Regulation of Fuels and Fuel Additives: Modifications to Standards and Requirements for Reformulated and Conventional Gasoline
FederalRegulations
Ask Donna
How this section applies to your facts.
Federal Register › Vol. 62 › 62 FR 37338
Text
Part II
Environmental Protection Agency
_______________________________________________________________________
40 CFR Part 80
Regulation of Fuels and Fuel Additives: Modifications to Standards and
Requirements for Reformulated and Conventional Gasoline; Proposed Rule
Proposed Rules
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 80
[FRL 5850-6]
RIN 2060-AG76
Regulation of Fuels and Fuel Additives: Modifications to
Standards and Requirements for Reformulated and Conventional Gasoline
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Through the amended Clean Air Act of 1990, Congress mandated
that EPA promulgate regulations requiring that gasoline sold in certain
areas be reformulated to reduce vehicle emissions of toxic and ozone-
forming compounds. The EPA published rules for the certification and
enforcement of reformulated gasoline (RFG) and provisions for non-
reformulated or conventional gasoline on February 16, 1994.
Based on experience gained since the promulgation of these
regulations, EPA is proposing a variety of changes to the regulations
relating to emissions standards, emissions models, compliance related
requirements and enforcement provisions. The proposed changes involve
both the reformulated and conventional gasoline programs. Many of the
changes codify guidance issued by the Agency since the initial adoption
of these gasoline programs. These changes are in the nature of minor
adjustments to the structure of these programs. The emissions benefits
achieved from reformulated gasoline will not be reduced.
DATES: The comment period on this proposed action will close August 11,
1997, unless a hearing is requested, in which case the comment period
will close 30 days after the close of the public hearing. EPA will
conduct a hearing (date and location to be announced) if a request for
such is received by July 18, 1997.
The emissions benefits
achieved from reformulated gasoline will not be reduced.
DATES: The comment period on this proposed action will close August 11,
1997, unless a hearing is requested, in which case the comment period
will close 30 days after the close of the public hearing. EPA will
conduct a hearing (date and location to be announced) if a request for
such is received by July 18, 1997.
ADDRESSES: Written comments on this proposed action should be addressed
to Public Docket No. A-97-03, Waterside Mall (Room M-1500),
Environmental Protection Agency, Air Docket Section, 401 M Street, SW,
Washington, DC 20460. The Agency requests that commenters also send a
copy of any comments to Marilyn Bennett, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Office of Air and Radiation, at the address listed in the For
Further Information Contact section. Those wishing to notify EPA of
their intent to submit adverse comment or request an opportunity for a
public hearing on this action should contact Marilyn Bennett at (202)
233-9006. Materials relevant to the final rule establishing standards
for reformulated gasoline and anti-dumping standards for conventional
gasoline are contained in Public Dockets--A-92-01 and A-92-12, and are
incorporated by reference.
The preamble, regulatory language and regulatory support document
are also available electronically from the EPA Internet Web site and
via dial-up modem on the Technology Transfer Network (TTN), which is an
electronic bulletin board system (BBS) operated by EPA's Office of Air
Quality Planning and Standards. Both services are free of charge,
except for your existing cost of Internet connectivity or the cost of
the phone call to TTN. Users are able to access and download files on
their first call using a personal computer per the following
information. The official Federal Register version is made available on
the day of publication on the primary Internet sites listed below
lanning and Standards. Both services are free of charge,
except for your existing cost of Internet connectivity or the cost of
the phone call to TTN. Users are able to access and download files on
their first call using a personal computer per the following
information. The official Federal Register version is made available on
the day of publication on the primary Internet sites listed below. The
EPA Office of Mobile Sources also publishes these notices on the
secondary Web site listed below and on the TTN BBS.
Internet (Web)
http://www.epa.gov/docs/fedrgstr/EPA-AIR/
(either select desired date or use Search feature)
http://www.epa.gov/OMSWWW/
(look in What's New or under the specific rulemaking topic)
TTN BBS: 919-541-5742
(1200-14400 bps, no parity, 8 data bits, 1 stop bit)
Voice Helpline: 919-541-5384
Off-line: Mondays from 8 am to 12 Noon ET
A user who has not called TTN previously will first be required to
answer some basic informational questions for registration purposes.
After completing the registration process, proceed through the
following menu choices from the Top Menu to access information on this
rulemaking.
Gateway to TTN Technical Areas (Bulletin Boards)
OMS--Mobile Sources Information
(Alerts display a chronological list of recent documents)
Rulemaking & Reporting
At this point, choose the topic (e.g., Fuels) and subtopic (e.g.,
Reformulated Gasoline) of the rulemaking, and the system will list all
available files in the chosen category in date order with brief
descriptions. To download a file, type the letter ``D'' and hit your
Enter key. Then select a transfer protocol that is supported by the
terminal software on your own computer, and pick the appropriate
command in your own software to receive the file using that same
protocol. After getting the files you want onto your computer, you can
quit the TTN BBS with the oodbye command
rder with brief
descriptions. To download a file, type the letter ``D'' and hit your
Enter key. Then select a transfer protocol that is supported by the
terminal software on your own computer, and pick the appropriate
command in your own software to receive the file using that same
protocol. After getting the files you want onto your computer, you can
quit the TTN BBS with the oodbye command.
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.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Marilyn Bennett, Fuels and Energy
Division, U.S. EPA, 401 M Street, SW (6406J), Washington, DC 20460.
Telephone: (202) 233-9006.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Regulated Entities
Regulated categories and entities potentially affected by this
action include:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Category Examples of regulated entities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry.............................. Refiners, importers, and
distributors of motor vehicle
fuel; motor vehicle fuel retail
outlets and wholesale purchaser-
consumer facilities; facilities
that act as independent
laboratories.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a
guide for readers regarding entities likely to be regulated by this
action. This table lists the types of entities that EPA is now aware
could be potentially regulated by this action. Other types of entities
not listed in the table could also be regulated. To determine whether
your entity is regulated by this action, you should carefully examine
the applicability criteria of part 80, subparts D, E and F, of title 40
of the Code of Federal Regulations
by this
action. This table lists the types of entities that EPA is now aware
could be potentially regulated by this action. Other types of entities
not listed in the table could also be regulated. To determine whether
your entity is regulated by this action, you should carefully examine
the applicability criteria of part 80, subparts D, E and F, of title 40
of the Code of Federal Regulations. If you have questions regarding
applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person
listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.
Today's preamble explains the basis for the regulatory changes and
the purpose of the proposed rule. The remainder of this preamble is
organized into the following sections:
I. Corrections of Typographical Errors and Minor Revisions
II. General Fuels Provisions
III. RFG and Anti-dumping Standards/Models
IV. RFG Compliance Requirements
V. Enforcement
VI. Anti-dumping Requirements
VII. Attest Engagements
VIII. Environmental and Economic Impacts
IX. Public Participation
X. Regulatory Flexibility
XI. Executive Order 12866
XII. Paperwork Reduction Act
XIII. Unfunded Mandates Act
XIV. Statutory Authority
I. Corrections of Typographical Errors and Minor Revisions
Sec. 80.2(w)................ The reference to the cetane index test
method is removed and added as Sec.
80.3(e). As a replacement, a definition
is proposed for ``previously certified
gasoline'' to mean RFG and conventional
gasoline that has been produced or
imported in conformance with applicable
requirements and included in the
refinery, oxygenate blender or importer
compliance calculations.
Sec. 80.2(y)................ The reference to the sulfur content test
method is removed and added as Sec.
80.3(f). This section is revised to
conform to the sulfur test method in
Sec. 80.46(a).
Sec. 80.2(z)................ The reference to the aromatics content
test method is removed and added as Sec.
80.3(g)
in the
refinery, oxygenate blender or importer
compliance calculations.
Sec. 80.2(y)................ The reference to the sulfur content test
method is removed and added as Sec.
80.3(f). This section is revised to
conform to the sulfur test method in
Sec. 80.46(a).
Sec. 80.2(z)................ The reference to the aromatics content
test method is removed and added as Sec.
80.3(g). This section is revised to
limit the test method to use for diesel
fuel only to avoid conflict with the
test method for aromatics content of RFG
in Sec. 80.46(f).
Sec. 80.2(ee)............... Revises the definition of reformulated
gasoline to delete the requirement for a
gasoline marker under Sec. 80.82.
Sec. 80.2(gg)............... Revises definition of gasoline ``batch''
to make this definition apply to
conventional gasoline as well as to RFG.
Sec. 80.41(d)............... Revises chart to replace ``32.6'' for VOC per-gallon minimum
reduction with ``32.6'' and
replace ``-2.5'' with ``-2.5'' for per-gallon minimum NOX
performance reduction (percent).
Sec. 80.45(c)(1)(iv)(B)..... Corrects several small typographical
errors in both the Phase I and Phase II
equations.
Sec. 80.45(c)(1)(iv)(D)(12). Corrects typographical error by changing
``(E300 X 72 percent)'' to ``(E300--72
percent).''
Sec. 80.45 (c)(1)(iv)(D) Corrects typographical error by changing
(13). Phase I coefficients to Phase II
coefficients, i.e. change ``80.32 +
(0.390 X ARO)'' to ``79.75 + (0.385 X
ARO).''
Sec. 80.45(d)(1)(iv)(B)..... Corrects typographical errors to the
equation.
Sec. 80.45(f)(1)(i)......... Corrects the entry for aromatics
``acceptable range'' to read ``0.0--55.0
volume percent.''
Sec. 80.49(a)............... Corrects typographical error. There is a
reference to section 80.43(c), which is
incorrect. The proper reference is to
section 80.49(a)(5)(i).
Sec. 80.49(a)(1)............ Corrects typographical error in formula
at the bottom of the new parameter under
Fuel 2
..... Corrects the entry for aromatics
``acceptable range'' to read ``0.0--55.0
volume percent.''
Sec. 80.49(a)............... Corrects typographical error. There is a
reference to section 80.43(c), which is
incorrect. The proper reference is to
section 80.49(a)(5)(i).
Sec. 80.49(a)(1)............ Corrects typographical error in formula
at the bottom of the new parameter under
Fuel 2. Changes from ``C+B/2'' to
``(C+B)/2.''
Sec. 80.49(a)(3)............ Corrects typographical error. There is a
reference to Sec. 80.43(c), which is
incorrect. The proper reference is to
Sec. 80.49(a)(5)(i).
Sec. 80.49(b)............... Corrects typographical error. There is a
reference to Sec. 80.43(c), which is
incorrect. The proper reference is to
Sec. 80.49(a)(5)(i).
Sec. 80.50(a)(2)............ Corrects reference to ``extension fuels
per the requirements of Sec. 80.49(a)''
to read ``extension fuels per the
requirements of Sec. 80.49(b).''
Sec. 80.65(e)(2)(ii)(B)..... Revises to apply to importers as well as
refiners.
Sec. 80.65(g)............... Revises to delete heading: ``Marking of
conventional gasoline.''
Sec. 80.68(b)(2)(ii)........ Revises the word ``area'' to read
``area(s)'' to clarify the application
of the equation to a situation in which
more than one area fails a survey or
survey series in a single year.
Sec. 80.69(a)(6)(iv)........ Revises to add reference to Sec.
80.69(e)(2).
Sec. 80.69(e)............... Revises to clarify reference by removing
``who obtains any RBOB in any gasoline
delivery truck'' and adding ``other than
a terminal storage tank blender
specified in Sec. 80.69(c)'.
Sec. 80.69(e)(2)(i)(A)...... Revises to add the word ``to.''
Sec. 80.69(e)(2)(v)......... Corrects reference to Sec.
80.70(b)(2)(i). The correct reference is
to Sec. 80.65(e)(2)(i).
Sec. 80.75(a)..............
ses to clarify reference by removing
``who obtains any RBOB in any gasoline
delivery truck'' and adding ``other than
a terminal storage tank blender
specified in Sec. 80.69(c)'.
Sec. 80.69(e)(2)(i)(A)...... Revises to add the word ``to.''
Sec. 80.69(e)(2)(v)......... Corrects reference to Sec.
80.70(b)(2)(i). The correct reference is
to Sec. 80.65(e)(2)(i).
Sec. 80.75(a)............... Revises to require refiners, importers,
and oxygenate blenders to include
notification to EPA of per-gallon versus
average election with the first
quarterly reports submitted each year.
Sec. 80.75(a)(3)............ Revises to add a new Sec. 80.75(a)(3)
which provides a mathematical equation
for converting weight percent oxygen
from an oxygenate to volume percent
oxygenate.
Sec. 80.77(c)............... Revises to add reference to RBOB.
Sec. 80.77(f)............... Revises to add reference to RBOB.
Sec. 80.128(e)(2)........... Revises by changing reference from Sec.
80.69(a)(9) to Sec. 80.69(a)(2).
