, and this linear relationship would
simply be extended from 6.6 psi down to 6.4 psi.
3. Change to High End of Aromatics Valid Range in the Simple Model
It was and is the intention of the Agency to avoid, to the extent
possible, establishing regulations which require refiners to
reformulate their conventional fuels. The anti-dumping program is
designed to ensure that a refiner's or importer's conventional gasoline
stays as clean as it was in 1990, and does not require reformulation
beyond those levels. Thus the valid range limits for conventional
gasoline in both the Simple and Complex Models were designed to be as
wide as possible while simultaneously ensuring the accuracy of the
models. As an additional level of flexibility, the Agency also allowed
for the extension of the valid range for conventional gasoline if a
refiner's individual 1990 baseline fuel exceeded the specified valid
range limits (see discussion in Section II.B. below).
Since promulgation of the final regulations for the anti-dumping
program, the Agency has determined that the valid range limits in the
Simple Model for aromatics, which are more restrictive than those for
conventional gasoline under the Complex Model, could be widened without
any detrimental impacts on either the program or on the environment.
Without such a change to the regulations, refiners may be forced to
make changes to their refineries by 1995 that are not necessary in 1998
when compliance under the Complex Model is mandatory. Thus the Agency
is changing the high end of the valid range for aromatics under the
Simple Model from 45 volume percent to 55 volume percent. This change
will ensure that the Simple Model can be used for as many conventional
fuels as possible to show compliance under the anti-dumping program
without the need to extend the valid range. The environment will not be
adversely impacted since it was the Agency's intent to allow extensions
of the valid range when a refiner's 1990 baseline fuel exceeded the
specified valid range limits. The change will not affect RFG
compliance, since aromatics are controlled by the reformulated gasoline
standards for toxics. Driveability will not be affected since fuels
with aromatics levels as high as 55 volume percent currently exist in-
use. Also, consistency in the high end of the valid range limits for
aromatics will be maintained throughout Phase I of the program. Because
the relationship between toxic emissions and fuel aromatics levels is
linear in the Simple Model, the change will not result in an inaccurate
application of the model to higher aromatics levels.
4. Change to Low End of Aromatics Valid Range in the Simple Model
The Agency has also determined that the low end of the valid range
for aromatics in the Simple Model may not provide refiners with
adequate flexibility under the reformulated gasoline program. For the
Complex Model, the Agency determined that the relationships between
aromatics and emissions could not be trusted at levels below 10 volume
percent. However, the Agency determined that a flat-line extrapolation
below 10 volume percent, in which no emission benefits or detriments
result from lowering aromatics values below 10 volume percent, would
provide greater flexibility without compromising the accuracy of the
Complex Model equations in this range. Since promulgation of the final
rule, the Agency has determined that the Complex Model approach to low
values of aromatics can be appropriately applied to the Simple Model as
well. Therefore, the Agency is changing the low end of the valid range
for aromatics under the Simple Model from 10 volume percent to 0 volume
percent, but will not allow any emission benefits in this range. The
Agency did not intend to discourage the production of fuels that had
very low levels of aromatics, and were, thus, qualitatively considered
to be cleaner burning. If the low end of the valid range for aromatics
is left at 10 volume percent, fuels with aromatics values of less than
10 volume percent that would otherwise be complying reformulated
gasolines under the Simple Model will not be certifiable, despite the
fact that those same fuels may be certifiable under the Complex Model.
This change is expected to be environmentally benign, as few refiners
will have any incentive to reduce aromatics below 10 volume percent for
reformulated gasoline under the Simple Model.
5. Change to High End of Benzene Valid Range in the Simple Model
As stated in Section II.A.3, it was and is the intention of the
Agency, to the extent possible, not to establish regulations that
require the reformulation of conventional gasoline under the anti-
dumping program. However, the valid range limits for benzene under the
Simple Model may in fact force refiners to reformulate conventional
gasoline. The Agency has determined that the valid range limits in the
Simple Model for benzene, which are more restrictive than those for
conventional gasoline under the Complex Model, can be widened without
any detrimental impacts. Without such a change to the regulations,
refiners may be forced to make changes to their refineries by 1995 that
are not necessary in 1998 when compliance under the Complex Model is
mandatory. Thus the Agency is changing the high end of the valid range
for benzene under the Simple Model from 2.5 volume percent to 4.9
volume percent. This change ensures that the Simple Model can be used
for as many conventional fuels as possible to show compliance under the
anti-dumping program without the need to extend the valid range. The
change will not affect RFG compliance, since benzene is controlled by
the reformulated gasoline standards for fuel benzene content. In like
manner to raising the high end of the valid range for aromatics,
consistency in the valid range limits will be maintained throughout
Phase I of the program. The environment will not be adversely impacted
since it was the Agency's intent to allow extensions of the valid range
when a refiner's 1990 baseline fuel exceeded the specified valid range
limits. As for aromatics, because the relationship between toxic
emissions and fuel benzene levels is linear in the Simple Model, the
change will not result in an inaccurate application of the model to
higher benzene levels.
B. Extending the Valid Range for Conventional Gasoline
Under the anti-dumping provisions of the final rule, refiners use
their individual 1990 baselines to determine compliance with the
regulations under both the Simple and Complex Models. Depending on the
compliance model being used, the values for particular fuel parameters
are restricted by the valid range limits. For instance, if a refiner is
using the Simple Model to comply with the anti-dumping regulations, VOC
and NOX emissions are regulated through caps on the baseline
levels of sulfur, olefins, and T90, while toxic emissions are regulated
through an equation giving the benzene fraction of VOC emissions. Since
the benzene fraction equation contains only benzene and aromatics as
independent variables, the only valid range limits that apply to
refiners using the Simple Model to comply with the anti-dumping
regulations are those specified in Sec. 80.42(c)(1) for benzene and
aromatics content. If, alternatively, a refiner is using the Complex
Model to comply with the anti-dumping regulations, NOX and toxics
emissions are regulated through the Complex Model. Thus the valid range
limits that apply to refiners using the Complex Model to comply with
the anti-dumping regulations are those specified in
Sec. 80.45(f)(1)(ii) for oxygen content, sulfur content, RVP, E200,
E300, aromatics content, olefins content, and benzene content.
Section 80.91(f)(2)(ii) allows a refiner to extend the conventional
gasoline valid range for the Complex Model if one or more of the fuel
parameter values for its individual 1990 baseline fuel falls outside of
the valid range specified in Sec. 80.45(f)(1)(ii). However, the
regulations did not adequately specify the method, applicability, or
limitations of such a valid range extension. As written, the
regulations state that, for each baseline fuel parameter value which is
outside of the Complex Model conventional gasoline valid range, the
Complex Model valid range is extended only for such fuel parameters.
The only stated limitation is that such an extension is applicable only
to the applicable summer or winter season. The Agency has determined
that this portion of the regulations is ambiguous, and requires
revision.
1. Applicability of the Provision for Valid Range Extension
The Agency has only been made aware of the potential need for
extension of the valid range for olefins, aromatics, and benzene.
Therefore, a provision for the extension of the valid range has only
been made for the high end of the specified valid range for these three
fuel parameters. In each case, if the valid range limit is extended,
the refiner in question must still be limited by a valid range to
eliminate the possibility that the Complex Model will be used for
aromatics, olefins, and/or benzene values that are very high, which
might compromise the primary objective of the anti-dumping program. As
specified in the final regulations, a refiner is allowed to extend the
Complex Model valid range for both baseline and compliance emissions
calculations, but is not directed as to the specification of any new
valid range limits. Such a provision for the extension of the valid
range that does not include limitations on fuel parameter values that
can be evaluated with the Complex Model would defeat the purposes of
specifying a valid range, and was not the Agency's intent.
The Agency has determined that the best approach to limiting the
extension of the valid range is to allow target fuels to have values at
least up to the baseline level. Since the baseline fuel is an
``average'' fuel of sorts, the Agency has also determined that refiners
should be given some flexibility beyond the baseline value. For
aromatics, this flexibility will be fixed at a value of 5.0 volume
percent. For olefins this flexibility will be fixed at a value of 3.0
volume percent. And for benzene this flexibility will be fixed at a
value of 0.5 volume percent. Thus, for example, the extended valid
range limit for aromatics would be equal to the individual refiner's
baseline fuel value for aromatics, plus 5.0 volume percent. A similar
calculation would be necessary for extending the valid range for
olefins or benzene.
The Agency has no reason to believe that provisions for the
extension of the valid range for fuel parameters other than aromatics,
olefins, and benzene on either the low or high ends are necessary. For
instance, the Complex Model conventional gasoline valid ranges for
oxygen, sulfur, aromatics, olefins, and benzene all have 0.0 as their
lower limit. Thus no valid range extension would be required on the low
end of the valid range for these fuel parameters. Similarly for E300, a
fuel can have an E300 value of no higher than 100 percent, which is
also the high end of the specified valid range. Other limitations, such
as ASTM specifications and the volatility rule, should eliminate the
need for valid range extensions in other cases.
2. No-Benefit Limitation of the Provision for Valid Range Extension
The Agency continues to believe that the valid range limits
specified in Sec. 80.42(c)(1) and Sec. 80.45(f)(1)(ii) identify the
fuel parameter values beyond which the compliance models are not
considered accurate. Thus the Agency has determined that any extension
of the specified valid ranges for conventional gasoline should
incorporate flat-line extrapolation. Under flat-line extrapolation, the
compliance models provide no emissions benefit or detriment when
raising the value of either aromatics or olefins above the values
specified in Sec. 80.42(c)(1) and Sec. 80.45(f)(1)(ii). This flat-line
extrapolation will apply to both the baseline fuel and any target fuels
evaluated with the compliance models under the anti-dumping
regulations.
3. Expanding the Applicability of the Valid Range Extension Provision
to the Simple Model
This direct final rule expands the applicability of the valid range
extension provision given in Sec. 80.91(f)(2)(ii) to the Simple Model.
However, as noted above, the only fuel parameters having valid range
limits under the Simple Model anti-dumping regulations are aromatics
and benzene content. The Simple Model valid ranges for both aromatics
and benzene are being expanded to be equal to the corresponding ranges
for the Complex Model, as described in sections II.A.3-5 of this rule.
Thus the new valid range under the Simple Model will be 0-55 volume
percent for aromatics and 0-4.9 volume percent for benzene. No valid
range extension will be required for either of these fuel parameters on
the low end of the valid range. Thus the only relevant valid range
extensions that would be necessary for the Simple Model would be for
the high end of aromatics and the high end of benzene.
III. Complex Model
The Complex Model includes separate calculations for exhaust and
nonexhaust emissions. The final regulations contained errors in the
model descriptions for both exhaust and nonexhaust. The errors in the
exhaust portion of the Complex Model were limited to the linear
extrapolation methodology, while the errors in the nonexhaust portion
arose in the VOC equations themselves. Another error also arose in the
calculation procedure for annual average toxics. Each of these errors
and the associated corrections will be discussed in detail below.
A. Extrapolation
The exhaust portion of the Complex Model is a statistically-derived
set of equations relating fuel parameters to emissions of VOC,
NOX, benzene, 1,3-butadiene, acetaldehyde, formaldehyde, and POM.
The Agency determined the conditions under which these exhaust
equations must be linearly extrapolated based on the ranges for each
fuel parameter within which the equations were considered to be
accurate. Linear extrapolation amounts to fixing the slope of the fuel
parameter:emission relationship at a constant value. It is used to
extend the equations beyond the limits of the data on which they are
based, thereby making the reformulated gasoline and anti-dumping
programs as flexible as possible.
Of the six separate models in the exhaust portion of the Complex
Model, all four toxic models are linear, and thus do not require linear
extrapolation. Paragraph (c)(1)(iv) of Sec. 80.45 specifies the
conditions and limitations of linear extrapolation for VOC, while
Sec. 80.45(d)(1)(iv) specifies the conditions and limitations of linear
extrapolation for NOX. The details of the linear extrapolation
methodology included in these two portions of the final regulations
contained a number of errors which require correction.
1. Correct Parenthetical Form of Extrapolation Equations
In paragraphs (c)(1)(iv)(B) and (d)(1)(iv)(B) of Sec. 80.45, the
linear extrapolation equations contained too many brackets in some
regions of the equations, and missing parentheses in other regions.
Although these inadvertent omissions and insertions did not change the
mathematical nature of the equations, a literal copying of the
equations into computer code would result in an error. Thus the Agency
has corrected the linear extrapolation equations for both VOC and
NOX to contain the correct number of parentheses and brackets in
the correct position and order.
2. Correct Missing Sulfur Term in NOX Extrapolation Equation
A sulfur term was inadvertently left out of both the Phase I and
Phase II NOX extrapolation equations given in paragraph
(d)(1)(iv)(B) of Sec. 80.45. This missing sulfur term represents the
linear extrapolation of the NOX model with respect to sulfur for
high emitters. This correction will have a negligible impact on the
emission performance estimates provided by the Complex Model because
the NOX equation for high emitters is essentially linear with
respect to sulfur.\1\ The inclusion of the correct sulfur term in the
NOX extrapolation equation will result in the correct application
of the edge target fuel to the NOX extrapolation equations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\The exhaust portion of the Complex Model includes exponential
functions which alters the traditional implications of first- and
second-order equations. However, the Complex Model exhaust equations
can be referred to and approached as first- and second-order as
described in Section IV.D.1 of the Regulatory Impact Analysis for
the final rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Clarify E300 Extrapolation Above 95 Percent
In the process of determining the valid range limits for the use of
the Complex Model for both reformulated and conventional gasoline, the
Agency determined that the emission changes estimated by the exhaust
equations were not accurate above an E300 value of 95 percent. However,
comments received from the refining industry indicated a need for an
E300 valid range that extended up to 100 percent. The Agency concluded
that, although the exhaust equation emission change estimates could not
be considered accurate above an E300 level of 95 percent, allowing only
a zero change in emissions above this E300 level would ensure that
refiners could not receive inappropriate benefits for fuels with very
high E300 levels. Therefore, the Agency allowed for flat-line
extrapolations of all exhaust equations between the E300 values of 95
and 100 percent. However, some portions of the regulations that
specified this allowance contained typographical errors which
substantially changed the manner in which this flat-line extrapolation
for E300 was to be executed. Specifically, paragraphs (c)(1)(iv)(C)(5),
(c)(1)(iv)(D)(5), and (d)(1)(iv)(C)(5) of Sec. 80.45 all indicated that
the E300 value of the edge target fuel should be held constant at 95
volume percent for target fuels having an E300 value of greater than 95
volume percent. These paragraphs should not have refered to the edge
target fuel, but rather to the target fuel for the purposes of
determining emissions performances with the Complex Model. These three
paragraphs are thus changed accordingly.
4. Correct Value of ARO
The regulations describing the linear extrapolation methodology for
exhaust VOC and NOX contained two other typographical errors that
nevertheless were substantial in their effects. The first arose in
paragraphs (c)(1)(iv)(C)(9), (c)(1)(iv)(D)(9), and (d)(1)(iv)(C)(9) of
Sec. 80.45 in the specification of the value of ARO. The value
of ARO should generally be set equal to (ARO--18
volume percent) for any target fuel having an aromatics content of less
than 18 volume percent. Thus ARO will be negative when the VOC
or NOX equation is linearly extrapolated with respect to aromatics
at the low end of the valid range. However, for target fuels having an
aromatics content of less than 10 volume percent, the VOC extrapolation
should be flat-line instead of linear. In this case, ARO
should be fixed at a value of -8 volume percent. The value in the
regulations was given incorrectly as +8 volume percent.
5. Correct Specification of E300
The second typographical error that requires explanation and
correction involves the specification of E300 in paragraphs
(c)(1)(iv)(C)(13) and (c)(1)(iv)(D)(13). The first sentence in each of
these two paragraphs contains two conditions that must be met for
E300 to be set equal to (E300--94 percent). The first
condition incorrectly states that the E300 level of the target fuel
must be less than 94 percent, when in fact the condition should state
that the E300 level of the target fuel must be greater than 94 percent.
The remainder of both of these paragraphs is correct.
6. Eliminate References to E300 in NOX Extrapolation
Finally, the linear extrapolation methodology for NOX in the
final rule contained references to the allowable range for E300,
despite the fact that the NOx equation is not extrapolated with respect
to E300. Thus all references to E300 in paragraphs (d)(1)(iv)(A) and
(d)(1)(iv)(B) are removed by this direct final rule. Note that, since
all exhaust equations in the Complex Model are flat-line extrapolated
for E300 values greater than 95 percent, the flat-line extrapolation
for E300 specified in paragraph (d)(1)(iv)(C)(5) is correct (except for
the changes described above).
B. Nonexhaust Model
The equations giving nonexhaust VOC as a function of RVP for the
Complex Model were originally proposed in the February 1993 NPRM (58 FR
17175). No changes to those equations were intended for the final rule
on reformulated gasoline. However, typographical errors arose in a
number of the coefficients in the nonexhaust VOC model when they were
entered into the final regulations. These errors would have a small,
but not insignificant impact on the VOC emission performances provided
by the Complex Model.
The errors in the nonexhaust VOC portion of the Complex Model lay
in four places. The first was in the sign of the coefficient for RVP in
the Phase I running loss equation for Region 1. The second was in the
coefficient for RVP in the Phase II hot soak equation for Region 1. The
third was in the coefficient for RVP in the Phase II refueling loss
equation for Region 1. And the fourth was in the sign of the RVP
coefficient for the Phase II running loss equation for Region 2. All
the coefficients in the nonexhaust model have been returned to their
proper values and signs by this direct final rule.
C. Annual Average Calculations
Since the averaging standards for toxics under the Complex Model
are year-round standards, each refiner who is complying under an
averaging scenario must determine the average year-round toxics
emissions performance for the fuels that it sold during a given year.
Each batch of fuel is uniquely associated with toxic emissions as
estimated by the Complex Model. Thus refiners require a method for
combining per batch emission performances into a single year-round
value. The regulations provided two contradictory methods for combining
per batch emission performances into such a single year-round value.
Paragraph (g) et al. of Sec. 80.67 directs refiners to weight the
emission performances by batch volume and then add them in order to
determine a year-round value. In calculating emission performances with
the Complex Model, fuels sold in the winter are evaluated with the
winter model, while fuels sold in the summer are evaluated with the
summer model. Thus this ``volume-weighted'' approach to determining
year-round values correctly leads to an average toxic emissions value
for the year.
Paragraph (e)(3) of Sec. 80.45 incorrectly directs refiners to
weight summer and winter toxic emissions by fixed values to obtain
year-round averages. Under this portion of the regulations, summer
batches of fuel would be individually weighted by their batch volumes
to obtain average summer emission performance estimates. Likewise
winter batches would be weighted by their batch volumes to obtain
average winter emission performance estimates. However, the fixed
weighting of summer and winter emission estimates for the purposes of
determining a year-round value would not necessarily mimic a refiner's
true ratio of summer to winter fuel. The fixed weightings given in
paragraph (e)(3) were used to determine the performance standards, and
are not relevant to determining compliance by individual refiners.
Therefore, paragraph (e)(3) will be revised to refer to Sec. 80.67(g),
and paragraphs (e)(3)(i) and (e)(3)(ii) of Sec. 80.45 will be removed.
IV. Enforcement Corrections and Clarifications
The following section contains corrections and clarifications to
the enforcement portions of the final reformulated gasoline and anti-
dumping regulations that were published on February 16, 1994 (59 FR
7716), and to enforcement portions of the preamble of the notice of
final rulemaking.\2\ The reasons for the changes are listed below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\Hereinafter in Part IV of this notice (unless otherwise
indicated), references to ``final rule'' or ``final regulations''
shall refer to the regulations promulgated in the February 16, 1994,
notice of final rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A. Reformulated Gasoline Regulation (40 CFR Part 80, Subpart D)
1. Measurement of Reformulated Gasoline Fuel Parameters (Sec. 80.46)
The table of aromatic compounds in Sec. 80.46(f)(1)(ii)(K) is being
revised. The aromatic compounds listed in the final rule are those used
by EPA during the development of the analytical method for the
rulemaking. In this notice some compounds that no longer are available
commercially have been deleted from the list, and several aromatic
compounds that are found in commercial gasolines and are available
commercially to make reference materials have been added to the list.
Only materials of known purity or those specified as 99% pure or
greater should be used as calibration standards.
The number of calibration levels should be sufficient to bracket
the expected concentration of each compound. Two calibration levels
were used in the initial evaluation of the test method. In the future,
however, EPA probably will use five calibration levels with at least
three internal standards used in the standards and samples in order to
improve precision.
Initially EPA prepared standards by volume. Currently, however, EPA
prepares standards, samples, and internal standards by weight.
Conversion to volume percent is performed by using the density of the
aromatic compound in question. Standards for gasoline that are prepared
by weight are considered to be more accurate than standards that are
prepared by volume.
Neither the use of five calibration levels, nor the preparation of
standards by weight, should be viewed as changes to the regulations,
but rather as Agency recommendations intended to improve precision.
2. General Requirements for Refiners, Importers and Oxygenate Blenders
(Sec. 80.65)
a. Designation of Gasoline as Oxygenated Fuels Program Reformulated
Gasoline (OPRG) or Non-OPRG. Section 80.65(d)(2)(iii) is revised in
order to clarify the categories of gasoline that may be designated as
oxygenated fuels program reformulated gasoline, or OPRG. The final
rule, at Sec. 80.65(d)(2)(iii), specifies that reformulated gasoline
must be designated as OPRG, or not OPRG, to provide a mechanism to
ensure reformulated gasoline outside of oxygenated fuels control areas
during oxygenated fuels control periods has at least the 2.0 weight
percent oxygen content mandated by the Clean Air Act.\3\ The final rule
requires parties who meet the oxygen standard on average to meet the
oxygen standard separately for gasoline not designated as OPRG. If OPRG
and non-OPRG gasoline could be averaged together for oxygen purposes,
the gasoline in the OPRG areas--where 2.7 weight percent oxygen is
required during the oxygenated fuels control period--could be used to
offset gasoline with 1.5 weight percent oxygen intended for use in non-
OPRG areas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\The ``oxygenated fuels control areas'' are those areas where
the use of oxygenated gasoline is required during the winter season
pursuant to section 211(m) of the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. 7545(m).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Today's revision consists of two parts. First, the regulation is
clarified to make specific that the OPRG/non-OPRG designation applies
only to reformulated gasoline and not to RBOB. The final rule requires
RBOB to be designated as OPRG or non-OPRG, but the OPRG designation for
RBOB serves no purpose because RBOB does not become reformulated
gasoline until oxygenate has been added. The final rule is unchanged
regarding oxygenate blender responsibilities--oxygenate blenders who
produce reformulated gasoline by combining RBOB with oxygenate are
required to designate the gasoline as OPRG or non-OPRG, and to meet the
oxygen standard separately for gasoline not designated as OPRG.
The second change regarding OPRG-designated gasoline is the
addition of a new provision, at Sec. 80.65(d)(2)(iii)(B), to clarify
that reformulated gasoline that contains at least 2.0 weight percent
oxygen may be designated as OPRG regardless of whether or not the
gasoline is used in an oxygenated fuels program control area during an
oxygenated fuels program control period. This change allows terminals
that serve both oxygenated fuels areas and non-oxygenated fuels areas
to stock a single reformulated gasoline that could be used in both
areas, instead of having to stock both OPRG and non-OPRG designated
reformulated gasoline. This change also allows all reformulated
gasoline that meets the 2.0 weight percent oxygen per-gallon standard
to be designated as OPRG, without such gasoline being restricted to use
in oxygenated fuel areas during oxygenated fuel control periods.
A terminal thus could stock reformulated gasoline that contains 2.7
weight percent oxygen and, therefore, that meets the oxygenated fuels
oxygen requirement, and deliver this gasoline into both OPRG and non-
OPRG markets. A terminal also could stock reformulated gasoline that
contains 2.0 weight percent oxygen for delivery into both OPRG and non-
OPRG markets, and splash blend additional oxygenate with those batches
of gasoline that are delivered into the oxygenated fuel area during the
oxygenated fuel control period.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\Section 80.78(a)(6) prohibits adding oxygenate to
reformulated gasoline, except in the case of reformulated gasoline
that is designated as OPRG and is used in an oxygenated fuels
program control area during an oxygenated fuels program control
period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This change, however, keeps intact the regulatory mechanism for
ensuring non-OPRG areas receive reformulated gasoline that contains at
least 2.0 weight percent oxygen. Any reformulated gasoline used outside
an oxygenated fuels control area during an oxygenated fuels control
period that contains less than 2.0 weight percent oxygen (and therefore
must be designated as non-OPRG) must be offset with other non-OPRG
reformulated gasoline that contains more than 2.0 weight percent
oxygen, such that the average oxygen content of the non-OPRG gasoline
is greater than or equal to the 2.1 weight percent average standard.
b. Designation of Complex Model Gasoline as Meeting NOX
Standard on Per-Gallon or Average Basis. Section 80.65(d)(2)(v)(B) is
revised in order to clarify that refiners and importers are required to
specify whether the NOX standard is being met on a per-gallon
basis or on average only for gasoline certified under the complex
model. There is no separate NOX standard under the simple model.
c. Designation of Reformulated Gasoline Blendstock for Downstream
Oxygenate Blending (RBOB). Section 80.65(d)(2)(vi) is being revised in
order to clarify that refiners and importers have three options
regarding the designation of reformulated gasoline blendstock for
downstream oxygenate blending (or RBOB). A refiner or importer has
three options for the types of RBOB that may be produced or imported:
as suitable for blending with any oxygenate, with ether only, or with a
refiner- or importer-specified oxygenate type and amount. The gasoline
designation requirements at Sec. 80.65(d)(2)(vi) as promulgated in the
final rule did not include the refiner- or importer-specified oxygenate
option for RBOB, making this provision inconsistent with the downstream
oxygenate provisions at Sec. 80.69(a) that specifies the RBOB options
and includes the refiner- or importer-specified option, and the product
transfer document requirements for RBOB at Sec. 80.77(i)(2) that
includes all three options. In order to correct this inconsistency,
today's revision adds the refiner- or importer-specified option to the
RBOB designation requirement.
d. Assignment of Batch Numbers. Section 80.65(d)(3) requires
refiners and importers to assign a unique number to each batch of
reformulated gasoline that is produced or imported, and this section
includes an example of such a batch number. The numbers contained in
the example are being modified to reflect the correct number of digits
for the portion of the batch number that states the EPA-assigned
facility registration number (five digits) and the sequential batch
number (six digits).
e. Computer-Controlled In-Line Blending Exemption. Section
80.65(e)(1) requires each refiner or importer to obtain test results
for each batch of reformulated gasoline prior to the gasoline leaving
the refinery or import facility. Refiners who produce reformulated
gasoline using a computer-controlled in-line blending process in which
the gasoline is blended directly to a pipeline, however, will not have
the test results for the ``batch'' prior to the release of at least
some, if not all, of the gasoline. To correct the incompatibility
between this requirement and the nature of the computer-controlled in-
line blending process, the Sec. 80.65(f)(4) exemption from independent
sampling and testing for refiners that produce reformulated gasoline
using computer-controlled in-line blending equipment is expanded to
include an exemption from the Sec. 80.65(e)(1) requirement that
refiners have test results for each batch prior to the gasoline leaving
the refinery.
f. Release of Reformulated Gasoline Certified Under Simple Model as
Not VOC-Controlled. Section 80.65(e)(1) is also revised in order to
clarify that reformulated gasoline certified under the simple model
that is not VOC-controlled may be released from the refinery or import
facility after the refiner or importer has test results for oxygen and
benzene only. The final rule requires refiners and importers to have
RVP test results in hand prior to release of all simple model-certified
reformulated gasoline, but the RVP standard applies under the simple
model only to VOC-controlled gasoline.
g. List of Reformulated Gasoline Properties to be Established by
Testing. Section 80.65(e)(2)(i) contains a list of reformulated
gasoline properties that must be established by testing. This list in
the final rule includes 50% distillation (T-50) and 90% distillation
(T-90) (the temperatures in degrees F at which 50% and 90% of a liquid
are evaporated). This list is being revised to add terms for E200 and
E300 (the percent of a liquid that are evaporated at 200 and 300
degrees F). E200 and E300 are correlated with T-50 and T-90, and may be
approximated from T-50 and T-90 measurements using conversion
equations. The most accurate way of determining the E200 and E-300 of
gasoline, however, is using ASTM-86-90, the distillation test method
specified at Sec. 80.46(d). As a result, the list of mandatory testing
is being expanded to include the E-200 and E-300 terms.