II. General Fuels Provisions
A. Test Methods (Sec. 80.3; RFG Test Methods Sec. 80.46)
1. Replacement of Lead and Phosphorus Test Methods with Industry
Standard Test Methods (Secs. 80.3 (a) and (b))
40 CFR part 80, appendices A and B, specify the test methods that
are used for determining, respectively, the phosphorus content and the
lead content of gasoline. Today's proposal would remove appendices A
and B and add Secs. 80.3 (a) and (b) which would require the use of
ASTM method D 3231-94 for phosphorus and methods D 3237-90 or D 5059-92
for lead. The phosphorus and lead test methods are used primarily to
determine compliance with the standards under Secs. 80.22 and 80.23,
dealing with the unleaded gasoline program. Also, under
Sec. 80.41(h)(1), RFG may contain no heavy metals. As a result, the
proposed lead test method would be used for determining the presence of
this heavy metal in RFG
s and methods D 3237-90 or D 5059-92
for lead. The phosphorus and lead test methods are used primarily to
determine compliance with the standards under Secs. 80.22 and 80.23,
dealing with the unleaded gasoline program. Also, under
Sec. 80.41(h)(1), RFG may contain no heavy metals. As a result, the
proposed lead test method would be used for determining the presence of
this heavy metal in RFG.
The test methods in appendices A and B of 40 CFR part 80 originally
were adopted from ASTM standard test methods. Over time, however, ASTM
has updated their test methods, while EPA has not. EPA believes the
current ASTM test methods are equivalent to the methods currently in
the regulations, and are more consistent with the test methods
regulated parties normally use for commercial purposes. As a result,
the proposed test methods would be appropriate for determining
compliance with the provisions of 40 CFR part 80.
EPA believes there would be little additional burden on the
regulated industry if the proposed phosphorus and lead test methods
were adopted. Initially, EPA understands that the proposed test methods
are the current industry standard test methods, so most gasoline
testing laboratories already are equipped to conduct the proposed test
methods. In addition, there is no requirement for regulated parties to
test their gasoline for phosphorus or lead under either the unleaded
gasoline or the RFG regulations, so parties would not be obligated to
use the proposed test methods at all. Rather, the phosphorus and lead
test methods in the regulations are used by EPA to determine if
gasoline meets standards for these metals. EPA or a regulated party
also could use non-regulatory phosphorus or lead test methods. However,
in an enforcement proceeding, the results from non-regulatory test
methods would only constitute evidence of the results that would have
been obtained if the regulatory test method had been conducted on the
gasoline at issue.
2. Reformulated Gasoline Test Methods (Secs
standards for these metals. EPA or a regulated party
also could use non-regulatory phosphorus or lead test methods. However,
in an enforcement proceeding, the results from non-regulatory test
methods would only constitute evidence of the results that would have
been obtained if the regulatory test method had been conducted on the
gasoline at issue.
2. Reformulated Gasoline Test Methods (Secs. 80.46 (a) Through (g))
In Sec. 80.46, test methods were specified for the measurement of
the regulated properties of reformulated gasoline. Many of the test
methods designated in the original rule were consensus standards,
prepared and maintained by ASTM. Since the original issuance of the
rule, some of these methods have been updated. EPA is now proposing to
replace the current regulatory methods with the updated versions of
these methods for the measurement of sulfur, olefins, and distillation
parameters. In addition, EPA is proposing an alternative test method
(ASTM D 5453-93) for determining the sulfur content in conventional
gasoline until September 1, 1998. This proposed alternative test method
is discussed in Section VI.B.6. The proposed updated methods all are
finally approved ASTM test methods. In addition, ASTM has developed a
method (ASTM D 5599-95) that is the same as the procedure for the
measurement of oxygenates at Secs. 80.46(g) (1) through (8), and EPA
proposes to replace Secs. 80.46(g) (1) through (8) with a reference to
the ASTM method. For the measurement of RVP, EPA proposes to eliminate
the appendix containing EPA Method 3 (appendix E), and designate ASTM D
5191-96 as the required method, with the exception that the correlation
equation as described in EPA Method 3 must be used in place of the
correlation equation described in ASTM D 5191-96. ASTM D 5191-96 is
identical to the RVP test method in appendix E when the correlation
equation from EPA Method 3 is used with the ASTM method
endix containing EPA Method 3 (appendix E), and designate ASTM D
5191-96 as the required method, with the exception that the correlation
equation as described in EPA Method 3 must be used in place of the
correlation equation described in ASTM D 5191-96. ASTM D 5191-96 is
identical to the RVP test method in appendix E when the correlation
equation from EPA Method 3 is used with the ASTM method. In all cases,
these changes do not amount to a deviation in method, or significant
change in procedure. Most of the ASTM changes revolve around
improvements in quality statements. The inclusion of ASTM D 5599-95 for
oxygenates is the result of ASTM preparing a test method that is
consistent with that previously defined in the Federal Register.
The test method previously designated for benzene, ASTM D 3606, has
been updated since the original publication of the rule. However, the
parameters must be adjusted to allow for the resolution of ethanol and
methanol from the benzene. In addition, the EPA GC/MS method has been
demonstrated through ASTM round-robin testing to be an equivalent
method for the measurement of benzene. Since the use of the EPA GC/MS
method would allow two parameters (benzene and aromatics) to be
performed with a single test, EPA believes the use of the EPA GC/MA
method for the measurement of benzene would result in a reduced burden
to the regulated industry, and, therefore, is proposing to allow its
use as an alternate test procedure for the measurement of benzene in
gasoline.
3. Butane Test Methods (Sec. 80.46(h))
Blendstocks require the same full set of parameter measurements as
reformulated gasoline, since final properties must be extrapolated for
all final blends. When butane designated for blending must be tested,
the designated methods are generally not applicable, since the
properties for butane typically fall outside the scope of the methods.
Therefore, EPA is proposing to designate several test methods
specifically for butane blendstock testing
easurements as
reformulated gasoline, since final properties must be extrapolated for
all final blends. When butane designated for blending must be tested,
the designated methods are generally not applicable, since the
properties for butane typically fall outside the scope of the methods.
Therefore, EPA is proposing to designate several test methods
specifically for butane blendstock testing. ASTM D 2163-91 and D 5623-
94 have been identified as suitable methods for the measurement of
light hydrocarbons and sulfur respectively. The Gas Producers
Association (GPA) has developed a method for the measurement of benzene
and aromatics in butane. This method is GPA 2186-95. EPA is not
proposing to designate a method for measuring olefins in butane. No
consensus method currently exists for measuring total olefins in butane
blendstocks. ASTM D 2163-91 will measure the lighter olefins, but not
any heavier ones in the mix. EPA has identified a proprietary method,
known as the Wasson ECE 383-01 method, which measures all of the
olefinic compounds in the blendstock. This method is not a consensus
standard, but is of the type that would be acceptable, due to its
ability to measure total olefins.
4. Volatility Test Methods (Secs. 80.3 (c) and (d))
As discussed above, for the measurement of RVP, EPA proposes to
eliminate the appendix containing EPA Method 3 (appendix E) and
designate ASTM D 5191-96 as the regulatory method, with the exception
that the correlation equation as described in EPA Method 3 must be used
in place of the correlation equation described in ASTM D 5191-96.
The measurement of alcohols, especially ethanol, for the volatility
rule has been described in detail in appendix F of 40 CFR part 80
the appendix containing EPA Method 3 (appendix E) and
designate ASTM D 5191-96 as the regulatory method, with the exception
that the correlation equation as described in EPA Method 3 must be used
in place of the correlation equation described in ASTM D 5191-96.
The measurement of alcohols, especially ethanol, for the volatility
rule has been described in detail in appendix F of 40 CFR part 80. In
this appendix, Method 1 describes a water extraction method, and Method
2 details a chromatographic procedure (an older version of ASTM D
4815.) In an effort to harmonize methods, EPA believes it would reduce
the testing burden to allow test methods that are consistent with the
reformulated gasoline rule. As a result, EPA proposes to eliminate
Appendix F and designate ASTM D 5599-95 as the method for the
measurement of alcohols in gasoline for the purpose of complying with
the volatility regulations. Consistent with the reformulated gasoline
rule, the use of ASTM D 4815-94a will be allowed as an alternate as
long as this use is allowed under the reformulated gasoline rule.
5. Diesel Fuel Test Methods (Secs. 80.3 (e), (f), and (g))
When the diesel sulfur rule was originally published by EPA,
several methods were included for the measurement of the regulated
properties. Included in these properties are sulfur concentration,
cetane index, and aromatic content. The current designated test for
sulfur is ASTM D 2622-87, with D 4294-83 being an allowable alternate.
As discussed above, EPA proposes to substitute the current regulatory
test method for sulfur, D 2622-87, with the latest version of this
method, D 2622-94. EPA also proposes to substitute the alternate method
for determining sulfur content in diesel fuel, D 4294-83, with the
latest version, D 4294-90(1995), and substitute the current test method
for cetane index, ASTM D 976-80, with the latest version, D 976-91.
The test for aromatics in diesel had been designated to be ASTM D
1319-88
2622-87, with the latest version of this
method, D 2622-94. EPA also proposes to substitute the alternate method
for determining sulfur content in diesel fuel, D 4294-83, with the
latest version, D 4294-90(1995), and substitute the current test method
for cetane index, ASTM D 976-80, with the latest version, D 976-91.
The test for aromatics in diesel had been designated to be ASTM D
1319-88. EPA recognizes that ASTM describes this test as inadequate for
the measurement of the aromatic content in diesel fuel. For some time,
EPA has been performing ASTM D 5186 in parallel with D 1319, and found
D 5186 to be superior in both precision and accuracy. The primary
difficulty in changing from the use of D 1319 to D 5186 to measure
compliance lies in the units reported by the two methods. The
regulation specifies a limit on the aromatic content in volume per-
cent, coincidentally the same units reported
by D 1319. Unfortunately, D 5186 reports results in mass per-cent. In
order to comply with the regulation, these results must be converted to
volume per-cent. EPA proposes to apply a conversion factor to the
results. The equation to be used for the conversion of mass per-cent
diesel aromatics to volume per-cent diesel aromatics is:
Vol% = (Mass% * 0.916) + 1.33
Where Mass% refers to the output from D 5186-96, the SFC test.
This equation is identical to that used by CARB in their conversion
of mass per-cent results to volume per-cent results for the affirmation
of regulatory limits.
This change should not impose any additional financial burden on
industry, since it is not a required test. The option of measuring
aromatics was originally placed in the rule to allow an alternate to
the requirement that low sulfur fuels meet a minimum requirement of a
40 cetane index. The intent was to regulate aromatic content, and it
was found that some fuels with high napthenic content could actually be
very low in aromatics, yet still not meet the 40 cetane index level
is not a required test. The option of measuring
aromatics was originally placed in the rule to allow an alternate to
the requirement that low sulfur fuels meet a minimum requirement of a
40 cetane index. The intent was to regulate aromatic content, and it
was found that some fuels with high napthenic content could actually be
very low in aromatics, yet still not meet the 40 cetane index level.
The option to test for aromatic content would only be exercised if a
fuel fails to meet the required cetane index level, a relatively
infrequent occurrence.
6. Table of Test Methods
The following table sets out the test methods currently required
under the fuels regulations at 40 CFR part 80, and the corresponding
proposed test methods:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Parameter Old test New test
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reformulated Gasoline:
RVP............................... EPA Method 3.................. ASTM 5191-96, except that equation is as
in Method 3.
Benzene........................... ASTM D3606-92, with exceptions ASTM D3606-96, also with exceptions. In
for Methanol and Ethanol. addition, the use of the EPA GC/MS
Method for the measurement of Benzene
will now be allowed as an alternate.
Distillation...................... ASTM D86-90................... ASTM D86-96.
Aromatics......................... EPA GC/MS Method (80.46)...... EPA GC/MS Method (80.46) (No Change)
alternate is D1319-95a.
Olefins........................... ASTM D1319-93................. ASTM D1319-95a.
Sulfur............................ ASTM D2622-92................. ASTM D2622-94 (ASTM D5453-93 is
alternate for Conventional Gasoline to
9/1/98).
Oxygenates........................ EPA OFID Method (80.46)....... ASTM D5599-95, alternate is D4815*-94a.
Lead Phase Down:
Phosphorus........................ Appendix A...................
........ ASTM D1319-93................. ASTM D1319-95a.
Sulfur............................ ASTM D2622-92................. ASTM D2622-94 (ASTM D5453-93 is
alternate for Conventional Gasoline to
9/1/98).
Oxygenates........................ EPA OFID Method (80.46)....... ASTM D5599-95, alternate is D4815*-94a.
Lead Phase Down:
Phosphorus........................ Appendix A.................... ASTM D3231-94.
Lead.............................. Appendix B.................... ASTM D3237-90 (Atomic Absorbance) or
D5059-92 (X-ray).
Volatility:
Alcohol......................... .............................. Consistent with Reformulated Gasoline.
Diesel Sulfur:
Sulfur............................ ASTM D2622-87, or D4294-83.... ASTM D2622-94, or D4294-90 (1995).
Aromatics......................... ASTM D1319-88................. ASTM D5186-96.
Cetane Index...................... ASTM D976-80.................. ASTM D976-91.
Blendstock Tests:
Light Hydrocarbons in Butane...... .............................. ASTM D2163-91.
Sulfur in Butane.................. .............................. ASTM D5623-94.
Benzene and Aromatics in Butane... .............................. GPA 2186-95.
Olefins in Butane................. .............................. Test procedure not specified. Wasson-ECE
383-01 is an example of an acceptable
test procedure.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Sampling Procedures (Proposed
Sec. 80.8)
ne... .............................. GPA 2186-95.
Olefins in Butane................. .............................. Test procedure not specified. Wasson-ECE
383-01 is an example of an acceptable
test procedure.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Sampling Procedures (Proposed
Sec. 80.8)
40 CFR part 80, Appendices D and G, specify sampling procedures for
gasoline and diesel fuel for all motor vehicle fuel programs under 40
CFR part 80, including the programs for unleaded gasoline, gasoline
volatility, diesel sulfur, RFG, and anti-dumping. Today's proposal
would replace the sampling procedures in appendices D and G with the
following ASTM standard practices:
D 4057-95, ``Standard Practice for Manual Sampling of
Petroleum and Petroleum Products;''
D 4177-95, ``Standard Practice for Automatic Sampling of
Petroleum and Petroleum Products;''
D 5842-95, ``Standard Practice for Sampling and Handling
of Fuels for Volatility Measurements;'' and
D 5854-95, ``Standard Practice for Mixing and Handling of
Liquid Samples of Petroleum and Petroleum Products.''
Appendices D and G were adopted from the 1981 version of D 4057.
Over time, however, ASTM has updated D 4057, and these changes are not
reflected in Appendices D and G. For example, appendix D addresses the
collection of samples from a ``tap'' in the shell of a petroleum
storage tank. The current requirement under appendix D, reflective of D
4057-81, requires that taps extend at least three feet into the storage
tank. See, para. 11.3.1.1 of appendix D. However, tap extensions are
necessary only for heavy petroleum products (and not for gasoline and
diesel fuel), and, furthermore, tap extensions are not possible with
floating roof storage tanks that are commonly used today. As a result,
EPA and regulated parties currently agree to waive the tap extension
requirement on a case-by-case basis
he storage
tank. See, para. 11.3.1.1 of appendix D. However, tap extensions are
necessary only for heavy petroleum products (and not for gasoline and
diesel fuel), and, furthermore, tap extensions are not possible with
floating roof storage tanks that are commonly used today. As a result,
EPA and regulated parties currently agree to waive the tap extension
requirement on a case-by-case basis. Under D 4057-95 sampling tap
extensions are not required for light petroleum products such as
gasoline and diesel fuel, so that if this ASTM procedure were adopted
the tap extension issue would be resolved for all cases.
EPA is proposing to adopt three ASTM methods in addition to D 4057-
95 in order to include procedures that address a broad scope of
sampling situations that are relevant to EPA's motor vehicle fuels
programs. D 4177-95 deals with automatic sampling of petroleum
products, which is relevant under the anti-dumping regulations for
refiners who produce conventional gasoline using an in-line blending
operation where automatic sampling is necessary. Similarly, D 5842-95
deals with sampling and sample handling for volatility measurement,
which is relevant to determining compliance with the volatility
standards in Sec. 80.27 and the RFG standards in Sec. 80.41. Last, D
5854-96 deals with the creation of composite samples, which is relevant
under the RFG and anti-dumping programs in certain situations involving
imported gasoline where the gasoline from multiple ship compartments is
treated as a single batch.
EPA believes it is appropriate to replace Appendices D and G with
ASTM standard practices. The current ASTM practices reflect up to date
procedures, which if followed would result in improved sample quality
for regulatory purposes. In addition, the adoption of industry standard
procedures would reduce regulatory burden because parties would be able
to follow their customary practices when meeting regulatory
requirements.
III. RFG and Anti-Dumping Standards/Models
andard practices. The current ASTM practices reflect up to date
procedures, which if followed would result in improved sample quality
for regulatory purposes. In addition, the adoption of industry standard
procedures would reduce regulatory burden because parties would be able
to follow their customary practices when meeting regulatory
requirements.
III. RFG and Anti-Dumping Standards/Models
A. Standards and Requirements for Compliance (Secs. 80.41 and 80.101)
1. Averaging Per-Gallon Minimum Standards for NOX
(Secs. 80.41 (d) and (f); Sec. 80.68(b)(1)(iv))
Reduction of NOX emissions is a prominent feature of
Phase II of the Reformulated Gasoline Program which goes into effect on
January 1 of 2000 (Phase I provides control at a ``no NOX
increase'' level). The Phase II standard for refiners choosing to
comply on average (requiring a 6.8% reduction from baseline during the
high ozone season) sets the level of NOX emission reduction
required on average by these refiners. Thus, for refiners who choose to
average, the averaging standard effectively controls the overall
environmental benefit contributed to the program by these refiners.
In addition to the average NOX standards, though, there
are also per-gallon minimum reduction standards for refiners that
choose to average (not to be confused with standards for overall
compliance on a per-gallon basis). The averaging minimum standard in
Phase II requires that each gallon (batch) of RFG in the high ozone
season has at least a 3% reduction from the statutory baseline; the
corresponding Phase I standard holds any increase over statutory
baseline for a batch to 2.5%. Less stringent minimum standards apply
outside of the high ozone season in Phase II. The per-gallon minimum
standards are in addition to the year-long average standard of a
refinery's output of a given type of RFG and these minimum standards
set the NOX reduction which must be achieved by each batch
(and therefore each gallon) of RFG
any increase over statutory
baseline for a batch to 2.5%. Less stringent minimum standards apply
outside of the high ozone season in Phase II. The per-gallon minimum
standards are in addition to the year-long average standard of a
refinery's output of a given type of RFG and these minimum standards
set the NOX reduction which must be achieved by each batch
(and therefore each gallon) of RFG.
These NOX per-gallon minimum standards were not put in
place to provide any incremental environmental benefit beyond that
provided by the average standard, but rather to ensure an even
distribution of program benefits from area to area and through time.
This primary reason for the averaging per-gallon minimum standards (for
NOX and other parameters as well) was discussed in the
enforcement section of the preamble to the RFG final rule (Section
VII). An additional but secondary objective of the minimum standard was
to augment the ability of enforcement authorities to detect non-RFG
gasoline being illegally sold in RFG areas. For reasons that will be
discussed more fully below, EPA is proposing to eliminate the per-
gallon minimum standards for NOX and to accomplish the same
objectives that these standards would have accomplished by
substantially expanding the number of area-by-area surveys of RFG
emission performance required to be conducted by refiners choosing to
average. EPA is not proposing any change to the averaging standard for
NOX.
The Problem With the Per-Gallon NOX Minimums
eliminate the per-
gallon minimum standards for NOX and to accomplish the same
objectives that these standards would have accomplished by
substantially expanding the number of area-by-area surveys of RFG
emission performance required to be conducted by refiners choosing to
average. EPA is not proposing any change to the averaging standard for
NOX.
The Problem With the Per-Gallon NOX Minimums
When EPA imposed the per gallon minimum standards, data did not
exist to adequately assess the variability, within refineries' output,
of NOX quality or the factors that affect it across all of
the batches of gasoline produced in a year.
Representatives of the gasoline refining industry (the American
Petroleum Institute (API), the National Petroleum Refiners Association
(NPRA) and representatives of various of their member companies) have
presented data to EPA 1 showing that NOX
performance of actual RFG retail samples varies substantially by octane
grade and from batch to batch 2 within a grade. The
processes involved in gasoline production result in a broad bimodal
3 distribution of NOX quality, with premium
batches showing characteristically lower NOX emissions and
regular batches, with their higher levels of sulfur and olefins,
showing higher NOX emissions. 4 These data on
gasoline produced under the simple model requirements showed a very
substantial proportion of regular grade RFG samples that would have
failed to meet the Phase I minimum reduction standard that applies
beginning in 1998.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
es, with their higher levels of sulfur and olefins,
showing higher NOX emissions. 4 These data on
gasoline produced under the simple model requirements showed a very
substantial proportion of regular grade RFG samples that would have
failed to meet the Phase I minimum reduction standard that applies
beginning in 1998.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Industry representatives met with EPA personnel on January
14, 1997 and presented a graphical analysis which can be found in
the docket for this rulemaking. Docket Number A-97-03, Item Number
II-E-1.
\2\ Since these were retail samples, they could not truly
reflect batch-to-batch variability due to the intermingling of
gasolines from different batches, and even from different sources,
in the distribution system.
\3\ A bimodal distribution here refers to one that has two
distinct frequency peaks or two values around which a large number
of batches will gather.
\4\ Engineering judgment would lead to a conclusion that a broad
distribution of NOX quality differing markedly between
premium and regular gasoline grades would exist in the gasoline
pool. First, NOX quality under EPA's complex model is
primarily a function of sulfur and olefin content in the gasoline.
Thus, differences in either of these properties would result in
differences in NOX quality. Second, in the refinery,
processes which typically contribute large volumes to the regular
gasoline grade are often high in sulfur and olefins, whereas
processes contributing heavily to the premium gasoline pool are
often very low in olefins and sulfur. For example, the fluid
catalytic cracker (FCC) unit in a refinery breaks large molecules
into smaller ones and is the ``workhorse'' of most refineries and
the largest contributor of any refinery unit to the gasoline pool.
The gasoline produced by the FCC unit is highly olefinic, and,
depending upon the crude oil source for the refinery, usually very
high in sulfur
low in olefins and sulfur. For example, the fluid
catalytic cracker (FCC) unit in a refinery breaks large molecules
into smaller ones and is the ``workhorse'' of most refineries and
the largest contributor of any refinery unit to the gasoline pool.
The gasoline produced by the FCC unit is highly olefinic, and,
depending upon the crude oil source for the refinery, usually very
high in sulfur. FCC gasoline also possesses octane quality
consistent with regular gasoline. For this reason and since regular
gasoline is typically the highest volume product of U.S. refineries,
most of the product produced by the FCC is used in the production of
regular gasoline. On the other hand, premium gasolines, which differ
from regular grades primarily in the higher octane quality they
possess, contain lower amounts of FCC streams and higher levels of
high-octane aromatic streams produced by catalytic reformers. Such
streams, called reformate, are extremely low in olefins and also
very low in sulfur. Thus, a much lower level of sulfur and olefin
content and therefore, better NOX quality, is found in
the premium pool as compared to the regular pool. (A 1989 study of
blendstocks used to produce U.S. gasoline found FCC blendstocks
possessing an average octane quality of 86.4, an average olefin
content of 29.1 percent, and an average sulfur content of 756 parts
per million (ppm). The same study found that reformate streams,
produced by the reformer, possessed octane quality of 92.6, an
olefin content of less than 1 percent and an average sulfur level of
55 ppm. See ``NPRA Survey of U.S. Gasoline Quality and U.S. Refining
Industry Capacity to Produce Reformulated Gasolines--Part A'',
National Petroleum Refiners Association, 1991 Gasoline Study,
January, 1991, Docket Number A-97-03, Item Number II-B-1.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
lefin content of less than 1 percent and an average sulfur level of
55 ppm. See ``NPRA Survey of U.S. Gasoline Quality and U.S. Refining
Industry Capacity to Produce Reformulated Gasolines--Part A'',
National Petroleum Refiners Association, 1991 Gasoline Study,
January, 1991, Docket Number A-97-03, Item Number II-B-1.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In order to bring these higher NOX batches of regular
RFG into compliance, the refiners suggested that the industry would
have to incur substantial additional costs in excess of those
calculated in EPA's Regulatory Impact Assessment which EPA relied upon
in adopting the standards for RFG in 1993. That assessment of the costs
of compliance for NOX was based upon the cost of meeting the
average standard, not the per-gallon minimum that applies to refineries
that average, which is the subject of this proposal. They further
argued that in the absence of a substantial enforcement tolerance to
account for the uncertainty of measurement (especially of olefin
levels) in downstream enforcement sampling, the bimodal frequency
distribution would have to be shifted further than would otherwise be
required. While the problem created by the NOX minimum would
already be substantial in Phase I with the 1998 introduction of the
complex model, the
refiners suggested that Phase II's tighter minimum standard for
NOX in the year 2000 would exacerbate an already very
difficult situation, even given the changes made to refinery processes
in order to be able to comply with the Phase II average standard.
The distribution of retail sample data initially presented by the
refiners in their general meeting with the Agency described the net
result of the product intermingling that occurs in the gasoline
distribution system
r 2000 would exacerbate an already very
difficult situation, even given the changes made to refinery processes
in order to be able to comply with the Phase II average standard.