This expansion does not constitute a change from the mandatory
testing requirements for reformulated gasoline, because the E200 and
E300 terms are established as part of the ASTM-86-90 distillation test
that already is required. The correlation ranges for E-200 and E-300,
2.5 vol% and 3.5 vol% respectively, that are included in the
Sec. 80.65(e)(2)(i) table are the reproducibility figures for these
terms from the ASTM test, and are comparable to the five degrees F
correlation range provided for the T-50 and T-90 terms.
h. Reconciliation of Test Results. Section 80.65(e)(2)(ii)(A) is
being revised to clarify one option for reconciling reformulated
gasoline test results from a refiner's or importer's laboratory as
compared with test results from an independent laboratory. Under this
option, where the refiner's or importer's test result for any parameter
is not confirmed, the refiner or importer would use the result for that
parameter that is the ``worst case'' for the refiner or importer
(``best case'' for the environment). Under this option in the final
rule, the smaller of the two results for oxygenates is used for
calculating all standards except RVP.
This option is being revised to refer to oxygenates as a class
without separately naming each oxygenate. This change will keep the
option from becoming dated if any new oxygenates are used in
reformulated gasoline. The option also is being revised to eliminate
the larger oxygenate volume assumption in the case of RVP, because RVP
is a parameter that is measured directly. Any oxygenate effect on RVP
will be measured in the RVP test and would not be changed by a
calculation using the ``worst case'' oxygenate level.
i. Attest Engagement Requirement. Section 80.65(h) is being revised
to specify that the attest engagement requirement applies to oxygenate
blenders who meet the oxygen standard on average, and not to oxygenate
blenders who meet the oxygen standard on a per-gallon basis. This
change conforms Sec. 80.65(h) with Sec. 80.69(b)(4) which limits the
attest engagement requirement to oxygenate blenders who average.
3. Compliance Surveys (Sec. 80.68)
Section 80.68(c)(13) is being revised to clarify when VOC and
NOX emissions reduction calculations must be reported to EPA by
the surveyor under the gasoline quality survey requirements.\5\ VOC
emissions reduction calculations must be reported only for surveys
during June 1 through September 15 of each year, including simple model
surveys where a specified simple model VOC emissions reduction equation
is cross-referenced. NOX emission reduction calculations must be
reported for all complex model surveys before January 1, 2000, and
beginning on January 1, 2000 for surveys outside the period June 1
through September 15. NOX surveys are not required during June 1
through September 15 under Phase II (beginning on January 1, 2000)
because the Clean Air Act's restriction on NOX increases is
satisfied through the NOX reductions required for VOC-controlled
reformulated gasoline under Phase II. The rationale for this approach
for NOX surveys is discussed at 59 FR 7773 (February 16, 1994).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\This notice is also adding the paragraph number for this
provision, which was inadvertently omitted in the notice of final
rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Covered Areas (Sec. 80.70)
a. Putnam and Orange Counties, New York. In order to correct an
oversight in the final rule, Sec. 80.70(d)(3) is being amended to
include Putnam and Orange Counties, New York, as part of the New York-
Northern New Jersey-Long Island-Connecticut ``covered area.'' These
counties are part of the New York City CMSA and are thus appropriately
part of the New York City reformulated gasoline covered area. See 57 FR
13444 (April 16, 1992). Putnam and Orange Counties are also included in
the New York City CMSA for purposes of the oxygenated fuels program
requirements.
b. Bullitt and Oldham Counties, Kentucky. Section 80.70(j) is being
amended to specify the applicable boundaries for the portions of
Bullitt and Oldham Counties, Kentucky, that are nonattainment areas.
c. Essex County, New York. The listing of Essex County, New York,
is also being amended to include a specific description of the
nonattainment area.
d. Smyth County, Virginia. Section 80.70(j) is also being amended
to delete Smyth County, Virginia, as a covered area for the
reformulated gasoline program. This area was expressly excluded from
coverage in the Governor's opt-in request and should not have been
included in the regulatory list of covered areas.
e. Richmond, Virginia. An erroneous reference to the City of
Richmond is also being corrected.
5. Reporting Requirements (Sec. 80.75)
a. Sulfur, NOX and T90 Averaging Reports
Section 80.41(h)(2) of the final rule requires that refiners and
importers subject to the simple model meet their 1990 baseline sulfur,
olefins and T90 levels on average for the entire year. However, it does
not include a requirement to report the average values of these
properties to EPA. It was the Agency's intention to have these values
reported and so an additional reporting requirement for sulfur, olefins
and T90 is being added at Sec. 80.75(b)(2). In addition, the RVP
averaging reporting requirements are being renumbered, under
Sec. 80.75(b)(1), so that the sulfur, olefin and T90 averaging
reporting requirements may be included under Sec. 80.75(b).
b. Oxygen Averaging Reports. Section 80.75(f)(2)(ii)(A) is being
revised to conform the categories of reformulated gasoline that must be
reported separately for oxygen averaging purposes to the categories
that are specified in the oxygen averaging section, at
Sec. 80.67(h)(1)(v)(A).
6. Registration Requirements (Sec. 80.76)
The Agency is making several revisions to the registration
requirements in Sec. 80.76(c) of the final rule. EPA is removing the
requirement to indicate where off-site records are kept from the
refiners', importers' and oxygenate blenders' registration information,
and instead requiring that information be submitted for each refinery,
oxygenate blending facility, and in the case of importers, operations
within each PADD. The registration requirement to indicate what type of
gasoline each refinery or oxygenate blending facility will produce
(reformulated, RBOB, conventional or blendstocks) has been removed
because the Agency believes that it is not necessary for registration
purposes. The Agency intended that importers would identify the
independent laboratories used to comply with the independent sampling
and testing requirements, but there was no specific regulatory text
requiring them to do so. This notice requires each importer to provide
that information to EPA for its operations in each PADD.
7. Product Transfer Documentation (Sec. 80.77)
a. Minimum and/or Maximum Standards. Section 80.77(g)(2), which
requires that per-gallon minimum/maximums must be included in product
transfer documents, is being revised to clarify the categories of
reformulated gasoline for which these values must be specified.
Paragraphs (g)(2)(iii), (g)(2)(iv)(A), and (g)(2)(iv)(B) of Sec. 80.77
are being revised to specify that the RVP maximum and the VOC emissions
performance minimum must be included only for VOC-controlled
reformulated gasoline, because these standards apply only to VOC-
controlled gasoline. Paragraphs (g)(2)(iv)(A) and (g)(2)(iv)(B) of
Sec. 80.77 also are being revised to specify that the NOX minimum
must be included only for reformulated gasoline certified using the
complex model. There is no separate NOX standard under the simple
model.
b. VOC-Controlled Gasoline That Contains Ethanol. Section
80.77(g)(3) is being added to require that product transfer documents
must identify any VOC-controlled reformulated gasoline that contains
any ethanol as an ethanol-containing reformulated gasoline, so that
downstream parties will have sufficient knowledge to avoid violation of
the prohibition, at Sec. 80.78(a)(8), against combining VOC-controlled
reformulated gasoline produced using ethanol with VOC-controlled
reformulated gasoline produced using any other oxygenate during the
period January 1 through September 15.
c. Complex Model Gasoline Certified Prior to 1998. Section 80.77(h)
is being revised to clarify that the product transfer document
requirements related to gasoline certified using the complex model
before January 1, 1998, apply to reformulated gasoline and RBOB. The
final rule makes reference to ``gasoline'' and RBOB without specifying
``reformulated gasoline,'' which could have caused confusion.
8. Controls and Prohibitions (Section 80.78)
Section 80.78(a)(1)(v)(B) and (a)(1)(v)(C), concerning reformulated
gasoline prohibited activities, are being revised to clarify that
gasoline subject to the per-gallon RVP maximum must have an RVP that is
less than or equal to this standard, and that gasoline subject to the
VOC and NOX emissions reduction minimum must have emissions
reductions that are greater than or equal to these standards. The final
rule describes these requirements only in terms of gasoline that is
``less than'' or ``greater than'' these standards, while gasoline that
equals these standards also is in compliance.
9. Enforcement Exemptions for California Gasoline (Sec. 80.81)
a. Definition of California Gasoline. The final rule was intended
to extend the California enforcement exemptions to gasoline produced at
refineries outside California that produce only California reformulated
gasoline and federal conventional gasoline. See 59 FR 7759, col. 3
(February 16, 1994). However, the regulatory definition of ``California
gasoline'' could be read to exclude non-California refineries producing
California reformulated gasoline from the enforcement exemptions.
Therefore, Sec. 80.81(a)(2)(iii) is clarified to exclude from this
definition only gasoline produced by non-California refineries that are
also producing reformulated gasoline for sale in covered areas outside
California.
b. Compliance Demonstration Submittal. Section 80.81(b)(4) requires
refiners, importers, and oxygenate blenders to submit the compliance
demonstration mandated by Sec. 80.81(b)(3) by May 31, 1996 ``along with
reports required to be submitted under Sec. 80.75(a)(1).'' The quoted
language is corrected to make clear that the compliance demonstration
should accompany the report for the first quarter of 1996 due to be
submitted on that date under Sec. 80.75(a)(1)(i).
c. Use of California Sampling and/or Testing Methodologies. Section
80.81(h) allows refiners and importers of California gasoline to use
sampling and test methods that are set forth in the California
reformulated gasoline regulations, in lieu of those methods prescribed
under Sec. 80.46 for the federal reformulated gasoline program. This
provision is being revised to clarify that these California-approved
sampling and test methods may be used only with California gasoline,
and that these methods may not be used to satisfy the sampling and
testing requirements for reformulated or conventional gasoline that
does not meet the definition of California gasoline.
B. Anti-Dumping Regulations (40 CFR Part 80, Subpart E)
1. Standards Applicable to Refiners and Importers (Sec. 80.101)
a. Compliance Baseline Formula. Section 80.101(f)(4) currently
provides that refiners and importers who use an individual 1990
baseline, and who increase their gasoline production volume above a
certain level, must calculate a compliance baseline for each averaging
period. EPA has combined the separate formulas for ``Veq'' and
``CBi'' in Sec. 80.101(f)(4) into a single, simpler formula.
In addition, EPA has specified that the denominator of the
compliance baseline equation includes the volume of California
gasoline. The final rule excluded the volume of California gasoline
produced in 1995 and thereafter from the compliance baseline equation,
but this exclusion rendered this equation invalid for refiners of
California gasoline because the numerator of this equation includes
gasoline produced for the California market in 1990. In order to
constitute a valid comparison of the volume of gasoline produced in
1990 versus the volume produced in 1995 and thereafter, both the
numerator and the denominator of the compliance baseline equation must
contain the volume of gasoline produced for the California market. This
approach for including California gasoline in the compliance baseline
equation is equivalent to the requirement that reformulated gasoline
produced for use in covered areas outside the State of California must
be included in the denominator of the compliance baseline equation.
The definitions of the factors ``DBi,'' ``CBi,'' and
``Bi,'' are clarified to bring them in conformance with the terms
used in the complex model calculations under Sec. 80.101(g).
b. Compliance Calculations. Section 80.101(g), entitled
``Compliance Calculations,'' is restructured to reverse the order of
the simple model calculation formula currently in Sec. 80.101(g)(1)(i)
and the formula for determining the average value for the parameter
being evaluated currently in Sec. 80.101(g)(1)(ii). This organizational
change is necessary because in order to perform the simple model
calculation for exhaust benzene emissions, the refiner or importer must
first determine the average value for certain parameters. In addition,
and for purposes of clarity, the heading ``Simple Model Calculations''
is inserted as a new paragraph (i) under Sec. 80.101(g)(1), and the
heading ``Complex Model Calculations'' is inserted as a new paragraph
(ii) under Sec. 80.101(g)(1). These changes restructure the compliance
calculations in a logical sequence that will make this section clearer
for compliance purposes.
The formula definition of ``SGi'' in Sec. 80.101(g)(1)(i)(A)
is amended to clarify that the specific gravity term only applies to
calculations involving sulfur.
The definitions of the factors ``BZ'' and ``AR'' under
Sec. 80.101(g)(1)(i)(B), pertaining to compliance calculations for
exhaust benzene emissions under the simple model, are clarified as to
how these are calculated by expanding them to read ``calculated per
paragraph (g)(1)(i)(A) of this section.''
Section 80.101(g)(1)(iii), (g)(1)(iv), and (g)(1)(v), pertaining to
complex model calculations, are consolidated and simplified as a new
Sec. 80.101(g)(1)(ii).
c. Sampling and Testing. Section 80.101(i)(1), which concerns
requirements for sampling and testing of conventional gasoline and
other products to which the compliance standards apply, is being
revised to delete the requirement that such sampling and testing be
conducted prior to the gasoline or product leaving the refinery. This
change is necessary because this requirement interferes with the
ability of refiners and importers to do composite sampling and in-line
blending.
2. Controls Applicable to Blendstocks (Sec. 80.102)
Since gasoline produced for and marketed in California is subject
to that State's stringent reformulated gasoline standards, it is not
necessary to include such gasoline, or applicable blendstocks used in
the production of such gasoline, in EPA's blendstock tracking
requirements beginning in 1995. Thus, the definitions of the volume of
gasoline, ``Vg'' and ``Vg,i,'' in the averaging period
blendstock-to-gasoline ratio in Sec. 80.102(d)(1)(i) and the running
cumulative compliance period blendstock-to-gasoline ratio in
Sec. 80.102(d)(2)(i), respectively, are amended by adding an explicit
exclusion for California gasoline. Similarly, an additional
subparagraph (v) has been added under Sec. 80.102(d)(3) to exclude
applicable blendstocks used to produce California gasoline in the
blendstock ratio calculations. These corrections are necessary to make
clear that the volumes of California gasoline, and applicable
blendstocks used to produce California gasoline are not part of the
ratio calculations.6
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\The baseline blendstock-to-gasoline ratio does include both
gasoline and blendstock produced for the California market. This
baseline ratio nevertheless is a valid basis for comparison with the
compliance period blendstock-to-gasoline ratios (that exclude
California gasoline and blendstock) because the baseline ratio
represents a refiner's or importer's actual 1990 gasoline and
blendstock volumes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Record Keeping Requirements (Sec. 80.104)
Under Sec. 80.104(a)(2)(ix), refiners and importers are required to
retain documents to demonstrate that blendstocks were transferred for
other than gasoline blending purposes as a basis for excluding such
blendstocks from tracking. There are various other bases specified in
Sec. 80.102(d)(3) for excluding blendstocks from tracking (e.g.,
exported, transferred as a feedstock) for which document support is not
required in the final rule. EPA believes that the document support
requirement should apply to all excluded blendstocks. Therefore,
Sec. 80.104(a)(2)(ix) is expanded to require the retention of documents
which demonstrate any of the specified bases for the exclusion of
blendstocks from blendstock tracking.
4. Reporting Requirements (Sec. 80.105)
Section 80.105(a)(2) in the final rule requires refiners and
importers to report the overall volume of applicable blendstock
produced or imported and transferred to others. This provision is being
clarified to require separate reporting for those applicable
blendstocks that are, and those that are not, excluded under
Sec. 80.102(d)(3).
C. Preamble
The preamble of the February 16, 1994, notice of final rulemaking
contains two errors in the sections discussing reformulated gasoline
and anti-dumping enforcement provisions. The following corrections
should be noted for these sections of the preamble:
On page 7759, in the second column, in the 12th and 13th
lines of the second full paragraph, ``(March 1, 1996, through February
29, 1996)'' should read ``(March 1, 1996, through February 28, 1998).''
On page 7800, in the second column, in the 4th and 5th
lines of the carryover paragraph, ``section 211(k)(c) of the Act''
should read ``section 211(k) and (c) of the Act.''
V. Summer/Winter Season
Section 80.91 of the Reformulated Gasoline Final Rule (59 FR 7716)
defines summer and winter data and sampling requirements as follows:
paragraph (d)(1)(i)(A) states that ``Data shall have been obtained for
at least three months of the refiner's or importer's production of
summer gasoline and at least three months of its production of winter
gasoline.'' The regulation goes on to define a summer month as ``any
month during which the refiner produced any gasoline which met the
federal summer gasoline volatility requirements. Winter shall be any
month which could not be considered a summer month.''
Several comments received by EPA since the rule was published
indicate that this present definition severely restricts or eliminates
the winter period in some cases, and inappropriately allocates winter
data to the summer calculation. Further, the current rule inadvertently
precludes the use of actual data in some calculations, even when such
per batch actual data is available.
Considering that the goal of the baseline is to most accurately
reflect actual 1990 gasoline composition, the rule will be modified to
more correctly allocate parameter data. Provision will be made for the
use of actual RVP data to define summer and winter gasoline. When such
Method 1, per batch actual data is not available, summer and winter
months will be redefined to better approximate the seasonal gasoline
fuel parameter and emission values.
This modification to the reformulated gasoline regulation will
satisfy several comments received since publication in the Federal
Register. EPA will redefine summer and winter months, for use when
Method 1 actual batch data is not available, as follows. A summer month
will be redefined as any month during which more than 50 percent (by
volume) of the gasoline produced by a refiner met the federal summer
gasoline volatility requirements. Winter shall remain defined as any
month which could not be considered a summer month. This will correct
situations in which small quantities of summer volatility gasoline are
produced early in the year. Originally, data from a month in which even
small quantities of summer volatility fuel was produced was considered
a summer month. With this modification, such months in which the
majority of fuel was winter volatility would be correctly allocated as
a winter data month.
Further, for any month for which both winter and summer gasoline
were produced, if actual RVP (Method 1) data are available, that data
will be accurately divided between the summer and winter calculations,
as appropriate. If such per batch data is not available, all data for
that month would be considered either summer or winter, based on the
production volumes.
When actual per batch data is used, for minimum data requirement
purposes, a month is considered equivalent to 4 weeks of seasonal data.
Therefore, 12 weeks of data sampling on summer volatility fuel
satisfies the minimum three months of data collection required. If a
refiner, such as the California refiners, still cannot provide three
months of winter data, they may petition for less than minimum data,
under the provisions outlined in Sec. 80.91(d)(1)(C).
VI. Baseline Determination Adjustments
A. Work-In-Progress (WIP) Adjustment
The final reformulated gasoline rule provided criteria for allowing
work-in-progress baseline adjustments (section 80.91(e)(5)). Work-in-
progress (WIP) refers to one or more major capital changes or
commitment(s) made by a refiner prior to or in 1990. A WIP adjustment
allows a refiner to modify its baseline volume and fuel parameter
values (which affect emissions) to account for the WIP. In order to
obtain a WIP modification, a refiner must petition EPA and EPA must
approve the petition.
As indicated in the preamble to the final rule, EPA believes that
the criteria for a WIP adjustment should be fairly stringent, as the
adjustment was intended only for those for whom a significant
investment had already been made in order to comply with another
government mandate. Additionally, a broad program of adjustments could
indicate that EPA exceeded its equitable discretion under Alabama
Power, as discussed in the Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA)
accompanying the final rule.
In the final rule, EPA required that a refiner meet each of three
criteria in order to qualify for a WIP baseline adjustment. A fourth
criterion was also required to minimize environmental harm due to WIP
adjustments, via simple model parameter caps and emissions caps for
both the simple and complex models.
Since promulgation of the final rule, EPA has re-evaluated this
fourth criterion of the WIP provisions. EPA intended to allow WIP
adjustments to relieve severe hardship where the adjustment did not
allow emissions to increase significantly relative to the Clean Air Act
baseline. The methods EPA chose to constrain WIP adjustments had
inconsistent impacts depending on simple model or complex model use.
The modification proposed in this Direct Final Rulemaking would ensure
that the fuel parameter constraints on WIP adjustments under the simple
model would be more consistent with the emissions performance
constraints under the complex model. Specifically, WIP adjustments will
be permitted to exceed the simple model parameter caps, but only to the
extent the baseline still complies with the complex model emission
caps. Without this change, a WIP adjustment would be more constrained
in 1995 than would be the case in 1998, possibly requiring a refiner to
make processing changes in 1995 that would not be necessary in 1998.
While the emissions and parameter caps were set to minimize
environmental harm due to the WIP (realizing that a WIP adjustment will
actually increase baseline emissions relative to 1990) EPA believes
this modification will increase compliance flexibility while
maintaining the environmental goals of the program.
With regard to the effect of WIP adjustments on reformulated
gasoline compliance, the simple model caps stated in the regulations
apply to reformulated gasoline as well as to conventional gasoline. As
stated in the final reformulated gasoline rule, when the simple model
is used for compliance, the WIP-adjusted annual average baseline values
for sulfur, olefins and T90 are the actual WIP-adjusted values of those
parameters, provided they do not exceed the unadjusted baseline values
or the simple model parameter caps given in section 80.91(e)(viii)(B).
However, baseline parameters may now exceed these caps if the WIP
adjusted baseline does not result in exhaust emissions of VOC, toxics,
and NOX which exceed the emission levels specified in
Sec. 80.91(e)(5)(vii)(B), namely 105% of the annual average statutory
value.
Based on questions received since promulgation of the final rule,
two changes in the language of the Work-In-Progress (WIP) provisions
are made to section 80.91(e)(5) to further clarify certain aspects of
the WIP adjustment not explicitly addressed in the final rule. The
regulatory language dealing with the emissions and parameter caps is
unclear as to whether the caps apply to the actual values or to the
change in emissions or parameter values. In addition, there appeared to
be some confusion over what was meant by ``adjusted'' baseline.
Paragraphs 80.91(e)(5)(vi) and 80.91(e)(5)(vii) have been modified to
clarify agency intent.
B. JP-4 Adjustment
In the final rule for reformulated gasoline, EPA allowed
adjustments for specific extenuating circumstances. Baseline fuel
parameters, volumes and emissions of a refinery can be adjusted due to
the occurrence of specific extraordinary or extenuating circumstances
which caused its 1990 gasoline production to be different than it would
have been had the circumstance not occurred. However, the Agency's
objective is not to establish a broad adjustment program. Allowable
circumstances include unforeseen, unplanned downtime of at least 30
days of one or more gasoline blendstock producing units due to
equipment failure or natural cause beyond the control of the refiner,
or for non-annual maintenance (turnaround) downtime which occurred in
1990. These types of adjustments reflect instances where the 1990
baseline truly deviated from the otherwise expected baseline (historic
and future), had the incident not occurred. EPA also expects that
allowed adjustments will have minimal environmental impact while
relieving a large regulatory burden.
In keeping with that policy objective, EPA promulgated provisions
to permit baseline adjustments for certain refiners which produced JP-4
jet fuel in 1990, upon petition and approval. As discussed in the RIA
for the reformulated gasoline final rule, EPA believes that it has
authority to allow such adjustments due to the discretion afforded EPA
by Congress. Additionally, Alabama Power v. Costle\7\ gives EPA ``case-
by-case discretion'' to grant variances or even dispensation from a
rule where imposition of the requirement would result in minimal
environmental benefit but would extremely burden a regulated party.
Today's action changes two portions of the provisions for JP-4
adjustment: the multiple refinery requirement and the JP-4 to gasoline
production ratio. In the final reformulated gasoline rule, JP-4
baseline adjustments are generally limited to single-refinery refiners
because such refiners have no way to aggregate baselines\8\ so as to
reduce the combined burden of a JP-4 phaseout and the anti-dumping
requirements on their operations. In some cases, if no relief were
granted in this area, the viability of a refinery could be at stake.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\Alabama Power Company v. Costle, 636 F.2d 323.357 (D.C. Cir
1979).
\8\A refiner with more than one refinery may determine an
aggregate baseline, i.e., a conventional gasoline compliance
baseline, which consists of the volume-weighted emissions or fuel
parameters, as applicable, of two or more refineries.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Multiple-Refinery Requirement
The final reformulated gasoline rule also promulgated baseline
adjustment provisions for multi-refinery refiners where each refinery
produced JP-4 in 1990. This adjustment provision assumes that multi-
refinery refiners are predominantly in the business of fuel production
and thus possess the means to offset the refinery's JP-4 volume and
associated fuel parameter increases with fuels volumes at other
locations. The adjustment also assumes that refiners with multiple-
refineries have process units offering various processing options which
support an average (or typical) fuel production operation.
Today's action modifies the JP-4 baseline adjustment multiple
refinery requirement. Every refinery of a multiple-refinery is no
longer required to have produced JP-4. Such multi-refinery refiners are
allowed to average their 1990 JP-4 production to 1990 gasoline
production ratio across all of their refineries. However, all
refineries of a multi-refiner must still meet the other two criteria
specified for the JP-4 baseline adjustment in the reformulated gasoline
final regulations. Specifically, only refiners that will not produce
reformulated gasoline and that meet the 1990 JP-4 to gasoline
production ratio are allowed to make a JP-4 baseline adjustment. The
Agency is amending the requirement stipulating that each refinery of
multiple-refineries produced JP-4 in 1990 because, essentially, the
same environmental impact and economic hardship is expected regardless
of whether a single refinery or all refineries of a multiple-refinery
produced JP-4.
2. JP-4 Baseline Adjustment Ratio
The final reformulated gasoline rule promulgated baseline
adjustment provisions which stipulate that 1990 JP-4 production must
have constituted a specified portion of a refiner's 1990 fuel
production in order for a significant enough burden to exist to justify
permiting baseline adjustments. Additionally, a baseline is neither
unrepresentative of 1990, nor incalculable, because of post-1990
changes in crude availability, fuel specifications, fuel markets, etc.
EPA is permitting baseline adjustments for certain refiners which
produced JP-4 jet fuel in 1990 because, as discussed in the Regulatory
Impact Analysis for the reformulated gasoline final rule, EPA believes
that it has a limited authority to allow such adjustments in certain
extreme cases. The final reformulated gasoline regulations require that
the ratio of the refinery's 1990 JP-4 production to its 1990 gasoline
production equal or exceed 0.5.
Upon further evaluation of the baseline adjustment provisions, the
Agency has concluded that the JP-4 to gasoline production ratio, as
promulgated in the RFG final rule (0.5), is unnecessarily restrictive.