The distribution of retail sample data initially presented by the
refiners in their general meeting with the Agency described the net
result of the product intermingling that occurs in the gasoline
distribution system. By describing all of the nation's gasoline taken
together, these data could suggest the existence of a problem (high
variability with many samples below the minimum reduction standard),
but could not indicate much about how widespread the problem is or show
what types of refineries are likely to be affected. By examining
historical RFG reporting data,5 EPA was able to confirm the
general factual basis of the industry analysis. Specifically, the data
showed a broad distribution of NOX quality with the premium
batches clustered near the high end (high NOX reductions),
while regular batches are more spread out with central tendency nearer
the low end and many batches falling below the Phase I NOX
minimum. Left unanswered by either the industry-supplied information or
EPA's own analysis, was the question of whether refiners could exercise
any control over the variability and shape of the frequency
distribution that was evident in both data sources. In other words, it
was not clear what options were available to refineries to remedy the
problem.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Data on the characteristics of gasoline batches as they are
shipped from the refinery are submitted to EPA as part of the
reporting requirements of the RFG regulations. An aggregated
analysis that protects the confidentiality of individual refiners'
data can be found in the docket for this rulemaking. Docket Number
A-97-03, Item Number II-A-5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
s of gasoline batches as they are
shipped from the refinery are submitted to EPA as part of the
reporting requirements of the RFG regulations. An aggregated
analysis that protects the confidentiality of individual refiners'
data can be found in the docket for this rulemaking. Docket Number
A-97-03, Item Number II-A-5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To provide additional insights, EPA and a refinery expert from the
Department of Energy met separately with individual refiners in order
to look at batch data from single refineries using differing gasoline
production approaches. The refineries represented by the companies EPA
met with comprised a very diverse group. They varied with regard to
size, general level of technology, control over inputs, historical
product slate, and other characteristics. EPA focused the agenda for
these meetings on three basic questions: (1) For each separate
refinery, what is the batch-to-batch distribution of NOX
quality by grade and season, (2) what are the causes of the variability
that is observed in the historical data--which parameters account for
the variability in NOX, and what caused them to vary the way
they did, and (3) how do refinery managers plan to meet the
NOX minimum standards in the absence of a substantial
enforcement tolerance or regulatory relief.
The general picture of the broad bimodal distribution of gasoline
NOX quality by grade that was developed from overall
industry analyses and examination of our own data was generally
confirmed in these more detailed meetings.
As might be expected, individual facilities varied considerably in
the size of the challenge posed by the NOX minimum standards
and they expected to address that problem with varying strategies
e broad bimodal distribution of gasoline
NOX quality by grade that was developed from overall
industry analyses and examination of our own data was generally
confirmed in these more detailed meetings.
As might be expected, individual facilities varied considerably in
the size of the challenge posed by the NOX minimum standards
and they expected to address that problem with varying strategies. The
pattern that emerged from all of these discussions was that refiners
intend to pursue the least capital-intensive solutions wherever
possible, even to the extent of incurring substantial additional
production costs in the short run. Although the strategies articulated
in these meetings 6 did not precisely conform to the pattern
expected by the industry associations (shifting the entire distribution
of NOX quality), they seemed to lead to the same result
economically--excess costs in producing RFG beyond the costs of making
the refinery's average conform to the average standard. Any major
expansion of the RFG program as a result of areas opting into the
program could further increase the costs of meeting the minimum
standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Some general examples of the approaches which are likely to
be used to bring sub-minimum batches above the standard include:
Finding another use for the poor NOX quality gasoline or
its components (shifting it to conventional gasoline, if that can be
done without violating anti-dumping standards, or shifting it to
other products) and buying conforming RFG on the spot market to take
its place; reblending the poor NOX quality batches with
clean blendstocks purchased from the outside to make them conform to
the minimum; or simply reducing RFG production.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Objectives of the NOX Minimum Standards
-dumping standards, or shifting it to
other products) and buying conforming RFG on the spot market to take
its place; reblending the poor NOX quality batches with
clean blendstocks purchased from the outside to make them conform to
the minimum; or simply reducing RFG production.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Objectives of the NOX Minimum Standards
The primary purpose of the NOX minimum is to assure an
even temporal and geographic distribution of the program's
environmental benefits. To put this more simply, the minimum is
intended to ensure that no area covered by the RFG program will suffer
from impaired air quality (possibly resulting in an exceedance of the
NAAQS for ozone) as a result of a single refinery's shipping a batch of
high NOX gasoline to an area for which it was a primary
supplier. An additional, though secondary, purpose of the
NOX minimum standards is to provide a tool for detecting the
illegal sale of non-RFG gasoline in areas covered by the program. This
would work by keeping legitimate RFG above the minimum, while illegally
sold non-RFG might fall below the standard.
Avoiding distribution problems. The RFG regulations incorporated
two mechanisms to avoid the unlikely event of an area being
shortchanged on NOX quality due to refinery gate averaging--
the minimum standard and the RFG gasoline quality surveys.7
These surveys were specifically intended to guard against uneven
distribution of benefits. In the event that the surveys find a covered
area to have received less than the intended NOX emission
reduction benefits, the regulations provide for a substantial
tightening of the average standard--an outcome that would be expensive
to the industry and one that it will work hard to avoid. This proposal
includes an increase in the number of surveys to be conducted (an
additional 20 surveys per year) that should improve the surveillance of
gasoline quality on an area-by-area basis
X emission
reduction benefits, the regulations provide for a substantial
tightening of the average standard--an outcome that would be expensive
to the industry and one that it will work hard to avoid. This proposal
includes an increase in the number of surveys to be conducted (an
additional 20 surveys per year) that should improve the surveillance of
gasoline quality on an area-by-area basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ A program of gasoline quality surveys is required to be
conducted by refiners that wish to comply on average rather than on
a per-gallon basis. The surveys must be done by an independent
contractor in accordance with a statistically sound sampling plan
approved by EPA. The location and timing of surveys is determined by
EPA with minimal advance notice to the industry's contractor. If
survey averages fall short of the criteria set out in the
regulations, the average standards and/or the minimum standards are
made more stringent for subsequent years for all of the refineries
that supplied gasoline to the area(s) where the failure occurred.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Detecting non-conforming gasoline. A detailed examination of 1995
and 1996 actual batch-by-batch gasoline quality (NOX
performance) shows that the NOX minimum standard is not a
very useful tool for detecting contamination of RFG by illegally sold
conventional gasoline, since many batches of conventional gasoline,
especially premium grade, are in compliance with the minimum standard
--------
Detecting non-conforming gasoline. A detailed examination of 1995
and 1996 actual batch-by-batch gasoline quality (NOX
performance) shows that the NOX minimum standard is not a
very useful tool for detecting contamination of RFG by illegally sold
conventional gasoline, since many batches of conventional gasoline,
especially premium grade, are in compliance with the minimum standard.
Minimum standards for other gasoline characteristics (especially oxygen
content and benzene levels) provide far superior capability for
determining if contamination by non-complying gasoline has taken
place.8 The proposed expansion of the survey program would
further enhance these enforcement efforts, since analysis results for
survey samples found to be out of compliance with RFG requirements are
immediately supplied to EPA's enforcement office.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Analysis in support of this conclusion has been placed in
the docket for this rulemaking. Docket Number A-97-03, Item Number
II-A-6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conclusions and Proposed Regulatory Actions
EPA believes, as a result of the investigations discussed above,
that the averaging minimum standards for NOX
are likely to be costly to the industry as a whole in both phases of
the program, and will make the 1998 complex model implementation
extremely difficult for a portion of existing refineries. With the
additional costs in question, the overall cost of compliance is likely
to exceed the cost upon which the standards were based (the cost of
meeting the average standard) without providing additional
environmental benefits. By increasing the costs of producing RFG, these
standards may contribute to a higher cost differential between RFG and
conventional gasoline and so pose a significant obstacle to smooth
implementation of Phase II of the program
iance is likely
to exceed the cost upon which the standards were based (the cost of
meeting the average standard) without providing additional
environmental benefits. By increasing the costs of producing RFG, these
standards may contribute to a higher cost differential between RFG and
conventional gasoline and so pose a significant obstacle to smooth
implementation of Phase II of the program. Since the per-gallon minimum
standards for NOX do not increase the environmental benefit
and their purposes can be as easily served by the RFG surveys, EPA
proposes the elimination of these per-gallon minimum standards.
Since the RFG surveys provide an alternative tool for accomplishing
both of the purposes of the NOX per-gallon minimums, it is
important that the survey program remain adequate to perform these
tasks. The regulations at Sec. 80.68(b)(1) currently prescribe 50
surveys beginning in 1998, with adjustments provided for opt-in of
additional programs and/or potential survey failures. EPA believes that
20 additional surveys would provide significant additional protection
of the NOX quality of gasoline in those RFG covered areas
with limited sources of supply. Accordingly, EPA proposes that the
number of surveys in the initial schedule (Sec. 80.68(b)(1)) for each
year beginning in 1998 be expanded by 20. EPA invites comments on this
proposed change.
2. Clarification That Model Limits Constitute Standards (Proposed
Sec. 80.41(h)(3) and Sec. 80.78(a)(1)(vi); Revised Sec. 80.101(b)(3))
Both the simple and the complex models include restrictions on the
range of parameter values that may be used with these models. See
Secs. 80.42(c) and 80.45(f) for the simple model limits and the complex
model limits, respectively. These parameter range limits are included
because the simple and complex models have not been shown to accurately
predict emissions when parameter values outside the range limits are
used. For this reason, Secs
strictions on the
range of parameter values that may be used with these models. See
Secs. 80.42(c) and 80.45(f) for the simple model limits and the complex
model limits, respectively. These parameter range limits are included
because the simple and complex models have not been shown to accurately
predict emissions when parameter values outside the range limits are
used. For this reason, Secs. 80.42(c) and 80.45(f) state that the
models may not be used for fuels with parameter values that are outside
the valid range limits. The complex model specifies different valid
range limits for reformulated versus conventional gasoline. Compare
Sec. 80.45(f)(1)(i) (complex model range limits for reformulated
gasoline) with Sec. 80.45(f)(1)(ii) (complex model range limits for
conventional gasoline).
EPA always has considered the valid range limits to constitute
standards that apply to reformulated and conventional gasoline.
Gasoline subject to simple or complex model standards must be evaluated
for compliance with these standards. Where gasoline has property values
outside the valid range limits, it cannot be evaluated and, therefore,
it is unlawful to produce and sell such gasoline.
Today's proposal would clarify that the valid range limits are
standards, by citing the valid range limits along with the other
standards that apply to reformulated and conventional gasoline. In
addition, EPA is proposing to add a provision to the reformulated
gasoline prohibitions under Sec. 80.78(a) that addresses the valid
range limit standards. This prohibition would clarify that the complex
model valid range limits apply not only to reformulated gasoline when
produced or imported, but throughout the distribution system as well.
The complex model valid range limit standards must be applied
downstream of the refinery or importer because complex model standards
apply throughout the distribution system, i.e., the VOC and
NOX minimum per-gallon emissions performance standards
omplex
model valid range limits apply not only to reformulated gasoline when
produced or imported, but throughout the distribution system as well.
The complex model valid range limit standards must be applied
downstream of the refinery or importer because complex model standards
apply throughout the distribution system, i.e., the VOC and
NOX minimum per-gallon emissions performance standards. In
order to evaluate reformulated gasoline for compliance with these
downstream standards, the gasoline must have parameter values that are
within the valid range limits.
EPA is proposing to promulgate the revisions contained in this
rulemaking under the authority of both sections 211 (c) and (k) of the
Act, except for the revisions which would include the valid range
limits as standards under Sec. 80.41 and Sec. 80.101. EPA proposes to
promulgate the revisions concerning the valid range limits under the
authority of section 211(k), but not section 211(c). EPA is proposing
to promulgate the valid range limits as standards solely for the
purpose of ensuring that the models will accurately predict emissions,
and not for the independent purpose of achieving emissions reductions
from the range limits themselves. As a result, EPA believes that it is
not necessary to promulgate the valid range limits as standards under
the authority of section 211(c).
3. Effective Dates for Standard Changes Due to Survey Failures
(Sec. 80.41(p))
Section 80.41(p) states that when a minimum or maximum per-gallon
reformulated gasoline standard is changed to be more stringent as a
result of a survey failure, the effective date for the new standard is
ninety days after EPA announces the new standard. EPA now believes that
additional time is necessary in order to ensure an appropriate
transition to a new standard as a result of the lag time between the
date refiners and importers begin producing gasoline to a new standard,
and the date this gasoline displaces the earlier gasoline through the
distribution system
date for the new standard is
ninety days after EPA announces the new standard. EPA now believes that
additional time is necessary in order to ensure an appropriate
transition to a new standard as a result of the lag time between the
date refiners and importers begin producing gasoline to a new standard,
and the date this gasoline displaces the earlier gasoline through the
distribution system.
For this reason, EPA is proposing a staged introduction to a new
per-gallon standard, that results from a survey failure. The dates the
new standard would be required would be expressed in the number of days
after the date EPA announces the new standard: 60 days for gasoline
produced at a refinery or imported by an importer; 120 days for
facilities downstream of the refinery or importer other than retail
outlets and wholesale purchaser-consumers; and 150 days for retail
outlets and wholesale purchaser-consumers. Under the proposed approach
refiners and importers would have about two months to begin meeting the
new standard, downstream parties such as terminal operators then would
have about two months to transition to the new standard after shipments
of gasoline meeting the new standard begin, and retailers and wholesale
users would have about one month to transition after terminals must
begin shipping gasoline meeting the new standard.