Based on responses from affected refiners, under the December 1993
criteria only two refiners in the United States would likely qualify
for the adjustment. In other words, very few refiners under contract to
produce JP-4 will have the relief intended by the provision. Today's
action alters the refiner's 1990 JP-4 production to 1990 gasoline
production ratio from 0.5 to 0.2. EPA believes this revised ratio
indicates that a significant amount of the refinery feedstock used for
JP-4 production would have to be converted in order to produce
gasoline. Altering the JP-4 to gasoline production ratio will allow
additional small refiners to qualify for the adjustment and not be
forced to operate from a drastically less competitive position or be
driven out of business. Based on feedback EPA has received, changing
the ratio from 0.5 to 0.2 raises the number of affected refiners from 2
to 6. If large refineries had such a ratio also, the regulatory burden
would be just as great. Also, it would be more difficult to argue de
minimis environmental impact for large refiners. In reality none do,
such that the ratio is only an issue for small refiners.
Several different ratio options were suggested by commenters during
the reformulated gasoline rulemaking as to what minimum portion of a
refinery's 1990 production JP-4 should have constituted for the
circumstance to be extenuating, as follows: JP-4 production to total
refinery production, 20%; JP-4 production to gasoline production, 5%;
JP-4 production to gasoline production, 75%; and, JP-4 production to
gasoline plus JP-4 production, 10%. EPA's 0.2 JP-4 to gasoline ratio is
in line with some of the commenters suggestions.
At less than a 1990 JP-4 to gasoline production ratio of 0.2, EPA
believes the impact on benzene and aromatics may make it more costly
for refiners to comply with the regulations, though it is unlikely that
such refiners will be forced out of business or experience some similar
extreme burden. For example, it is expected that no economic hardship
will occur at a PJP-4 to gasoline ratio of 0.1. Thus, the Agency
discretion recognized in Alabama\9\ to grant variances or even
dispensation from a rule where imposition of the requirement would
result in minimal environmental benefit but would extremely burden a
regulated party, would not apply.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\Alabama Power Company vs. Costle, 636 F.2d 323.357 (D.C. Cir
1979).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While the adjusted emission baselines of those approved for both
amended PJP-4 adjustments are likely to be higher than their actual
1990 baselines (primarily due to increased benzene and aromatics) EPA
expects minimal negative environmental affects. First, the number of
refineries meeting the criteria is still expected to be quite small.
Second, the total production of all such refineries is also small.
Thus, not very much additional gasoline will be affected by any
baseline adjustments for JP-4 than if the criteria were less stringent
or adjustments were not allowed at all. The modification of the multi-
refinery requirement and the reduction of the ratio requirement to 0.2
both provide necessary flexibility to refiners and allow additional
refiners (that are simultaneously burdened by the JP-4 phaseout and the
anti-dumping provisions) regulatory relief.
As stated in the Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) for the
reformulated gasoline final rule, JP-4 baseline adjustments will be
allowed only for those refiners which will not produce reformulated
gasoline, which is the most critical factor in assessing environmental
impact. While the anti-dumping requirements, in general, apply to all
conventional gasoline whether or not reformulated gasoline is also
produced, in these specific cases no dumping will occur due to
reformulated gasoline production. The intent of Congress with regard to
the anti-dumping program will be met while not unduly burdening those
that meet the specified criteria. Since both the unadjusted and
adjusted baselines must be determined, if a refiner granted such an
adjustment subsequently produces reformulated gasoline, its
conventional gasoline compliance would immediately be subject to its
original unadjusted baseline.
VII. Public Participation and Effective Date
The Agency is publishing this action as a direct final rule because
it views the changes contained within as non-controversial and
anticipates no adverse or critical comments. This action will be
effective September 19, 1994 unless the Agency receives notice by
August 19, 1994 that adverse or critical comments will be submitted, or
that a party requests the opportunity to submit such oral comments
pursuant to section 307(d)(5) of the Clean Air Act, as amended. If such
notice is received regarding a change to a particular regulatory
provision, the provision in question will be withdrawn before the
effective date by publishing a subsequent Federal Register notice
withdrawing the direct final rule for the identified provision.
Parties that submit adverse or critical comments, notify EPA of
intentions to submit such comments, or request a public hearing within
the allotted time period should identify the specific provision(s) at
issue by specifying the preamble section numbers that discuss the
provision(s). For instance, comments on the change to the oxygen valid
range limits should include a reference to Section (Item Number) II.A.1
of the preamble. Comments on any of the insubstantial errors in Section
I of the preamble should include a reference to the identification code
associated with each change in that section. For instance, adverse
comments on the paragraph reference change in Sec. 80.41(h)(2)(iii)
should include a reference to Item Number I-A.
The EPA will withdraw from final action only those specific
provision(s) identified by the commenters or persons who notify EPA of
their intent to comment or who request an opportunity to submit oral
comments. All provisions in today's action that are not commented upon
or for which EPA does not receive notice as described above will become
effective September 19, 1994.
VIII. Statutory Authority
The statutory authority for the actions finalized today is granted
to EPA by Sections 114, 211 (c) and (k) and 301 of the Clean Air Act,
as amended; 42 U.S.C. 7414, 7545 (c) and (k), and 7601.
IX. Administrative Designation
Pursuant to Executive Order 12866, (58 FR 51735 (October 4, 1993))
the Agency must determine whether the regulatory action is
``significant'' and therefore subject to OMB review and the
requirements of the Executive Order. The Order defines ``significant
regulatory action'' as one that is likely to result in a rule that may:
(1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or
adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the
economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public
health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or
communities;
(2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an
action taken or planned by another agency;
(3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants,
user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients
thereof; or
(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in
the Executive Order.
Pursuant to the terms of Executive Order 12866, it has been
determined that this direct rule is not a ``significant regulatory
action''.
X. Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) of 1980 requires federal
agencies to examine the effects of the renewable oxygenate regulation
and to identify significant adverse impacts of federal regulations on a
substantial number of small entities. Because the RFA does not provide
concrete definitions of ``small entity,'' ``significant impact,'' or
``substantial number,'' EPA has established guidelines setting the
standards to be used in evaluating impacts on small businesses.\10\ For
purposes of the renewable oxygenate requirement for reformulated
gasoline, a small entity is any business which is independently owned
and operated and not dominant in its field as defined by SBA
regulations under section 3 of the Small Business Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Memorandum to
Assistant Administrators, ``Compliance with the Regulatory
Flexibility Act,'' EPA Office of Policy, Planning, and Evaluation,
1984. In addition, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Memorandum
to Assistant Administrators, ``Agency's Revised Guidelines for
Implementing the Regulatory Flexibility Act,'' Office of Policy,
Planning, and Evaluation, 1992.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Agency believes that the interpretations, clarifications, and
corrections published in today's final action are unlikely to have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
In fact, the revisions contained herein are designed to promote
successful implementation of the reformulated gasoline program for all
regulated parties.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 80
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Fuel additives,
Gasoline, and Motor vehicle pollution.
Dated: June 27, 1994.
Carol M. Browner,
Administrator.
40 CFR part 80 is amended as follows:
PART 80--REGULATION OF FUELS AND FUEL ADDITIVES
1. The authority citation for part 80 continues to read as follows:
Authority: Sections 114, 211 and 301(a) of the Clean Air Act as
amended (42 U.S.C. 7414, 7545 and 7601(a)).
2. In Sec. 80.41, paragraphs (h)(2)(iii), (j)(2), and the
introductory text to paragraph (m)(1) are revised to read as follows:
Sec. 80.41 Standards and requirements for compliance.
* * * * *
(h) * * *
(2) * * *
(iii) In the case of a refiner that operates more than one
refinery, the standards specified under this paragraph (h)(2) shall be
met using the refinery grouping selected by the refiner under
Sec. 80.101(h).
* * * * *
(j) * * *
(2) The aromatics value which, together with the values for
benzene, RVP, and oxygen determined under paragraph (j)(1) of this
section, meets the Simple Model toxics requirement specified in
paragraphs (a) or (b) of this section, as applicable;
* * * * *
(m) * * *
(1) On each occasion that a covered area fails a NOX emissions
reduction survey conducted pursuant to Sec. 80.68, except in the case
of Phase II complex model NOX standards for VOC-controlled
gasoline, the NOX emissions reduction requirements for that
covered area beginning in the year following the failure shall be
adjusted to be more stringent as follows:
* * * * *
3. Section 80.42 is amended by revising definitions ``EXHVOCS1''
through ``REFVOCS2'' in paragraph (a) introductory text; by adding a
concluding sentence to paragraphs (b)(1)(ii), (b)(2)(ii), and
(b)(3)(ii), and adding paragraph (b)(4); and by revising the table in
paragraph (c)(1) to read as follows:
Sec. 80.42 Simple emissions model.
(a) * * *
EXHVOCS1=Exhaust nonmethane, nonethane VOC emissions from the fuel in
question, in grams per mile, for VOC control region 1 during the summer
period.
EXHVOCS2=Exhaust nonmethane, nonethane VOC emissions from the fuel in
question, in grams per mile, for VOC control region 2 during the summer
period.
EXHVOCW=Exhaust nonmethane, nonethane VOC emissions from the fuel in
question, in grams per mile, during the winter period.
EVPVOCS1=Evaporative nonmethane, nonethane VOC emissions from the fuel
in question, in grams per mile, for VOC control region 1 during the
summer period.
EVPVOCS2=Evaporative nonmethane, nonethane VOC emissions from the fuel
in question, in grams per mile, for VOC control region 2 during the
summer period.
RLVOCS1=Running loss nonmethane, nonethane VOC emissions from the fuel
in question, in grams per mile, for VOC control region 1 during the
summer period.
RLVOCS2=Running loss nonmethane, nonethane VOC emissions from the fuel
in question, in grams per mile, for VOC control region 2 during the
summer period.
REFVOCS1=Refueling nonmethane, nonethane VOC emissions from the fuel in
question, in grams per mile, for VOC control region 1 during the summer
period.
REFVOCS2=Refueling nonmethane, nonethane VOC emissions from the fuel in
question, in grams per mile, for VOC control region 2 during the summer
period.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(1) * * *
(ii) * * * Oxygen in the form of methanol or non-alcohol, non-
ether oxygenates shall not be evaluated with the Simple Model, but
instead must be evaluated through vehicle testing under the Complex
Model per Sec. 80.48.
* * * * *
(2) * * *
(ii) * * * Oxygen in the form of methanol or non-alcohol, non-
ether oxygenates shall not be evaluated with the Simple Model, but
instead must be evaluated through vehicle testing under the Complex
Model per Sec. 80.48.
* * * * *
(3) * * *
(ii) * * * Oxygen in the form of methanol or non-alcohol, non-
ether oxygenates shall not be evaluated with the Simple Model, but
instead must be evaluated through vehicle testing under the Complex
Model per Sec. 80.48.
(4) If the fuel aromatics content of the fuel in question is less
than 10 volume percent, then an FAROM value of 10 volume percent shall
be used when evaluating the toxics emissions equations given in
paragraphs (b)(1), (b)(2), and (b)(3) of this section.
(c) * * *
(1) * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fuel parameter Range
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Benzene content....................................... 0-4.9 vol %.
RVP................................................... 6.4-9.0 psi.
Oxygen content........................................ 0-4.0 wt %.
Aromatics content..................................... 0-55 vol %.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
4. Section 80.45 is amended by:
a. revising Table 3 in paragraph (b)(3);
b. revising Table 6 in (c)(1)(iv)(A);
c. revising the first sentence and the equations for Phase I and II
in paragraph (c)(1)(iv)(B), and revising
(c)(1)(iv)(C)(5);
d. revising the second sentence in paragraph (c)(1)(iv)(C)(9);
e. revising paragraphs (c)(1)(iv)(C)(11) and (12);
f. revising the first sentence in paragraph (c)(1)(iv)(C)(13) and
revising paragraph (c)(1)(iv)(C)(14);
g. revising paragraph (c)(1)(iv)(D)(5), revising the second
sentence in paragraph (c)(1)(iv)(D)(9), and revising paragraphs
(c)(1)(iv)(D)(11) and (12);
h. revising the first sentence in paragraph (c)(1)(iv)(D)(13), and
revising paragraph (c)(1)(iv)(D)(14);
i. revising the equation for VOCRL1 in paragraph (c)(3)(i);
j. revising the equations for VOCHS1 and VOCRF1 in paragraph
(c)(3)(ii);
k. revising the equation for VOCRL2 in paragraph (c)(4)(ii), and
revising paragraph (c)(8)(ii);
l. revising paragraph (d)(1)(iv)(A) and Table 7, revising the first
sentence and the equations for Phase I and II in paragraph
(d)(1)(iv)(B), revising paragraph (d)(1)(iv)(C)(5), and revising the
second sentence in paragraph (d)(1)(iv)(C)(9);
m. revising the Phase I equation for ``Toxics 2%'' and the Phase II
equation for ``Toxics 1%'' in paragraph (e)(1)(ii);
n. revising paragraph (e)(3) introductory text and removing
paragraphs (e)(3)(i) and (e)(3)(ii);
o. revising the last sentence in paragraph (e)(4)(iii);
p. adding a concluding sentence to paragraphs (e)(5)(iv) and
(e)(6)(iv);
q. revising equations ``HSBZ1'' through ``RFBZ1'' in paragraph
(e)(9) and equations ``HSBZ2'' through ``RFBZ2'' in paragraph (e)(10);
and
r. revising paragraph (f)(1).
The additions and revisions are set out to read as follows:
Sec. 80.45 Complex emissions model.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(3) * * *
Table 3.--Baseline Exhaust Emissions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Phase I Phase II
---------------------------------------------
Exhaust pollutant Summer Winter
(mg/mile) (mg/mile) Summer (mg/ Winter (mg/
mile) mile)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
VOC....................... 446.0 660.0 907.0 1341.0
NOx....................... 660.0 750.0 1340.0 1540.0
Benzene................... 26.10 37.57 53.54 77.62
Acetaldehyde.............. 2.19 3.57 4.44 7.25
Formaldehyde.............. 4.85 7.73 9.70 15.34
1,3-Butadiene............. 4.31 7.27 9.38 15.84
POM....................... 1.50 2.21 3.04 4.50
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(1) * * *
(iv) * * *
(A) * * *
Table 6.--Allowable Ranges of E200, E300, and ARO for the Exhaust VOC
Equations in Paragraphs (c)(1)(i) and (ii) of This Section
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Phase I Phase II
-----------------------------------------------
Fuel parameter Lower Lower
limit Higher limit limit Higher limit
------------------------------------------------------------------------
E200.................... 33.00 65.83........ 33.00 65.52
E300.................... 72.00 Variable\1\.. 72.00 Variable\2\
ARO..................... 18.00 46.00........ 18.00 46.00
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Higher E300 limit=lower of 94.0 or 80.32+[0.390 x (ARO)].
\2\Higher E300 limit=lower of 94.0 or 79.75+[0.385 x (ARO)].
(B) For fuels with E200, E300, and/or ARO levels outside the ranges
defined in Table 6, YVOC(t) shall be defined as: For Phase I:
YVOC(t)=100% x 0.52 x [exp(v1(et))/exp(v1(b))-1]
+100% x 0.48 x [exp(v2(et))/exp(v2(b))-1]
+{100%-0.52 x [exp(v1(et))/exp(v1(b))]
x {[(0.0002144 x E200et)- 0.014470] x E200}
+{[(0.0008174 x E300et)-0.068624
-(0.000348 x AROet)] x E300}
+{[(-0.000348 x E300et)+ 0.0323712] x ARO}]}
+{100% x 0.48 x [exp(v2(et))/exp(v2(b))]
x [{[(0.000212 x E200et)- 0.01350] x E200}
+{[(0.000816 x E300et)-0.06233
-(0.00029 x AROet)] x E300}
+{[(-0.00029 x E300et)+ 0.028204] x ARO}]}
For Phase II:
Y VOC(t)=100% x 0.444 x [exp(v1(et))/exp(v1(b))-1]
+100% x 0.556 x [exp(v2(et))/exp(v2(b))-1]
+{100% x 0.444 x [exp(v1(et))/exp(v1(b))]
x [{[(0.0002144 x E200et)- 0.014470] x E200}
+{[(0.0008174 x E300et)-0.068624
-(0.000348 x AROet)] x E300}
+{[(-0.000348 x E300et)+ 0.0323712] x ARO}]}
+{100% x 0.556 x [exp(v2(et))/exp(v2(b))]
x [{[(0.000212 x E200et)- 0.01350]] x E200}
+{[(0.000816 x E300et)-0.06233
-(0.00029 x AROet)] x E300}
+{[(-0.00029 x E300et)+ 0.028204] x ARO}]}
* * * * *
(C) * * *
(5) If the E300 level of the target fuel is greater than 95 volume
percent, then the E300 value of the target fuel shall be set equal to
95 volume percent for the purposes of calculating VOC emissions with
the Phase I equation given in paragraph (c)(1)(iv)(B) of this section.
* * * * *
(9) * * * If the aromatics level of the target fuel is less than 10
volume percent, then ARO shall be set equal to -8 volume
percent.
* * * * *
(11) If neither of the conditions established in paragraphs
(c)(1)(iv)(C)(9) and (10) of this section are met, then ARO
shall be set equal to zero.
(12) If the E300 level of the target fuel is less than 72 percent,
then E300 shall be set equal to (E300-72 percent).
(13) If the E300 level of the target fuel is greater than 94 volume
percent and [80.32+(0.390xARO)] also is greater than 94, then
E300 shall be set equal to (E300-94 volume percent).* * *
(14) If neither of the conditions established in paragraphs
(c)(1)(iv)(C)(12) and (13) of this section are met, then E300
shall be set equal to zero.
(D) * * *
(5) If the E300 level of the target fuel is greater than 95 volume
percent, then the E300 value of the target fuel shall be set equal to
95 volume percent for the purposes of calculating VOC emissions with
the Phase II equation given in paragraph (c)(1)(iv)(B) of this section.
* * * * *
(9) * * * If the aromatics level of the target fuel is less than 10
volume percent, then ARO shall be set equal to -8 volume
percent.
* * * * *
(11) If neither of the conditions established in paragraphs
(c)(1)(iv)(D)(9) and (10) of this section are met, then ARO
shall be set equal to zero.
(12) If the E300 level of the target fuel is less than 72 percent,
then E300 shall be set equal to (E300) x 72 percent).
(13) If the E300 level of the target fuel is greater than 94 volume
percent and [80.32+(0.390 x ARO)] also is greater than 94, then
E300 shall be set equal to (E300 -94 volume percent). * * *
(14) If neither of the conditions established in paragraphs
(c)(1)(iv)(D)(12) and (13) of this section are met, then E300
shall be set equal to zero.
* * * * *
(3) * * *
(i) * * *
VOCRL1=[0.00279 x (RVP2)]+[0.1096 x RVP] -0.7340
* * * * *
(ii) * * *
VOCHS1=[0.006654 x (RVP2)] -[0.08094 x RVP]+0.2846
* * * * *
VOCRF1=[0.004767 x RVP]+0.011859
(4) * * *
(ii) * * *
VOCRL2=[0.016169 x (RVP2)] -[0.17206 x RVP]+0.56724
* * * * *
(8) * * *
(ii) The total winter VOC emissions performance of the target fuel
in percentage terms from baseline levels shall be given by the
following equation during Phase II:
VOCW%=[100% x (VOC -1.341 g/mi)] / (1.341 g/mi)
(d) * * *
(1) * * *
(iv) * * *
(A) The equations in paragraphs (d)(1)(i) and (ii) of this section
shall be used within the allowable range of SUL, OLE, and ARO for the
appropriate Phase, as defined in the following Table 7:
Table 7.--Allowable Ranges of SUL, OLE, and ARO for the NOX Equations in
Paragraphs/(d)(1)(i) and (ii) of This Section
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Phase I Phase II
-------------------------------------
Fuel parameter High High
Low end end Low end end
------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUL............................... 10.0 450.0 10.0 450.0
OLE............................... 3.77 19.0 3.77 19.0
ARO............................... 18.0 36.2 18.0 36.8
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(B) For fuels with SUL, OLE, and/or ARO levels outside the ranges
defined in Table 7 of paragraph (d)(2)(iv)(A) of this section,
Ynox(t) shall be defined as:
For Phase I:
YNOX (t)=100% x 0.82 x [exp (n1(et))/exp (n1(b)) -1]
+100% x 0.18 x [exp(n2(et))/exp(n2(b)) -1]
+{100% x 0.82 x [exp(n1(et))/exp(n1(b))]
x [{[(0.00000133 x SULet)+0.000692] x SUL}
+{[(-0.000238 x AROet)+0.0083632] x ARO}
+{[(0.000733 x OLEet) -0.002774] x OLE}]}
+{100% x 0.18 x [exp(n2{et))/exp(n2(b))]
x [{0.000252 x } +
+{[(-0.0001599 x ARO)+0.007097] x
ARO}
+{[(0.000732 x OLEet) -0.00276] x OLE}]}
For Phase II:
Ynox(t)=100% x 0.738 x [exp(n1(et))/exp(n1(b)) -1]
+100% x 0.262 x [exp(n2(et))/exp(n2(b)) -1]
+{100% x 0.738 x [exp(n1(et))/exp(n1(b))]
x [{[(-0.00000133 x SULet)+0.000692] x SUL}
+{[(-0.000238 x AROet)+0.0083632] x ARO}
+{[(0.000733 x OLEet) -0.002774] x OLE}]}
+{100% x 0.262 x [exp(n2(et))/exp(n2(b))]
x [{0.000252 x SUL}+
+{[(-0.0001599 x AROet)+0.007097] x ARO}
+{[(0.000732 x OLEet) -0.00276] x OLE}]}
* * * * *
(C) * * *
(5) If the E300 level of the target fuel is greater than 95 volume
percent, then the E300 value of the target fuel shall be set equal to
95 volume percent for the purposes of calculating NOX emissions
with the equations given in paragraph (d)(1)(iv)(B) of this section.
* * * * *
(9) * * * If the aromatics level of the target fuel is less than 10
volume percent, then ARO shall be set equal to -8 volume
percent.
* * * * *
(e) * * *
(1) * * *
(ii) * * *
TOXICS2% = [100% x (TOXICS2 - 47.58 mg/mi)] / (47.58 mg/mi)
* * * * *
TOXICS1% = [100% x (TOXICS1 - 86.34 mg/mi)] / (86.34 mg/mi)
* * * * *
(3) The year-round toxics performance in VOC Control Regions 1 and
2 shall be derived from volume-weighted performances of individual
batches of fuel as described in Sec. 80.67(g).
(4) * * *
(iii) * * * If the E300 value of the target fuel is greater than 95
volume percent, then an E300 value of 95 volume percent shall be used
when evaluating the equations in paragraphs (e)(4)(i) and (ii) of this
section.
(5) * * *
(iv) * * * Oxygen in the form of methanol or non-alcohol, non-ether
oxygenates shall not be evaluated with the Complex Model, but instead
must be evaluated through vehicle testing per Sec. 80.48.
(6) * * *
(iv) * * * Oxygen in the form of methanol or non-alcohol, non-ether
oxygenates shall not be evaluated with the Complex Model, but instead
must be evaluated through vehicle testing per Sec. 80.48.
* * * * *
(9) * * *
HSBZ1 = 10 x BEN x VOCHS1 x [(-0.0342 x MTB) + (-0.080274 x
RVP) + 1.4448]
DIBZ1 = 10 x BEN x VOCD11 x [(-0.0290 x MTB) + (-0.080274 x
RVP) + 1.3758]
RLBZ1 = 10 x BEN x VOCRL1 x [(-0.0342 x MTB) + (-0.080274 x
RVP) + 1.4448]
RFBZ1 = 10 x BEN x VOCRF1 x [(-0.0296 x MTB) + (-0.081507 x
RVP) + 1.3972
* * * * *
(10) * * *
HSBZ2 = 10 x BEN x VOCHS2 x [(-0.0342 x MTB) + (-0.080274 x
RVP) + 1.4448]
DIBZ2 = 10 x BEN x VOCD12 x [(-0.0290 x MTB) + (-0.080274 x
RVP) + 1.3758]
RLBZ2 = 10 x BEN x VOCRL2 x [(-0.0342 x MTB) + (-0.080274 x
RVP) + 1.4448]
RFBZ2 = 10 x BEN x VOCRF2 x [(-0.0296 x MTB) + (-0.081507 x
RVP) + 1.3972
* * * * *
(f) * * *
(1) The equations described in paragraphs (c), (d), and (e) of this
section shall be valid only for fuels with fuel properties that fall in
the following ranges for reformulated gasolines and conventional
gasolines:
(i) For reformulated gasolines:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fuel property Acceptable range
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oxygen.......... 0.0-4.0 weight percent.
Sulfur.......... 0.0-500.0 parts per million by weight.
RVP............. 6.4-10.0 pounds per square inch.
E200............ 30.0-70.0 percent evaporated.
E300............ 70.0-100.0 percent evaporated.
Aromatics....... 0.0-50.0 volume percent.
Olefins......... 0.0-25.0 volume percent.
Benzene......... 0.0-2.0 volume percent.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
For conventional gasoline:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fuel property Acceptable range
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oxygen.......... 0.0-4.0 weight percent.
Sulfur.......... 0.0-1000.0 parts per million by weight.
RVP............. 6.4-11.0 pounds per square inch.
E200............ 30.0-70.0 percent evaporated.
E300............ 70.0-100.0 percent evaporated.
Aromatics....... 0.0-550 volume percent.
Olefins......... 0.0-30.0 volume percent.
Benzene......... 0.0-4.9 volume percent.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
5. Section 80.46 is amended by revising the table in paragraph
(f)(1)(ii)(K) to read as follows:
Sec. 80.46 Measurement of reformulated gasoline fuel parameters.
* * * * *
(f) * * *
(1) * * *
(ii) * * *
(K) * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Boiling
Compound Concentration CAS No. AMU Retention time point,
(percent) deg.C
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Benzene........................... 2.25 vol.......... 71-43-2 78 18.9 min.......... 80.1
Methylbenzene..................... 10.0 vol.......... 108-88-3 91 25.5 min.......... 111
Ethylbenzene...................... 5.0 vol........... 100-41-4 91 34.1 min.......... 136.2
1,3-Dimethylbenzene............... 5 vol............. 108-38-3 91 35.1 min.......... 136-138
1,4-Dimethylbenzene............... 106-42-3
1,2-dimethylbenzene............... 10 vol............ 95-47-6 91 38.1 min.......... 144
(1-methylethyl)-benzene........... 2.25 vol.......... 98-82-8 105 42.8 min.......... ...........
Propylbenzene..................... 2.25 vol.......... 103-65-1 91 48.0 min.......... 159.2
1-ethyl-2-methylbenzene........... 2.25 vol.......... 611-14-3 105 49.3 min.......... 165
1,2,4-trimethylbenzene............ 2.25 vol.......... 95-63-6 105 50.9 min.......... 169
1,2,3-trimethylbenzene............ 2.25 vol.......... 526-73-8 105 53.3 min.......... ...........
1,3-diethylbenzene................ 2.25 vol.......... 141-93-5 119 56.6 min.......... 181
Butylbenzene...................... 2.25 vol.......... 104-51-8 91 60.7 min.......... 183
o-Cymene.......................... 2.25 vol.......... 527-84-4 119 63.9 min.......... ...........
1-ethyl-3-methylbenzene........... 2.25 vol.......... 620-14-4 105 64.2 min.......... ...........
m-Cymene.......................... 2.25 vol.......... 535-77-3 119 69.0 min.......... ...........
p-Cymene.......................... 2.25 vol.......... 99-87-6 119 73.0 min.......... ...........