EPA believes the times proposed for these stages are consistent
with current industry practice for transitioning to new standards, such
as the transition to meet the summertime high ozone season standards
each spring. For example, terminals supplying RFG must have gasoline
that meets the VOC-control standard beginning on May 1 each year, and
retailers and wholesale purchaser-consumers in RFG areas must meet the
VOC-control standard beginning about one month later, on June 1
ry practice for transitioning to new standards, such
as the transition to meet the summertime high ozone season standards
each spring. For example, terminals supplying RFG must have gasoline
that meets the VOC-control standard beginning on May 1 each year, and
retailers and wholesale purchaser-consumers in RFG areas must meet the
VOC-control standard beginning about one month later, on June 1.
Refiners must begin producing VOC-controlled RFG early enough
before May 1 that the gasoline distribution system through the terminal
level can transition from non-VOC-controlled gasoline to VOC-controlled
gasoline by May 1. The date when particular refiners begin producing
VOC-controlled RFG each year varies depending on factors such as the
time necessary to transport gasoline from the refinery to the
terminals, and the rate of turnover at the terminal. However, EPA
believes that most long-distance distribution systems are able to
transition within 60 days of the date refiners begin shipping gasoline
meeting the new standard.
EPA is able to enforce the VOC-control standard at refineries based
on the refiners' batch reports to EPA that identify gasoline batches as
either VOC-controlled or non-VOC-controlled; the VOC-control standards
apply only to batches that are identified as VOC-controlled. However,
there is nothing in the refiners' batch reports to EPA that identifies
the per-gallon minimum and maximum standards to which the gasoline is
subject. As a result, EPA must rely on a date certain on which the new
standard applies at the refinery. Moreover, EPA believes this date must
be sufficiently earlier than the date the new standard applies at the
terminals in order to ensure the availability to terminals of gasoline
meeting the new standard for the terminals' transition. EPA also
believes that 60 days is an appropriate length of time for terminal
transitions, based on experience with VOC-control transitions.
B. Complex Model (Sec. 80.45)
EPA believes this date must
be sufficiently earlier than the date the new standard applies at the
terminals in order to ensure the availability to terminals of gasoline
meeting the new standard for the terminals' transition. EPA also
believes that 60 days is an appropriate length of time for terminal
transitions, based on experience with VOC-control transitions.
B. Complex Model (Sec. 80.45)
1. Proper E300 Value for the Edge Target Fuel for Use in Complex Model
Extrapolation (Sec. 80.45(c)(1)(iv)(C)(6))
The Complex Model as described in Sec. 80.45 includes provisions
for extrapolations beyond the limits of the data upon which the model
was based. The limits of the data define the ``allowable range'' which
represents the range of fuel parameters within which the Complex Model
equations are directly applicable, and outside of which extrapolation
must be used up to the limits of the model.9 These
extrapolations take the form of intricate equations and a series of
conditions for use of those equations. Among other things, the
conditions associated with extrapolation direct Complex Model users to
determine properties for an ``edge target fuel.'' The edge target fuel
is equivalent in all respects to the target fuel, except that no fuel
parameters are allowed to exceed the limits of the allowable range. In
effect, the edge target fuel represents the point in the multi-
dimensional fuel parameter space where extrapolation begins.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ The allowable range of the model is, in fact, a combination
of the limits of the data and additional limitations that may be
imposed by the existence of extreme, or curve turnover points.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
nal fuel parameter space where extrapolation begins.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ The allowable range of the model is, in fact, a combination
of the limits of the data and additional limitations that may be
imposed by the existence of extreme, or curve turnover points.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Complex Model equation for exhaust volatile organic compounds
(VOC) contained in Sec. 80.45(c)(1) includes a single interactive term.
This term, the product of E300 and aromatics, necessitates that
extrapolations involving E300 include a simultaneous evaluation of the
aromatics level of the target fuel. Thus in paragraph (c)(1)(iv)(C)(6),
Complex Model users are directed to determine whether the mathematical
phrase (80.32 + (-.390xARO)) is greater or less than 94, and to set the
E300 edge target fuel value accordingly. In so doing, users are
determining whether the aromatics-dependent E300 extrema (i.e. curve
turnover) point falls beyond the limits of the available data in the
Complex Model database.
However, the language in paragraph (c)(1)(iv)(C)(6) is misleading.
As currently written, the user is directed to set the E300 value of the
edge target fuel at 94 vol% whenever the value of the phrase (80.32 +
(0.390xARO)) is greater than 94. The Agency's intention, however, was
that this step be taken only if the E300 term is being extrapolated. In
other words, if the target fuel value for E300 falls below the higher
limit for E300 in the allowable range as defined in Table 6,
Sec. 80.45(c)(1)(iv), then E300 is not being extrapolated, and the E300
value of the edge target fuel should be equal to the E300 value of the
target fuel.
To correct this problem, the language in Sec. 80.45(c)(1)(iv)(C)(6)
and its counterpart applicable to Phase II calculations at Sec. 80.45
value for E300 falls below the higher
limit for E300 in the allowable range as defined in Table 6,
Sec. 80.45(c)(1)(iv), then E300 is not being extrapolated, and the E300
value of the edge target fuel should be equal to the E300 value of the
target fuel.
To correct this problem, the language in Sec. 80.45(c)(1)(iv)(C)(6)
and its counterpart applicable to Phase II calculations at Sec. 80.45
(c)(1)(iv)(D)(6) would be changed such that Complex Model users will
only set the E300 value of the edge target fuel equal to 94 if the
target fuel value for E300 exceeds the higher limit specified in Table
6, Sec. 80.45(c)(1)(iv).
IV. RFG Compliance Requirements
A. Sampling of Reformulated and Conventional Gasoline (Proposed
Sec. 80.47)
Under Sec. 80.65(e)(1) refiners and importers are required to
collect a representative sample from each RFG batch produced or
imported, and to determine the batch properties based upon analysis of
this sample.10 ``Batch of reformulated gasoline'' is
currently defined in Sec. 80.2(gg) as ``a quantity of reformulated
gasoline which is homogeneous with regard to those properties which are
specified for reformulated gasoline certification.'' Similarly
Sec. 80.101(i)(1)(i)(A) requires refiners and importers of conventional
gasoline to collect a representative sample from each batch produced or
imported, and to determine compliance with the anti-dumping standards
based upon the batch samples.11
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
which are
specified for reformulated gasoline certification.'' Similarly
Sec. 80.101(i)(1)(i)(A) requires refiners and importers of conventional
gasoline to collect a representative sample from each batch produced or
imported, and to determine compliance with the anti-dumping standards
based upon the batch samples.11
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ Under Sec. 80.69(b) oxygenate blenders who meet the oxygen
standard on average also are required to sample and test each batch
of RFG produced using RBOB, and the discussion in this preamble
section applies to such oxygenate blenders in the same manner as for
refiners of RFG.
\11\ EPA is proposing several changes relative to the sampling
of conventional gasoline that are discussed below in section VI.B.
of this preamble. EPA is also proposing to revise the ``batch''
definition in Sec. 80.2(gg) to apply to conventional gasoline and
not just to RFG. EPA also is proposing to require refiners and
importers of conventional gasoline to separately test each batch,
which would eliminate the current option of testing a number of
batches together using a composite sample.
In addition, EPA is proposing a definition for ``previously
certified gasoline'' to mean RFG and conventional gasoline for which
the refiner, oxygenate blender or importer has met applicable
requirements and standards and that the refiner, oxygenate blender
or importer has included or intends to include in the refinery or
importer compliance calculations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
tion for ``previously
certified gasoline'' to mean RFG and conventional gasoline for which
the refiner, oxygenate blender or importer has met applicable
requirements and standards and that the refiner, oxygenate blender
or importer has included or intends to include in the refinery or
importer compliance calculations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As a result, refiners and importers are required to collect a
representative sample of each gasoline batch. However, EPA has not
previously promulgated requirements for determining when a quantity of
gasoline is homogeneous so that it qualifies as a batch. Today EPA is
proposing such requirements for determining batch homogeneity. In
addition, EPA is proposing procedures whereby an importer of
reformulated or conventional gasoline would be able to treat as a
single batch the gasoline contained in multiple compartments of a ship.
It is important that refiners and importers determine compliance
with the reformulated and conventional gasoline standards using samples
collected from quantities of gasoline that are homogeneous in terms of
the properties relative to these standards. If a quantity of gasoline
is not homogeneous, a sample of that gasoline often will not reflect
the overall average qualities of the gasoline. For example, when a
refiner produces gasoline by combining blendstocks having different
volatilities, unless the tank is thoroughly mixed the gasoline often
will be horizontally stratified, with the higher volatile blendstocks
at the top of the tank and the lower volatile blendstocks at the bottom
of the tank. If a sample is collected of the gasoline at any one spot
in such a stratified tank the sample only will reflect the properties
of the gasoline at that strata
ng different
volatilities, unless the tank is thoroughly mixed the gasoline often
will be horizontally stratified, with the higher volatile blendstocks
at the top of the tank and the lower volatile blendstocks at the bottom
of the tank. If a sample is collected of the gasoline at any one spot
in such a stratified tank the sample only will reflect the properties
of the gasoline at that strata. Storage tank sampling techniques such
as ``all level samples'' or ``running samples'' tend to compensate for
stratified product, but these techniques do not assure a truly
representative sample.12
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ A ``running sample'' of the product contained in a storage
tank is collected by lowering a sample container from the top of the
product to the bottom and then raising the container to the top, at
such a speed that the container is less than full when removed from
the tank. See, 40 CFR part 80, appendix D, para. 11.2.2.2. An ``all
levels sample'' is collected by lowering a stoppered container to
the bottom of the product in a storage tank, removing the stopper
with a cord or chain, and raising the container to the top at such a
speed that the container is less than full when removed from the
tank. See, 40 CFR part 80, Appendix D, para. 11.2.2.1. In theory,
both of these sampling methods obtain product from all strata in the
storage tank somewhat in proportion to the size of the strata.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
or chain, and raising the container to the top at such a
speed that the container is less than full when removed from the
tank. See, 40 CFR part 80, Appendix D, para. 11.2.2.1. In theory,
both of these sampling methods obtain product from all strata in the
storage tank somewhat in proportion to the size of the strata.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case of RFG, moreover, certain standards must be met on a
per-gallon basis. If any portion of the RFG in a storage tank violates
an applicable per-gallon standard, this gasoline portion is out of
compliance even if the gasoline in the tank would be in compliance if
fully mixed. For example, consider a refinery storage tank containing
RFG designated as simple model, VOC controlled for Region 2. If the
gasoline is stratified by RVP, and the RVP of the upper strata is
greater than the applicable per-gallon maximum standard of 8.3 pounds
per square inch (psi),the gasoline in this upper strata would violate
the applicable per-gallon standard even if the average RVP of the
gasoline in the tank is less than 8.3 psi.13 A single sample
from such a stratified tank may not reflect the violation. Even an
``all levels'' or ``running'' sample of the gasoline in a stratified
storage tank could yield a test result within the standard because to a
certain extent such a sample ``averages'' across the strata, which
would have the effect of masking the violation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ Per-gallon standards must be met by all portions of the
gasoline contained in a storage tank in part because the different
gasoline portions may be distributed without further mixing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
which
would have the effect of masking the violation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ Per-gallon standards must be met by all portions of the
gasoline contained in a storage tank in part because the different
gasoline portions may be distributed without further mixing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As a result, EPA is proposing that refiners and importers would be
required to establish that each quantity of reformulated or
conventional gasoline that will be treated as a batch is homogeneous
before the batch sample is prepared or analyzed.
EPA is proposing two options by which the homogeneity of the
gasoline in a storage tank could be established. Under the first
option, a refiner would collect three separate samples from the storage
tank--upper, middle, and lower spot or tap samples. These samples would
be analyzed for each parameter relevant to applicable standards, and
the gasoline in the storage tank would be considered homogeneous if the
test results agree within the ranges specified in Sec. 80.65(e)(2)(i).
Under the second option for establishing storage tank homogeneity,
the party would demonstrate that it followed tank mixing procedures
that can be shown to result in homogeneity. For example, a refiner
could meet the homogeneity requirement through records that show the
tank mixing procedures used for a batch (tank size and type, volume of
gasoline, the type of tank mixers, the mode of mixer operation if
appropriate, and the duration of mixer operation), together with
historic sampling and testing records demonstrate these procedures
result in complete mixing.
Under this second storage tank option, success of the mixing
procedure must still be confirmed for each batch. However, instead of
requiring analysis for each parameter relevant to applicable standards,
only API gravity analysis of upper, middle, and lower spot or tap
samples would be required
with
historic sampling and testing records demonstrate these procedures
result in complete mixing.
Under this second storage tank option, success of the mixing
procedure must still be confirmed for each batch. However, instead of
requiring analysis for each parameter relevant to applicable standards,
only API gravity analysis of upper, middle, and lower spot or tap
samples would be required. The gasoline would be considered homogeneous
under this option if the demonstrated mixing procedure was performed,
and the API gravity values for the upper, middle, and lower samples do
not differ by more than 0.3 deg. API. Where the configuration of a
storage tank does not permit the collection of upper, middle, and lower
spot or tap samples, the API gravity analysis to confirm the success of
the mixing procedure would be waived.