Isobutylbenzene................... 2.25 vol.......... 538-93-2 91 75.0 min.......... ...........
Indan............................. 2.25 vol.......... 496-11-7 117 50.0 min.......... ...........
1-methyl-3-propylbenzene.......... 2.25 vol.......... 1074-43-7 105 78.9 min.......... ...........
2-ethyl-1,4-dimethylbenzene....... 2.25 vol.......... 1758-88-9 119 83.2 min.......... 187
1,2,4,5-tetramethylbenzene........ 2.25 vol.......... 95-93-2 119 83.4 min.......... ...........
1-ethyl-2,4-dimethylbenzene....... 2.25 vol.......... 874-41-9 119 85.7 min.......... ...........
(1,1-dimethylethyl)-3- 2.25 vol.......... 27138-21-2 133 87.3 min.......... ...........
methylbenzene.
1-ethyl-2,3-dimethylbenzene....... 2.25 vol.......... 933-98-2 119 88.7 min.......... ...........
1-ethyl-1,4-dimethylbenzene....... 2.25 vol.......... 874-41-9 119 94.9 min.......... ...........
2-ethyl-1,3-dimethylbenzene....... 2.25 vol.......... 2870-04-4 119 100.9 min......... ...........
1-ethyl-3,5-dimethylbenzene....... 2.25 vol.......... 934-74-7 119 102.5 min......... ...........
1,2,3,5-tetramethylbenzene........ 2.25 vol.......... 527-53-7 119 115.9 min......... ...........
Pentylbenzene..................... 2.25 vol.......... 538-68-1 91 116 min........... ...........
Naphthalene....................... 2.25 vol.......... 191-20-3 128 118.4 min......... 198
3,5-dimethyl-t-butylbenzene....... 2.25 vol.......... 98-19-1 147 118.5 min......... 205.3
1-methylnaphthalene............... 2.25 vol.......... 90-12-0 142 129.0 min......... ...........
2-methylnaphthalene............... 2.25 vol.......... 91-57-6 142 131.0 min......... ...........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
6. In Sec. 80.48, paragraph (c)(1) introductory text is revised,
the last sentence in paragraph (c)(1)(v) is revised, a concluding
sentence is added to paragraph (c)(2)(iii), and paragraph (g) is
revised to read as follows:
Sec. 80.48 Augmentation of the complex emission model by vehicle
testing.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(1) The analysis shall fit a regression model to the natural
logarithm of emissions measured from addition fuels 1, 2, and 3 only
(as specified at Sec. 80.49(a) and adjusted as per paragraph (c)(1)(iv)
of this section and Sec. 80.49(d)) that includes the following terms:
* * * * *
(v) * * * If, after dropping the Bi term and re-estimating the
model, the Ai term does not satisfy these criteria, then both
terms shall be dropped, all test data shall be reported to EPA, and the
augmentation request shall be denied.
(2) * * *
(iii) * * * The Administrator shall make available upon request
existing complex model terms and coefficients in centered form.
* * * * *
(g) EPA reserves the right to analyze the data generated during
vehicle testing, to use such analyses to determine the validity of
other augmentation petitions, and to use such data to update the
complex model for use in certifying all reformulated gasolines.
* * * * *
7. In Sec. 80.49, the table in paragraph (a)(5)(i) is revised, and
paragraph (b)(3)(iii) is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 80.49 Fuels to be used in augmenting the complex emission model
through vehicle testing.
(a) * * *
(5) * * *
(i) * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fuel parameter Measurement uncertainty
------------------------------------------------------------------------
API gravity........................ 0.2 deg.API
Sulfur content..................... 10 ppm
Benzene content.................... 0.02 vol %
RVP................................ 0.05 psi
Octane............................. 0.2 (R+M/2)
E200 level......................... 2 %
E300 level......................... 2 %
Oxygenate content.................. 0.2 vol %
Aromatics content.................. 0.5 vol %
Olefins content.................... 0.3 vol %
Saturates content.................. 1.0 vol %
Detergent control Additives........ 2% of the level
required by EPA's detergents rule.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(3) * * *
(iii) All other parameters shall be present at the levels specified
in paragraph (b)(2)(ii) of this section.
* * * * *
8. In Sec. 80.59, the last sentence in paragraph (a) is revised to
read as follows:
Sec. 80.59 General test fleet requirements for vehicle testing.
(a) * * * To be technologically equivalent vehicles at minimum must
have closed-loop systems and possess adaptive learning.
* * * * *
9. Section 80.65 is amended by revising paragraphs (d)(2)(iii),
(d)(2)(v)(B), (d)(2)(vi), (d)(3), the third sentence of (e)(1), the
table in (e)(2)(i), paragraph (e)(2)(ii)(A), (f)(4) introductory text,
and paragraph (h) to read as follows:
Sec. 80.65 General requirements for refiners, importers, and oxygenate
blenders.
* * * * *
(d) * * *
(2) * * *
(iii) Reformulated gasoline (but not RBOB) must be designated
either as oxygenated fuels program reformulated gasoline, or not
oxygenated fuels program reformulated gasoline.
(A) Gasoline must be designated as oxygenated fuels program
reformulated gasoline if such gasoline:
(1) Has an oxygen content that is greater than or equal to 2.0
weight percent; and
(2) Arrives at a terminal from which gasoline is dispensed into
trucks used to deliver gasoline to an oxygenated fuels control area
within five days prior to the beginning of the oxygenated fuels control
period for that control area.
(B) Gasoline may be designated as oxygenated fuels program
reformulated gasoline if such gasoline has an oxygen content that is
greater than or equal to 2.0 weight percent, regardless of whether the
gasoline is intended for use in any oxygenated fuels program control
area during an oxygenated fuels program control period.
* * * * *
(v) * * *
(B) NOX emissions performance in the case of gasoline
certified using the complex model.
* * * * *
(vi) In the case of RBOB, as RBOB suitable for blending with:
(A) Any oxygenate;
(B) Ether only; or
(C) Other specified oxygenate type(s) and amount(s).
(3) Every batch of reformulated or conventional gasoline or RBOB
produced or imported at each refinery or import facility, or each batch
of blendstock produced and sold or transferred if blendstock accounting
is required under Sec. 80.102(e), shall be assigned a number (the
``batch number''), consisting of the EPA- assigned refiner, importer or
oxygenate blender registration number, the EPA-assigned facility
registration number, the last two digits of the year in which the batch
was produced, and a unique number for the batch, beginning with the
number one for the first batch produced or imported each calendar year
and each subsequent batch during the calendar year being assigned the
next sequential number (e.g., 4321- 54321-95-000001, 4321-54321-95-
000002, etc.).
* * * * *
(e) * * *
(1) * * * A batch of simple model reformulated gasoline may be
released by the refiner or importer prior to the receipt of the
refiner's or importer's test results except for test results for oxygen
and benzene, and RVP in the case of VOC-controlled gasoline.
(2) * * *
(i) * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fuel property Range
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sulfur content........................................ 25 ppm
Aromatics content..................................... 2.7 vol %
Olefins content....................................... 2.5 vol %
Benzene content....................................... 0.21 vol %
Ethanol content....................................... 0.4 vol %
Methanol content...................................... 0.2 vol %
MTBE (and other methyl ethers) content................ 0.6 vol %
ETBE (and other ethyl ethers) content................. 0.6 vol %
TAME.................................................. 0.6 vol %
t-Butanol content..................................... 0.6 vol %
RVP................................................... 0.3 psi
50% distillation (T50)................................ 5 deg.F
90% distillation (T90)................................ 5 deg.F
E200.................................................. 2.5 vol %
E300.................................................. 3.5 vol %
API Gravity........................................... 0.3 deg.API
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(ii) * * *
(A) The larger of the two values for the property, except the
smaller of the two results shall be used for oxygenates; or
* * * * *
(f) * * *
(4) Any refiner that produces reformulated gasoline using computer-
controlled in-line blending equipment is exempt from the independent
sampling and testing requirements specified in paragraphs (f)(1)
through (3) of this section and from the requirement of paragraph
(e)(1) of this section to obtain test results for each batch prior to
the gasoline leaving the refinery, provided that such refiner:
* * * * *
(h) Compliance audits. Any refiner and importer of any
reformulated gasoline or RBOB, and any oxygenate blender of any RBOB
who meets the oxygen standard on average, shall have the
reformulated gasoline and RBOB it produced, imported, or blended
during each calendar year audited for compliance with the
requirements of this subpart D, in accordance with the requirements
of subpart F, at the conclusion of each calendar year.
* * * * *
10. Section 80.66 is amended by revising paragraphs (g)(1) and
(g)(2)(ii) to read as follows:
Sec. 80.66 Calculation of reformulated gasoline properties.
* * * * *
(g)(1) Per gallon values for VOC and NOX emissions reduction
shall be calculated using the methodology specified in Sec. 80.45 that
is appropriate for the gasoline.
(2) * * *
(ii) For gasoline subject to the complex model, the methodology
specified in Sec. 80.45 that is appropriate for the gasoline.
* * * * *
11. Section 80.68 is amended by:
a. revising paragraphs (c)(8)(ii)(A), (c)(9)(ii)(A), (c)(9)(ii)(B),
(c)(10)(i);
b. redesignating paragraph (c)(12) as paragraph (c)(13), and
removing the first two sentences in the newly redesignated (c)(13)
introductory text;
c. by adding a new paragraph (c)(12); and
d. revising paragraphs (c)(13)(v)(G), (H) and (L).
The additions and revisions are set out to read as follows:
Sec. 80.68 Compliance surveys.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(8) * * *
(ii) * * *
(A) For each complex model sample from the survey series, the VOC
emissions reduction percentage shall be determined based upon the
tested parameter values for that sample and the appropriate methodology
for calculating VOC emissions reduction at Sec. 80.45;
* * * * *
(9) * * *
(ii) * * *
(A) For each complex model sample from the survey series, the
toxics emissions reduction percentage shall be determined based upon
the tested parameter values for that sample and the appropriate
methodology for calculating toxics emissions reduction at Sec. 80.45;
(B) The annual average of the toxics emissions reduction
percentages for all samples from a survey series shall be calculated
according to the formula specified in paragraph (c)(9)(i)(B) of this
section; and
* * * * *
(10) * * *
(i) For each sample from the survey and survey series, the NOX
emissions reduction percentage shall be determined based upon the
tested parameter values for that sample and the appropriate methodology
for calculating NOX emissions reduction at Sec. 80.45; and
* * * * *
(12) For any oxygen content survey series conducted in any covered
area the average oxygen content for all samples from the survey series
shall be calculated. If this annual average is less than 2.00 percent
by weight, the covered area shall have failed an oxygen survey series.
(13) * * *
(v) * * *
(G) The results of the analyses of simple model samples for
oxygenate type and oxygen weight percent, benzene content, aromatic
hydrocarbon content, and RVP, the calculated toxics emission reduction
percentage, and for each survey conducted during the period June 1
through September 15 the VOC emissions reduction percentage calculated
using the methodology specified in paragraph (c)(8)(i) of this section;
(H) The results of the analyses of complex model samples for
oxygenate type and oxygen weight percent, benzene, aromatic
hydrocarbon, and olefin content, E-200, E-300, and RVP, the calculated
NOX and toxics emissions reduction percentage, and for each survey
conducted during the period June 1 through September 15 the calculated
VOC emissions reduction percentage, except that beginning on January 1,
2000 NOX emissions reduction percentages must be reported only for
surveys conducted outside the period June 1 through September 15;
* * * * *
(L) The average toxics emissions reduction percentage for simple
model samples and the percentage for complex model samples, the average
benzene and oxygen percentages, and for each survey conducted during
the period June 1 through September 15, the average VOC emissions
reduction percentage for simple model samples and the percentage for
complex model samples, the average NOX emissions reduction
percentage for all complex model samples collected prior to January 1,
2000, and the average NOX emissions reduction percentage for
samples collected outside the period June 1 through September 15
beginning on January 1, 2000;
* * * * *
12. Section 80.69 is amended by revising paragraphs (a)(7)(ii)
introductory text and (b)(3) to read as follows:
Sec. 80.69 Requirements for downstream oxygenate blending.
* * * * *
(a) * * *
(7) * * *
(ii) In the event the test results for any sample indicate the
gasoline does not comply with applicable standards (within the
correlation ranges specified in Sec. 80.65(e)(2)(i)), the refiner or
importer shall:
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(3) Meet the standard requirements specified in Sec. 80.65(c) and
Sec. 80.67(f), the record keeping requirements specified in Sec. 80.74,
and the reporting requirements specified in Sec. 80.75; and
* * * * *
13. Section 80.70 is amended by revising paragraphs (d)(3)(viii)
and (d)(3)(ix), adding paragraphs (d)(3)(x) and (d)(3)(xi), by revising
paragraphs (j)(4)(i), (j)(4)(ii), (j)(10)(iv), (j)(11)(i), and
(j)(14)(xvii) and by removing paragraph (j)(15) to read as follows:
Sec. 80.70 Covered areas.
* * * * *
(d) * * *
(3) * * *
(viii) Suffolk;
(ix) Westchester;
(x) Orange; and
(xi) Putnam.