EPA also is proposing procedures whereby an importer would be able
to demonstrate the gasoline in multiple compartments of a marine vessel
is homogeneous. The importer would collect a ``running'' sample from
each compartment and analyze the samples for each parameter relevant to
applicable standards. The vessel's gasoline would be homogeneous and
could be treated as a batch if the results agree within the ranges
specified in Sec. 80.65(e)(2)(i).
EPA is proposing that for purposes of establishing homogeneity a
party could use test methods other than the methods specified in
Sec. 80.46. The methods in Sec. 80.46 would still be used to establish
the batch properties for ``certifying'' a batch.
EPA also is proposing that in the case of RFG, the gasoline
contained in a storage tank or marine vessel would not be considered
homogeneous if any sample collected to establish homogeneity has a test
result that exceeds an applicable per-gallon standard
ethods specified in
Sec. 80.46. The methods in Sec. 80.46 would still be used to establish
the batch properties for ``certifying'' a batch.
EPA also is proposing that in the case of RFG, the gasoline
contained in a storage tank or marine vessel would not be considered
homogeneous if any sample collected to establish homogeneity has a test
result that exceeds an applicable per-gallon standard. Thus, in the
case of standards a refiner or importer is meeting on a per-gallon
basis no test result could violate the per-gallon standard, and in the
case of standards being met on average no test result could violate an
applicable per-gallon minimum or maximum standard.
EPA is proposing additional options by which an importer could
treat the gasoline imported by marine vessel as a single batch without
determining the homogeneity of the gasoline. RFG contained in multiple
compartments of a marine vessel could be certified as a single batch
using a volume weighted composite of samples collected from the
compartments if the entire contents of these compartments is
transferred into a single shore tank. EPA is proposing this option
because it is likely the gasoline from multiple vessel compartments is
completely mixed, i.e., becomes homogeneous, through the process of
being transferred into a shore tank.
Under today's proposal importers also would be allowed to use
composite samples to certify as a single batch the RFG imported by
marine vessel where the gasoline is off-loaded into multiple shore
storage tanks. Under this option, however, the importer would be
required to demonstrate that the RFG off-loaded into each shore tank
separately meets all applicable per-gallon standards, without regard to
any gasoline contained in the storage tank prior off-loading the
imported gasoline (or, ``heel'')
tch the RFG imported by
marine vessel where the gasoline is off-loaded into multiple shore
storage tanks. Under this option, however, the importer would be
required to demonstrate that the RFG off-loaded into each shore tank
separately meets all applicable per-gallon standards, without regard to
any gasoline contained in the storage tank prior off-loading the
imported gasoline (or, ``heel''). Thus, the importer would be required
to sample and test the tank heel prior to off-loading the imported
gasoline and the tank contents after the imported gasoline has been
added, and to mathematically calculate the properties of the imported
gasoline added to the tank.
EPA is proposing that imported conventional gasoline contained in
multiple compartments of a marine vessel could be tested using a volume
weighted composite of samples collected from the compartments with one
limitation. There are no per-gallon standards associated with
conventional gasoline (other than the complex model limit standards, as
is discussed in section III.A.1. of this Preamble), and, as a result,
there are no proposed requirements to separately test vessel
compartment or shore tanks. However, EPA is proposing that each
separate grade of conventional gasoline on a marine vessel (e.g.,
regular, premium) must be treated as a separate batch. EPA believes
that, in general, there is greater variability in the properties of
gasolines of different grades, than of gasolines of the same grade. The
proposed grade limitation on marine vessel compositing for conventional
gasoline would constitute some limit on the range of gasoline
properties that could be included in a single composite sample, which
EPA believes would improve the quality of composite samples. EPA
requests comment on this proposed limitation on the use of composite
samples of imported conventional gasoline.
C. General Requirements (Sec. 80.65)
on on marine vessel compositing for conventional
gasoline would constitute some limit on the range of gasoline
properties that could be included in a single composite sample, which
EPA believes would improve the quality of composite samples. EPA
requests comment on this proposed limitation on the use of composite
samples of imported conventional gasoline.
C. General Requirements (Sec. 80.65)
1. Assignment of Batch Numbers (Sec. 80.65(d)(3))
Section 80.65(d)(3) requires refiners and importers to assign batch
numbers to batches of RFG, RBOB, conventional gasoline, and certain
blendstock that is included in the refiner's compliance
calculations. The batch numbers are used to identify batches in batch
reports submitted to EPA under Secs. 80.75(a) and 80.105(a).
EPA is proposing to revise Sec. 80.65(d)(3) to require oxygenate
blenders who meet the oxygen standard on average to assign batch
numbers to RFG batches. This would conform Sec. 80.65(d)(3) with the
current reporting requirement at Sec. 80.74(a), that oxygenate blenders
who meet the oxygen standard on average must submit batch reports to
EPA.
2. Clarifications of Requirement to Test RFG and RBOB
(Sec. 80.65(e)(1))
Section 80.65(e)(1) requires refiners and importers to determine
the properties of each batch of RFG that is produced or imported.
Gasoline that complies with the standards in Sec. 80.41 is deemed
certified (Sec. 80.40(a)), hence this process is commonly considered as
``certifying'' each batch. This determination is required for each
parameter relevant to the RFG standards. EPA is proposing two
clarifications of Sec. 80.65(e).
EPA is proposing to add language to Sec. 80.65(e) to clarify that
this section applies to RBOB as well as to RFG, and to add a cross
reference to the requirement in Sec
d (Sec. 80.40(a)), hence this process is commonly considered as
``certifying'' each batch. This determination is required for each
parameter relevant to the RFG standards. EPA is proposing two
clarifications of Sec. 80.65(e).
EPA is proposing to add language to Sec. 80.65(e) to clarify that
this section applies to RBOB as well as to RFG, and to add a cross
reference to the requirement in Sec. 80.69(a)(2) that the certified
properties of RBOB are the properties of the RBOB subsequent to
downstream blending with oxygenate, based on test results of a sample
of the RBOB hand blended in the laboratory with the appropriate
oxygenate type and amount. EPA believes the certification of RBOB
already is implicit in Sec. 80.65(e), and that refiners and importers
have been certifying and reporting the properties of RBOB based on the
analysis results of a hand blend, so that the proposed changes would
not change current practices.
EPA also is proposing to clarify that certification testing for RVP
is necessary only for RFG and RBOB that is designated as VOC
controlled, because RVP test results are relevant only to VOC
controlled gasoline. Under the simple model the RVP standard applies
only to VOC controlled product. RVP test results are an input to the
complex model only for VOC controlled gasoline; in the case of non-VOC
controlled gasoline the complex model uses an RVP value of 8.7 psi
regardless of the actual RVP value of the gasoline. This change to
Sec. 80.65(e) also would change the reporting requirement for RVP, to
apply only to VOC controlled RFG and RBOB, because the parameter
reporting requirement in Sec. 80.75(a)(2)(v)(B) cross references the
requirements in Sec. 80.65.
3. Weight Percent Range for Total Oxygen Content (Sec. 80.65(e)(2)(i))
Section 80.65(e)(2)(i) provides a table with ranges for fuel
properties to be used in comparing the refiner's or importer's test
results to the test results obtained from the independent laboratory.
The table at Sec
parameter
reporting requirement in Sec. 80.75(a)(2)(v)(B) cross references the
requirements in Sec. 80.65.
3. Weight Percent Range for Total Oxygen Content (Sec. 80.65(e)(2)(i))
Section 80.65(e)(2)(i) provides a table with ranges for fuel
properties to be used in comparing the refiner's or importer's test
results to the test results obtained from the independent laboratory.
The table at Sec. 80.65(e), however, currently does not include a range
for total oxygen content. The RFG regulations prescribe a standard for
weight percent oxygen, and refiners and importers of RFG are required
to determine and report the total weight percent of oxygen in each
batch of RFG for compliance purposes. It is appropriate, therefore, to
include a range for total oxygen content in the table at Sec. 80.65(e)
for purposes of comparing the refiner's or importer's test results with
the test results obtained from the independent laboratory. A range for
total weight percent oxygen content was unintentionally omitted in the
final rule. As a result, today's rule proposes to add to the table at
Sec. 80.65(e)(2)(i) a 0.10 wt% range for total oxygen content. This
range would be in addition to, and not instead of, the volume ranges
for oxygenates listed in Sec. 80.65(e)(2)(i).
The 0.10 wt % range for total oxygen was derived by multiplying the
values of the oxygenates in the table in Sec. 80.65(e)(2)(i) by the
weight % of the oxygen in the oxygenates and averaging them. EPA
acknowledges that this approach assumes that the density of these
oxygenates is similar to gasoline, but believes that any difference in
density would result in an insignificant increase in the 0.10 wt %
value. EPA continues to believe that this is an appropriate method of
determining an appropriate range for total oxygen content between the
refiner's laboratory and the independent laboratory.
4. Independent Laboratory Requirements (Sec. 80.65(f); Proposed
Secs
nates is similar to gasoline, but believes that any difference in
density would result in an insignificant increase in the 0.10 wt %
value. EPA continues to believe that this is an appropriate method of
determining an appropriate range for total oxygen content between the
refiner's laboratory and the independent laboratory.
4. Independent Laboratory Requirements (Sec. 80.65(f); Proposed
Secs. 80.72, 80.74(h), and 80.75(n))
Sections 80.65(e) and (f) contain the independent laboratory
requirements for RFG. Under Sec. 80.65(e)(1) each batch of RFG must be
analyzed, either by the refiner or importer, or by an independent lab.
Section 80.65(f) requires each refiner and importer of RFG to designate
an independent lab that must collect a sample from each batch of RFG.
The refiner/importer then has the option of having the independent lab
meet the analysis requirement for all RFG batches (the 100% analysis
option), or of having the independent lab analyze up to 10% of the
samples collected to be identified by EPA (the 10% analysis option).
The 100% analysis option is most often chosen by importers who do not
operate their own company laboratory.
EPA is proposing two categories of changes to the independent
laboratory requirements. The first category of changes would include in
the regulations the guidance EPA previously has issued regarding the
identification of samples for analysis by independent labs, and the
identification of samples the independent lab would send to EPA. The
second category would slightly narrow the criteria by which a
laboratory is considered independent. In addition, EPA is seeking
comment on whether companies that serve as independent laboratories
under the RFG program should be made directly responsible for properly
completing the functions of sample collection, analysis, record keeping
and reporting
he independent lab would send to EPA. The
second category would slightly narrow the criteria by which a
laboratory is considered independent. In addition, EPA is seeking
comment on whether companies that serve as independent laboratories
under the RFG program should be made directly responsible for properly
completing the functions of sample collection, analysis, record keeping
and reporting.
The first category of changes being proposed relate to the
identification of samples to be analyzed under the 10% analysis option,
and the identification of samples to be supplied to EPA under both the
10% and the 100% analysis options.
Sections 80.65(f)(1)(ii) (B) and (C) state that under the 10%
independent analysis option, EPA will identify which samples the
independent lab must analyze. However, the regulations do not specify
the mechanism by which EPA identifies these specific samples. EPA
subsequently provided this sample-identification guidance in
Reformulated Gasoline and Anti-Dumping Questions and Answers (October
3, 1994), titled ``Reformulated gasoline program protocol for use by
independent labs in selecting samples for analysis under the 10%
independent analysis option, and for identifying samples to ship to
EPA.'' This protocol has been in use since it was issued, and EPA has
received no adverse comments from regulated parties regarding this
protocol. Therefore, EPA proposes to incorporate this protocol in the
RFG regulations. See proposed Sec. 80.72.
EPA believes the protocol is an appropriate mechanism for
identifying samples for analysis by independent labs. The protocol
provides an automated system to randomly identify for analysis 10% of
the samples collected by an independent lab in a way that gives
regulated parties no influence over the sample choice.
In addition to identifying the independent laboratory samples to be
analyzed, the proposed protocol also identifies which samples must be
supplied to EPA, including the minimum sample quantity to supply
ol
provides an automated system to randomly identify for analysis 10% of
the samples collected by an independent lab in a way that gives
regulated parties no influence over the sample choice.
In addition to identifying the independent laboratory samples to be
analyzed, the proposed protocol also identifies which samples must be
supplied to EPA, including the minimum sample quantity to supply. The
requirement to forward samples to EPA applies to both the 10% and the
100% analysis options, and, therefore, the proposed sample-shipment
protocol applies to both options. Further, the regulations would
instruct independent labs to send to EPA any sample that, when tested
by the independent lab, is found to violate a per-gallon standard that
applies to the refiner or importer.
The proposal also would specify the quantity of gasoline that
independent labs would be required to supply to EPA. The batch sampling
methodologies of appendix D, in section 12.2, call for sample
containers of one quart as a minimum. Assuming that a single sample is
collected in a one quart container and that the container is filled
only to the minimum 70% level (appendix D requires samples to be 70-85%
full), this would provide a total of approximately 660mL of gasoline.