* * * * *
(j) * * *
(4) * * *
(i) Portion of Bullitt County described as follows:
(A) Beginning at the intersection of Ky 1020 and the Jefferson-
Bullitt County Line proceeding to the east along the county line to the
intersection of county road 567 and the Jefferson-Bullitt County Line;
(B) Proceeding south on county road 567 to the junction with Ky
1116 (also known as Zoneton Road);
(C) Proceeding to the south on KY 1116 to the junction with Hebron
Lane;
(D) Proceeding to the south on Hebron Lane to Cedar Creek;
(E) Proceeding south on Cedar Creek to the confluence of Floyds
Fork turning southeast along a creek that meets Ky 44 at Stallings
Cemetery;
(F) Proceeding west along Ky 44 to the eastern most point in the
Shepherdsville city limits;
(G) Proceeding south along the Shepherdsville city limits to the
Salt River and west to a point across the river from Mooney Lane;
(H) Proceeding south along Mooney Lane to the junction of Ky 480;
(I) Proceeding west on Ky 480 to the junction with Ky 2237;
(J) Proceeding south on Ky 2237 to the junction with Ky 61 and
proceeding north on Ky 61 to the junction with Ky 1494;
(K) Proceeding south on Ky 1494 to the junction with the perimeter
of the Fort Knox Military Reservation;
(L) Proceeding north along the military reservation perimeter to
Castleman Branch Road;
(M) Proceeding north on Castleman Branch Road to Ky 44;
(N) Proceeding a very short distance west on Ky 44 to a junction
with Ky 1020; and
(O) Proceeding north on Ky 1020 to the beginning.
(ii) Portion of Oldham County described as follows:
(A) Beginning at the intersection of the Oldham-Jefferson County
Line with the southbound lane of Interstate 71;
(B) Proceeding to the northeast along the southbound lane of
Interstate 71 to the intersection of Ky 329 and the southbound lane of
Interstate 71;
(C) Proceeding to the northwest on Ky 329 to the intersection of
Zaring Road on Ky 329;
(D) Proceeding to the east-northeast on Zaring Road to the junction
of Cedar Point Road and Zaring Road;
(E) Proceeding to the north-northeast on Cedar Point Road to the
junction of Ky 393 and Cedar Point Road;
(F) Proceeding to the south-southeast on Ky 393 to the junction of
county road 746 (the road on the north side of Reformatory Lake and the
Reformatory);
(G) Proceeding to the east-northeast on county road 746 to the
junction with Dawkins Lane (also known as Saddlers Mill Road) and
county road 746;
(H) Proceeding to follow an electric power line east-northeast
across from the junction of county road 746 and Dawkins Lane to the
east-northeast across Ky 53 on to the La Grange Water Filtration Plant;
(I) Proceeding on to the east-southeast along the power line then
south across Fort Pickens Road to a power substation on Ky 146;
(J) Proceeding along the power line south across Ky 146 and the
Seaboard System Railroad track to adjoin the incorporated city limits
of La Grange;
(K) Then proceeding east then south along the La Grange city limits
to a point abutting the north side of Ky 712;
(L) Proceeding east-southeast on Ky 712 to the junction of Massie
School Road and Ky 712;
(M) Proceeding to the south-southwest and then north-northwest on
Massie School Road to the junction of Ky 53 and Massie School Road;
(N) Proceeding on Ky 53 to the north-northwest to the junction of
Moody Lane and Ky 53;
(O) Proceeding on Moody Lane to the south-southwest until meeting
the city limits of La Grange;
(P) Then briefly proceeding north following the La Grange city
limits to the intersection of the northbound lane of Interstate 71 and
the La Grange city limits;
(Q) Proceeding southwest on the northbound lane of Interstate 71
until intersecting with the North Fork of Currys Fork;
(R) Proceeding south-southwest beyond the confluence of Currys Fork
to the south-southwest beyond the confluence of Floyds Fork continuing
on to the Oldham-Jefferson County Line; and
(S) Proceeding northwest along the Oldham-Jefferson County Line to
the beginning.
* * * * *
(10) * * *
(iv) The portion of Essex County that consists of the portion of
Whiteface Mountain above 4,500 feet in elevation.
* * * * *
(11) * * *
(i) Allegheny;
* * * * *
(14) * * *
(xvii) Richmond;
* * * * *
14. Section 80.75 is amended by revising paragraphs (b),
(f)(2)(ii)(A) (1), and (j) to read as follows:
Sec. 80.75 Reporting requirements.
* * * * *
(b) Reports for gasoline or RBOB produced or imported under the
simple model.
(1) RVP averaging reports.
(i) Any refiner or importer that produced or imported any
reformulated gasoline or RBOB under the simple model that was to meet
RVP standards on average (``averaged reformulated gasoline'') shall
submit to the Administrator, with the third quarterly report, a report
for each refinery or importer for such averaged reformulated gasoline
or RBOB produced or imported during the previous RVP averaging period.
This information shall be reported separately for the following
categories:
(A) Gasoline or RBOB which is designated as VOC-controlled intended
for areas in VOC-Control Region 1; and
(B) Gasoline or RBOB which is designated as VOC-controlled intended
for VOC-Control Region 2.
(ii) The following information shall be reported:
(A) The total volume of averaged reformulated gasoline or RBOB in
gallons;
(B) The compliance total value for RVP; and
(C) The actual total value for RVP.
(2) Sulfur, NOX and T90 averaging reports.
(i) Any refiner or importer that produced or imported any
reformulated gasoline or RBOB under the simple model shall submit to
the Administrator, with the fourth quarterly report, a report for such
reformulated gasoline or RBOB produced or imported during the previous
year:
(A) For each refinery or importer; or
(B) In the case of refiners who operate more than one refinery, for
each grouping of refineries as designated by the refiner pursuant to
Sec. 80.41(h)(2)(iii).
(ii) The following information shall be reported:
(A) The total volume of reformulated gasoline or RBOB in gallons;
(B) The applicable sulfur content standard under
Sec. 80.41(h)(2)(i) in parts per million;
(C) The average sulfur content in parts per million;
(D) The applicable olefin content standard under
Sec. 80.41(h)(2)(i) in volume percent;
(E) The average olefin content in volume percent;
(F) The applicable T90 distillation point standard under
Sec. 80.41(h)(2)(i) in degrees Fahrenheit; and
(G) The average T90 distillation point in degrees Fahrenheit.
* * * * *
(f) * * *
(2) * * *
(ii) * * *
(A) * * *
(1) Gasoline which is designated as VOC-controlled and oxygenated
fuels program reformulated gasoline (OPRG);
* * * * *
(j) Additional reporting requirements for certain importers. In the
case of any importer to whom different standards apply for gasoline
imported at different facilities by operation of Sec. 80.41(q)(2), such
importer shall submit separate reports for gasoline imported into
facilities subject to different standards.
* * * * *
15. Section 80.76 is amended by revising paragraphs (c)(2), (c)(3)
introductory text, (c)(3)(i), and (c)(3)(ii) to read as follows:
Sec. 80.76 Registration of refiners, importers or oxygenate blenders.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(2) For each separate refinery and oxygenate blending facility, the
facility name, physical location, contact name, telephone number, and
type of facility; and
(3) For each separate refinery and oxygenate blending facility, and
for each importer's operations in a single PADD:
(i) Whether records are kept on-site or off-site of the refinery or
oxygenate blending facility, or in the case of importers, the
registered address;
(ii) If records are kept off-site, the primary off-site storage
facility name, physical location, contact name, and telephone number;
and
* * * * *
16. Section 80.77 is amended by revising paragraphs (g)(2)(iii),
(g)(2)(iv)(A) and (B), adding paragraph (g)(3), and by revising
paragraph (h) introductory text to read as follows:
Sec. 80.77 Product transfer documentation.
* * * * *
(g) * * *
(2) * * *
(iii) In the case of VOC-controlled gasoline subject to the simple
model standards, RVP;
(iv) * * *
(A) Prior to January 1, 1998, the NOx emissions performance
minimum, and for VOC-controlled gasoline the VOC emissions performance
minimum, in milligrams per mile; and
(B) Beginning on January 1, 1998, the NOx emissions performance
minimum, and for VOC-controlled gasoline the VOC emissions performance
minimum; and
(3) Identification of VOC-controlled reformulated gasoline or RBOB
as gasoline or RBOB which contains ethanol, or which does not contain
any ethanol.
(h) Prior to January 1, 1998, in the case of reformulated gasoline
or RBOB subject to the complex model standards:
* * * * *
17. Section 80.78 is amended by revising paragraphs (a)(1)(v) (B)
and (C) to read as follows:
Sec. 80.78 Controls and prohibitions on reformulated gasoline.
(a) * * *
(1) * * *
(v) * * *
(B) Unless each gallon of such gasoline that is subject to simple
model standards has an RVP which is less than or equal to the
applicable RVP maximum specified in Sec. 80.41;
(C) Unless each gallon of such gasoline that is subject to complex
model standards has a VOC and NOx emissions reduction percentage which
is greater than or equal to the applicable minimum specified in
Sec. 80.41.
* * * * *
18. Section 80.81 is amended by revising paragraphs (a)(2)(iii),
(b)(4), and (h) to read as follows:
Sec. 80.81 Enforcement exemptions for California gasoline.
(a) * * *
(2) * * *
(iii) Is imported into the State of California from inside the
United States and that is manufactured at a refinery that does not
produce reformulated gasoline for sale in any covered area outside the
State of California.
(b) * * *
(4) The compliance demonstration required by paragraph (b)(3)(ii)
of this section shall be submitted no later than May 31, 1996, along
with the report for the first quarter of 1996 required to be submitted
under Sec. 80.75(a)(1)(i).
* * * * *
(h) For purposes of the batch sampling and analysis requirements
contained in Sec. 80.65(e)(1), any refiner, importer or oxygenate
blender of California gasoline may, with regard to such gasoline, 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 Sec. 80.46.
* * * * *
19. In Sec. 80.90, the equation in paragraph (b)(1) is revised, and
paragraph (e)(2) is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 80.90 Conventional gasoline baseline emissions determination.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(1) * * *
EXHBEN = (1.884 + 0.949xBZ + 0.113x(AR - BZ))
* * * * *
(e) * * *
(2) The annual average baseline NOX emissions of the facility
shall be determined using the emissions values determined in paragraph
(e)(1) of this section in the equation specified in paragraph (a) of
this section.
* * * * *
20. Section 80.91 is amended by:
a. adding paragraph (c)(5)(iv);
b. adding a sentence to the end of paragraph (d)(1)(i)(A)
introductory text;
c. revising paragraph (d)(1)(i)(A)(1), and revising the last
sentence in paragraph (d)(1)(i)(B);
d. revising the equation and the definition of Tjs in
paragraph (e)(2)(iv), and revising the definition of Tjs in
paragraph (e)(2)(v)(A);
e. revising the equations in paragraphs (e)(4)(i) (A) and (B), and
the equation and definition of UV in paragraph (e)(4)(ii)(A) and the
equation in paragraph (e)(4)(ii)(B);
f. revising the second sentence of paragraph (e)(5)(vi);
g. adding paragraphs (e)(5)(vi)(A) and (e)(5)(vi)(B);
h. and i. revising paragraph (e)(5)(vii) introductory text, and
revising paragraph (e)(5)(viii);
j. and k. revising paragraph (e)(7)(i)(A);
l. revising paragraphs (e)(7)(i)(C) and (f)(2)(ii); and
m. adding paragraph (e)(7)(i)(D).
The revisions and additions are set out to read as follows:
Sec. 80.91 Individual baseline determination.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(5) * * *
(iv) The annual average anti-dumping statutory baseline shall have
the following set of emission values:
Exhaust benzene emissions, simple model--6.45
Exhaust benzene emissions, complex model--33.03 mg/mile
Exhaust toxics emissions, Phase I--50.67 mg/mile
Exhaust toxics emissions, Phase II--104.5 mg/mile
NOX emissions, Phase I--714.4 mg/mile
NOX emissions, Phase II--1461. mg/mile
(d) * * *
(1) * * *
(i) * * *
(A) * * * When method 1 per batch RVP data is available, a month is
considered equivalent to 4 weeks of seasonal data.
(1) Method 1, per batch, actual RVP data will be used to define
that batch as either summer fuel or winter fuel. Summer fuel is defined
as fuel produced and intended for sale to satisfy federal summer
volatility standards. When such per batch actual RVP data is not
available, data is allocated per month as follows. A summer month is
defined as any month during which more than 50 percent (by volume) of
the gasoline produced by a refiner met the federal summer gasoline
volatility requirements. Winter shall be any month which could not be
considered a summer month under this definition.
* * * * *
(B) * * * In any case, all data collected through the date of
collection of the last data point included in the determination of a
baseline fuel parameter value must be utilized in the baseline
determination of that fuel parameter.
* * * * *
(e) * * *
(2) * * *
(iv) * * *
TR20JY94.000
* * * * *
Tjs = total 1990 volume of blendstock j used in the refinery's
season s gasoline
* * * * *
(v) * * *
(A) * * *
Tjs = total 1990 volume of blendstock j used in the refinery's
season s gasoline
* * * * *
(4) * * *
(i) * * *
(A) * * *
UV = [AV/(100-OV)] x 100
TR20JY94.001
* * * * *
(B) * * *
* * * * *
(ii) * * *
(A) * * *
AV = UV x (100-OV)/100
* * * * *
UV = non-oxygenated parameter value
* * * * *
(B) * * *
TR20JY94.002
* * * * *
(5) * * *
(vi) * * *Such data shall be used in the determination of the
baseline value, due to the work-in-progress, of each of the fuel
parameters specified in Sec. 80.91(a)(2)(i) and as verification of the
effect of the work-in-progress.
(A) The baseline value, due to the work-in-progress, of each of the
fuel parameters specified in Sec. 80.91(a)(2)(i) shall be used in the
determination of the emissions specified in Sec. 80.90.
(B) The baseline values of sulfur, olefins and E300, due to the
work-in-progress, shall be used in the determination of the emissions
specified in Sec. 80.41(j)(3).
(vii) The annual average baseline values of exhaust benzene
emissions, per Sec. 80.90(b) and Sec. 80.90(c), exhaust toxics
emissions, per Sec. 80.90(d), and NOX emissions, per
Sec. 80.90(e), are the values resulting from the work-in-progress
baseline adjustment, not to exceed the larger of:
* * * * *
(viii) When compliance is achieved using the simple model, per
Sec. 80.41 and/or Sec. 80.101, the basel
This text is long and has been trimmed here. Open the source document for the complete record.
This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.