EPA believes one-half of this quantity, or 330mL, is sufficient for a
laboratory to complete all the testing requirements of the RFG
regulations. Therefore, where an independent lab analyzes an RFG sample
that also must be supplied to EPA, at least half the original sample
volume, or 330mL, would be available for shipment to EPA. Under the
proposed regulation regarding sample quantity, where the independent
lab has not analyzed a sample the lab would be required to supply EPA
with a one quart sample 70-85% full. In the case of a sample that has
been analyzed by the independent laboratory the lab would be required
to supply EPA with a minimum sample volume of 330mL
ume, or 330mL, would be available for shipment to EPA. Under the
proposed regulation regarding sample quantity, where the independent
lab has not analyzed a sample the lab would be required to supply EPA
with a one quart sample 70-85% full. In the case of a sample that has
been analyzed by the independent laboratory the lab would be required
to supply EPA with a minimum sample volume of 330mL.
The proposed regulations state that samples supplied to EPA should
be sent to an address to be specified by EPA. This address would be the
following: United States Environmental Protection Agency, National
Vehicle and Fuel Emissions Laboratory (NVFEL), Fuels and Chemical
Analysis Branch 2565 Plymouth Road, Ann Arbor, MI 48105, (313) 668-
4200.
EPA is not proposing to include this address in the regulations in
order to facilitate an address change if it becomes necessary. If there
is an address change for samples shipped to EPA, regulated parties
would be notified through individual letters, a Federal Register
notice, or some other appropriate means.
The second change being proposed would revise one criteria used to
determine if a laboratory is ``independent.'' Section
80.65(f)(2)(iii)(A), and proposed Sec. 80.72(b)(2)(I), specify that in
order to be considered independent a laboratory may ``not be operated
by any refiner or importer * * *.'' EPA now believes this independence
requirement is too stringent, and should apply only in the case of
refiners and importers of RFG.
Laboratories used to satisfy the independent sampling and testing
requirements are required to be independent in order to increase the
credibility of the laboratories' test results, as discussed at 59 FR
7765 (February 16, 1994)
any refiner or importer * * *.'' EPA now believes this independence
requirement is too stringent, and should apply only in the case of
refiners and importers of RFG.
Laboratories used to satisfy the independent sampling and testing
requirements are required to be independent in order to increase the
credibility of the laboratories' test results, as discussed at 59 FR
7765 (February 16, 1994). The independent sampling and testing
requirement applies only to refiners and importers of RFG, however, and
as a result EPA believes refiners and importers who operate a
commercial laboratory, but who produce or import no RFG, should be
allowed to serve as independent laboratories under the RFG program. EPA
is proposing that this definition of ``independence'' would not apply
if any RFG is produced or imported within a common corporate structure.
Thus, if a parent corporation has a subsidiary corporation that is a
refiner or importer of RFG, no other subsidiary of that parent
corporation could be considered independent.
Finally, EPA is seeking comment on whether companies that serve as
independent laboratories should be made regulated parties under the RFG
program.
Section 80.65(f)(3) describes the sample collection and reporting
procedures, and requires that each refiner or importer shall ``cause
its designated independent laboratory'' to carry out these procedures.
Under these procedures the independent lab collects a representative
sample from the RFG batch, determines the batch volume and other
information about the batch, reports test results to EPA, and supplies
samples to EPA upon request. A refiner or importer whose independent
lab fails to properly carry out these procedures would have failed to
meet the independent lab requirements, which would constitute a
violation of the RFG requirements by the refiner or importer
le from the RFG batch, determines the batch volume and other
information about the batch, reports test results to EPA, and supplies
samples to EPA upon request. A refiner or importer whose independent
lab fails to properly carry out these procedures would have failed to
meet the independent lab requirements, which would constitute a
violation of the RFG requirements by the refiner or importer.
EPA requests comments on whether the regulations should be revised
to provide that a laboratory that undertakes to act as an independent
lab under the RFG program becomes responsible to properly carry out the
independent lab requirements, in order to allow better monitoring and
enforcement of the independent lab requirements. For example, currently
there is no requirement for independent labs to retain records, which
creates potential difficulties when EPA attempts to audit and inspect
independent labs.
Under this approach, where an independent lab failed to properly
carry out an independent lab procedure, the independent lab would be
liable for a violation of the RFG regulations. In addition, the refiner
or importer for whom the lab is performing the independent lab function
would have failed to meet the independent lab requirement which would
constitute a violation of the RFG regulations. Under this approach, the
independent lab would also be required to retain records and submit
reports to EPA.
The authority to regulate laboratories that serve as an independent
labs under the RFG program is based on Clean Air Act sections 114(a),
208(a), 211(c), and 211(k). Analysis of RFG by independent laboratories
is critical to enforcement of the RFG standards, for reasons that are
discussed at 59 FR 7765 (February 16, 1994). In order for independent
laboratory sampling and testing to serve a useful purpose, however, the
independent lab must properly perform the procedures
the RFG program is based on Clean Air Act sections 114(a),
208(a), 211(c), and 211(k). Analysis of RFG by independent laboratories
is critical to enforcement of the RFG standards, for reasons that are
discussed at 59 FR 7765 (February 16, 1994). In order for independent
laboratory sampling and testing to serve a useful purpose, however, the
independent lab must properly perform the procedures. EPA believes
independent labs would be more likely to take the steps necessary to
ensure the required procedures are properly performed if there were
regulatory consequences that applied directly to the independent
laboratory, and not just indirectly through sanctions against the
refiner or importer.
The current regulations state that a lab that is debarred,
suspended, or proposed for debarment pursuant to the Governmentwide
Debarment and Suspension regulations cannot serve as an independent lab
under the RFG program. An independent lab that fails to properly carry
out the required procedures could be the subject of a suspension or
debarment action by EPA. EPA requests comment on whether the suspension
or debarment sanction is adequate to ensure that independent labs
properly perform required procedures, in the absence of regulatory
liability.
In addition, EPA requests comment on whether regulations should be
proposed that would require labs to be accredited in order to carry out
the RFG independent lab requirements. EPA has not previously proposed a
lab accreditation requirement because of the likelihood that refiners
and importers would use only labs the refiners and importers are
convinced are fully capable of properly performing the independent lab
requirements. However, EPA has received comments that an accreditation
requirement could result in greater certainty that labs have the
equipment, training, and internal procedures necessary to properly
carry out the independent lab requirements, that could assist refiners
and importers in selecting independent labs
s are
convinced are fully capable of properly performing the independent lab
requirements. However, EPA has received comments that an accreditation
requirement could result in greater certainty that labs have the
equipment, training, and internal procedures necessary to properly
carry out the independent lab requirements, that could assist refiners
and importers in selecting independent labs.
Therefore, EPA requests comments on whether lab accreditation would
be appropriate for the RFG program;
whether accreditation should be performed by EPA or by an independent
body, and which independent body or bodies should be considered; the
accreditation criteria that would be appropriate; the estimated costs
of an accreditation program; and any other considerations EPA should
include as part of a lab accreditation proposal.
5. Compliance Audits (Sec. 80.65(h) and Sec. 80.105(c))
EPA proposes to modify Secs. 80.65(h) and 80.105(c) to make clear
that the attest requirement applies separately to each refinery
operated by a refiner, or the gasoline imported by an importer. The
amended rules clarify EPA's intent that refiners and importers of RFG,
RBOB, and conventional gasoline, and oxygenate blenders who blend RBOB
and meet the oxygen standard on average, must perform a separate attest
engagement for each facility at which such gasoline or product is
produced. In the process of issuing the Final Rule, EPA considered and
rejected the suggestion that parties be able to aggregate multiple
facilities within one attest engagement. Such an aggregation would
adversely skew the effect of the random sampling protocol described in
Sec. 80.127 by increasing the population of batches subject to random
sampling, and by potentially spreading the samples drawn over several
facilities. The effect, therefore, would be to produce less than the
95% confidence level for each facility that the attest engagement is
designed to accomplish.
6. Calculations Involving Previously Certified Gasoline (Sec. 80.65(i);
Sec
col described in
Sec. 80.127 by increasing the population of batches subject to random
sampling, and by potentially spreading the samples drawn over several
facilities. The effect, therefore, would be to produce less than the
95% confidence level for each facility that the attest engagement is
designed to accomplish.
6. Calculations Involving Previously Certified Gasoline (Sec. 80.65(i);
Sec. 80.78(a); Sec. 80.101(e))
Under Secs. 80.65(i) and 80.101(e)(1) refiners are required to
exclude from a refinery's compliance calculations gasoline that was not
produced at that refinery and gasoline that was produced at that
refinery but was included as part of another batch, sometimes called
``previously certified gasoline,'' or ``PCG.'' These requirements are
included in order to prevent double counting of PCG. Section
80.101(g)(3) provides the procedure by which refiners are required to
calculate the properties of blendstock that are combined with PCG to
produce conventional gasoline. However, the procedure in
Sec. 80.101(g)(3) is appropriate only for the simple model anti-dumping
standards, and there is no procedure specified for excluding PCG from
RFG compliance calculations. As a result, EPA is proposing procedures
for excluding PCG from the complex model compliance calculations for
both RFG and conventional gasoline. In addition, the procedures EPA is
proposing would allow refiners to use conventional gasoline to produce
RFG or RBOB, and to reclassify RFG with regard to VOC control and OPRG.
The procedures EPA is proposing would require refiners to determine
the volume and properties of each batch of PCG used in the refinery
operation, along with the designations of the gasoline: RFG, RBOB or
conventional gasoline; and for RFG, the designations relative to VOC
control and OPRG. The volume and properties of each PCG batch would be
reported to EPA as a negative batch using the same designations as when
received by the refiner
refiners to determine
the volume and properties of each batch of PCG used in the refinery
operation, along with the designations of the gasoline: RFG, RBOB or
conventional gasoline; and for RFG, the designations relative to VOC
control and OPRG. The volume and properties of each PCG batch would be
reported to EPA as a negative batch using the same designations as when
received by the refiner. The PCG then would be used by the refiner as
another blendstock in the refinery operation, and any gasoline produced
using the PCG would be sampled and tested and included in compliance
calculations without regard to the PCG content. Gasoline produced using
the PCG could have the same designations as the original PCG batch, or
different designations. Thus, the proposed procedures would allow a
refiner to reclassify conventional gasoline as RFG, or to reclassify
RFG with regard to VOC control and OPRG.
Under the current regulations refiners are prohibited from
reclassifying gasoline in certain ways. For example, Sec. 80.78(a)(10)
prohibits any person from reclassifying conventional gasoline as RFG.
However, EPA understands that prohibitions against reclassifying
gasoline, such as Sec. 80.78(a)(1), constrain the operational
flexibility for regulated parties, and that such prohibitions should be
imposed only where necessary. EPA believes the PCG proposal allows
greater flexibility without compromising the environmental goals or
effective enforcement of the RFG program, and the PCG proposal is
appropriate for this reason.
In the case of standards that are met on average a refiner who uses
PCG would meet each average standard based upon the net average
properties of gasoline in the relevant averaging pool, 14
consisting of the positive volume and properties of all gasoline
produced in that averaging pool and the negative volume and properties
of all PCG in that averaging pool
l is
appropriate for this reason.
In the case of standards that are met on average a refiner who uses
PCG would meet each average standard based upon the net average
properties of gasoline in the relevant averaging pool, 14
consisting of the positive volume and properties of all gasoline
produced in that averaging pool and the negative volume and properties
of all PCG in that averaging pool. In addition, each averaging pool
would be required to have a net ``positive'' gasoline volume--each
averaging pool's volume of gasoline produced would have to be greater
than the volume of PCG.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ Compliance with each average standard is based on the
average property or emissions performance of the subset of the
gasoline produced at a refinery that is relevant to that standard,
sometimes called an ``averaging pool.'' For example, the averaging
pool for anti-dumping standards is all conventional gasoline
produced during an averaging period. In addition, certain RFG
standards must be separately met by more than one averaging pool.
For example, under Sec. 80.67(g) the RFG NOx emissions performance
standard must be met by the averaging pool of all RFG and RBOB that
is VOC controlled, and separately by the averaging pool of all RFG
and RBOB that is not VOC controlled.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
n, certain RFG
standards must be separately met by more than one averaging pool.
For example, under Sec. 80.67(g) the RFG NOx emissions performance
standard must be met by the averaging pool of all RFG and RBOB that
is VOC controlled, and separately by the averaging pool of all RFG
and RBOB that is not VOC controlled.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consider, for example, Refiner A who has elected to meet the VOC
emissions performance standard on average at Refinery X. In this
example a batch of PCG, designated as RFG, VOC controlled for Region 1,
is used to produce RFG at Refinery X. This PCG would be included as a
negative batch in Refinery X's VOC emissions performance compliance
calculations for the ``VOC controlled for Region 1'' averaging pool,
regardless of whether the PCG was used to produce RFG with this or with
another designation. 15 Refiner A nevertheless would be
required to meet the VOC standard for the ``VOC controlled for Region
1'' averaging pool, and the net volume of gasoline in this averaging
pool would have to be greater than zero.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ EPA is proposing that a ``negative'' batch would be
included in the ``Actual Total'' calculation in Sec. 80.67(g)(1)(ii)
by multiplying the ``Vi'' term (the batch volume) times
minus 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
averaging
pool would have to be greater than zero.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ EPA is proposing that a ``negative'' batch would be
included in the ``Actual Total'' calculation in Sec. 80.67(g)(1)(ii)
by multiplying the ``Vi'' term (the batch volume) times
minus 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In a case where a refiner has elected to meet a parameter or
emissions performance standard on a per-gallon basis, and a batch of
RFG or RBOB is produced using previously certified RFG, the value of
the per-gallon standard the refiner would be required to meet for this
batch would be the more stringent of: (1) The per-gallon standard that
applies to the refinery under Sec. 80.41; or (2) the value for that
parameter or emissions performance for the previously certified RFG
used to produce the batch. If previously certified conventional
gasoline is used, however, use of this PCG would not affect the per-
gallon RFG standards.
Consider again the example of Refiner A, and in this example
Refiner A has elected to meet the benzene standard on a per-gallon
basis at Refinery X. Under Sec. 80.41(c), and in the absence of
applicable survey ratchets, the benzene per-gallon standard is 1.00
volume percent (vol%). Also, in this example the batch of previously
certified RFG has a benzene content of 0.85 vol%. In consequence, any
RFG produced at Refinery X using any amount of this PCG would be
subject to a benzene per gallon standard of the more stringent 0.85
vol%.
Any previously certified conventional gasoline used to produce RFG
or conventional gasoline would be included in the compliance
calculations
so, in this example the batch of previously
certified RFG has a benzene content of 0.85 vol%. In consequence, any
RFG produced at Refinery X using any amount of this PCG would be
subject to a benzene per gallon standard of the more stringent 0.85
vol%.
Any previously certified conventional gasoline used to produce RFG
or conventional gasoline would be included in the compliance
calculations
for the gasoline produced. In addition, the previously certified
conventional gasoline would be included, as a negative batch, in the
refinery's anti-dumping compliance calculations.
Finally, any previously certified RFG or conventional gasoline
would be included as a negative volume for purposes of calculating a
refinery's compliance baseline under Sec. 80.101(f).
The proposed approach is summarized in the following table.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gasoline produced standards
Previously certified gasoline (PCG) Gasoline produced type -------------------------------------------------
type Per-gallon Average
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RFG or RBOB.......................... RFG.................... More stringent of: Include PCG in
Sec. 80.41 compliance
per gallon standards; calculations as
or negative batch.
PCG All RFG pool
properties volumes for average
standards must be
positive.
Conventional Gasoline (CG)........... RFG or RBOB............ Sec. 80.42 per gallon Include PCG in
standards. CG compliance
calculations as
negative batch.
CG pool volume
must be positive.
CG \1\............................... CG..................... None................... (Same as above).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Includes RFG used to produce CG, because previously certified RFG may be ``downgraded'' to previously
certified CG.
ns as
negative batch.
CG pool volume
must be positive.
CG \1\............................... CG..................... None................... (Same as above).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Includes RFG used to produce CG, because previously certified RFG may be ``downgraded'' to previously
certified CG.
EPA believes the approach proposed for addressing PCG is
appropriate because it would provide regulated parties with
significantly additional flexibility, with no apparent risk of adverse
environmental consequences. The additional flexibility would result
from the ability for regulated parties to more easily use previously
certified gasoline in refinery operations.
At the time the RFG regulations were promulgated EPA was concerned
that the overall quality of the various gasoline pools could be
degraded if refiners were able to reclassify conventional gasoline into
RFG, or to reclassify certain categories of RFG into other categories.
For example, if a refiner could reclassify conventional into RFG, it
would be possible for a refiner to produce very ``clean'' conventional
gasoline and include this gasoline in its anti-dumping compliance
calculations, and then reclassify this same gasoline into RFG with very
little or no additional blending. This would enable the refiner to meet
the anti-dumping standards using gasoline that, in reality, will be
used as RFG. One effect of this type of ``gaming'' would be to degrade
the quality of the conventional gasoline pool, with consequent adverse
environmental effects.
As a result of these concerns, EPA included provisions in
Sec. 80.78 that prohibit parties from combining certain categories of
gasoline. For example, Sec. 80.78(a)(10) prohibits parties from
combining RFG with conventional gasoline to produce RFG, in part in
order to address the ``gaming'' concern described above
the conventional gasoline pool, with consequent adverse
environmental effects.
As a result of these concerns, EPA included provisions in
Sec. 80.78 that prohibit parties from combining certain categories of
gasoline. For example, Sec. 80.78(a)(10) prohibits parties from
combining RFG with conventional gasoline to produce RFG, in part in
order to address the ``gaming'' concern described above.
However, the proposed PCG accounting procedure would allow refiners
to reclassify conventional gasoline into RFG in a manner that avoids
the potential for adverse environmental effects from ``gaming.'' This
is true because reclassifications using PCG may occur only at a
refinery, and the PCG must be included, as a negative batch, in the
refinery's compliance calculations for the gasoline pool that
corresponds to the PCG's designations when first produced. Consider
again the example of ``gaming'' involving very ``clean'' conventional
gasoline, described above. Under the PCG proposal any of the very
``clean'' conventional gasoline used as PCG would have to be included
in the refinery's anti-dumping compliance calculations as a negative
batch, this pool would have to meet the anti-dumping standards, and the
pool volume would have to be positive. This would require the refiner,
in effect, to produce other conventional gasoline that is equal in
quantity and quality to very ``clean'' conventional gasoline used as
PCG, that would offset the loss of this gasoline to the conventional
gasoline pool. Thus, under the proposal there would be no net change in
the quality of the conventional gasoline pool.
This same logic would allow refiners to reclassify RFG with regard
to VOC control and OPRG.
In the case of RFG standards that are met on a per-gallon basis, a
different approach would be used to ensure no degradation in the
quality of the overall RFG pool as a result of the PCG proposal, since
averaging calculations are performed only where standards are met on
average
tional gasoline pool.
This same logic would allow refiners to reclassify RFG with regard
to VOC control and OPRG.
In the case of RFG standards that are met on a per-gallon basis, a
different approach would be used to ensure no degradation in the
quality of the overall RFG pool as a result of the PCG proposal, since
averaging calculations are performed only where standards are met on
average. The approach proposed, as discussed above, would prohibit the
receiving refiner from degrading the quality of any previously
certified RFG batch with regard to any standard the receiving refiner
meets on a per-gallon basis, by setting the per-gallon standard at the
parameter value of the PCG if it is more stringent than the normal per-
gallon standard.
As a result, EPA is proposing to specifically allow refiners to
change the classifications of RFG and conventional gasoline under the
PCG procedures. In addition, EPA is proposing to revise the
prohibitions in Sec. 80.78 to reflect the PCG proposal. In proposed
revisions to Secs. 80.78(a) (5) and (7) parties would be allowed to
combine RFG or RBOB with blendstock under the terms of the PCG
proposal.
Under the proposed PCG procedures it would be important that any
gasoline claimed as PCG actually is used in a refinery's operation--
otherwise, these procedures could cause a degradation in gasoline
quality. For example, consider a refinery that received a batch of
relatively ``dirty'' conventional gasoline. If this gasoline is
classified as PCG, is used in the production and compliance
calculations of conventional gasoline, and is added to the anti-dumping
compliance calculations as a negative batch, there would be no net
effect of the ``dirty'' PCG on the refinery's overall anti-dumping
compliance calculations
ider a refinery that received a batch of
relatively ``dirty'' conventional gasoline. If this gasoline is
classified as PCG, is used in the production and compliance
calculations of conventional gasoline, and is added to the anti-dumping
compliance calculations as a negative batch, there would be no net
effect of the ``dirty'' PCG on the refinery's overall anti-dumping
compliance calculations. If, however, the refiner never used the PCG as
a component for gasoline production, yet included the ``dirty'' PCG as
a negative batch in compliance calculations, the refinery's
conventional gasoline pool would appear ``cleaner'' than it was in
reality.
As a result, EPA is proposing record keeping and attest
requirements that would apply in the case of any refiner who uses the
PCG option, that would include records demonstrating the storage and
movement of the PCG from the time it is received at the refinery until
it is used in the production of gasoline. The proposed attest
procedures would require the auditor to verify that PCG was used to
produce gasoline at the refinery, and that the PCG batch report to EPA
is consistent with the refiner's sampling and testing of the PCG, and
the PCG product transfer documents, when received at the refinery.
7. Requirements for Imported Gasoline (Sec. 80.65(j))
Section 80.65(j) ``Requirements for imported gasoline,'' is
proposed as an addition to the general requirements of Sec. 80.65(e) to
qualify import certifications. This is in response to importer and
independent laboratory questions regarding certification of import
cargoes. The Agency has received questions regarding where and when
imported gasoline must be certified, and how to treat gasoline destined
for multiple ports. The Agency has issued policy guidance in response
to these questions in Reformulated Gasoline and Anti-Dumping Questions
and Answers
his is in response to importer and
independent laboratory questions regarding certification of import
cargoes. The Agency has received questions regarding where and when
imported gasoline must be certified, and how to treat gasoline destined
for multiple ports. The Agency has issued policy guidance in response
to these questions in Reformulated Gasoline and Anti-Dumping Questions
and Answers. Today's regulatory revision is somewhat more restrictive
than the Reformulated Gasoline and Anti-Dumping Questions and Answers
policy guidance, in that batch certification would have to comply with
the U.S. Customs Service requirements for imported gasoline. The
original intent of the RFG regulation was to follow the normal import
industry practices as regulated by the U.S. Customs Service. Some
allowances were provided in the Reformulated Gasoline and Anti-Dumping
Questions and Answers guidance that may not conform with the U.S.
Customs Service regulations and today's proposal reverses any changes
that may have occurred.
The first requirement proposed in Sec. 80.65(j) is that batch
certification sampling be conducted at the time and place permitted
under U.S. Customs Service regulations, 19 CFR 151.42, and as specified
in the new Sec. 80.47 Sampling of reformulated and conventional
gasoline, which is discussed above. Section 80.47 provides specific
sampling procedures for reformulated and conventional gasoline, and
refers to Sec. 80.8 Sampling Methods for the general sampling
procedures that apply.
This requirement reflects the majority of guidance provided in
Reformulated Gasoline and Anti-Dumping Questions and Answers. For
instance, the guidance provides that when an import vessel off-loads
its cargo at more than one U.S. Customs Service port, then it must
certify the cargoes off-loaded in the separate ports as different
batches
ethods for the general sampling
procedures that apply.
This requirement reflects the majority of guidance provided in
Reformulated Gasoline and Anti-Dumping Questions and Answers. For
instance, the guidance provides that when an import vessel off-loads
its cargo at more than one U.S. Customs Service port, then it must
certify the cargoes off-loaded in the separate ports as different
batches. The reason for this is that there is no mechanism for EPA to
enforce or even to find out about possible additions to a certified
batch when a vessel leaves the port where it was sampled. Today's
proposal also requires separate batch certifications for separate entry
ports as governed by the U.S. Customs Service regulations. However, in
Reformulated Gasoline and Anti-Dumping Questions and Answers, an
exception to this guidance is provided for multiple ports within a
given harbor area, such as the New York City harbor area, wherein a
single batch may be off-loaded at multiple Customs ports within the
harbor. Today's proposal will not include this exception because it
does not conform with U.S. Customs Service regulations. EPA relies on
U.S. Customs Service records for enforcement of the EPA fuels
regulations. By following the Customs Service regulations EPA maximizes
the usefulness of this enforcement tool. It also minimizes regulatory
confusion by conforming the EPA requirements with an existing
regulatory requirement of the U.S. Customs Service.
U.S. Customs Service regulations for imported petroleum products
allow for sampling once an import vessel is docked and ready to off-
load its cargo, although under 19 CFR 151.42, Controls on unlading and
gauging, each port director independently establishes the methods of
control. As such, the protocols for sampling an import vessel could
vary from port to port and could also depend on the type of import
vessel (for instance, ship, barge, rail car). EPA requests comments on
the requirement to follow the U.S
d ready to off-
load its cargo, although under 19 CFR 151.42, Controls on unlading and
gauging, each port director independently establishes the methods of
control. As such, the protocols for sampling an import vessel could
vary from port to port and could also depend on the type of import
vessel (for instance, ship, barge, rail car). EPA requests comments on
the requirement to follow the U.S. Customs Service procedures during
batch certification. EPA will retract any conflicting guidance that
remains in Reformulated Gasoline and Anti-Dumping Questions and Answers
after final revisions to this regulation are promulgated.
The second and final requirement of proposed Sec. 80.65(j) is that
batch size could be no larger than a ``line item,'' or a single item of
merchandise, of an entry summary under U.S. Customs Service
requirements specified at 19 CFR part 141, subparts D, E, and F, and
part 142, subparts A and B. These subparts of the Customs Service
regulations specify the documentation required for import cargoes. This
documentation must differentiate merchandise by listing or invoicing
items subject to different duty rates (19 CFR 141.61(e)), and it must
list or invoice items of varying commercial value separately (19 CFR
141.86). Therefore, it is EPA's understanding that the Customs Service
regulations require quantities of gasoline imported on a single vessel
to be distinguished on the basis of their differences in commercial
values or potential for differences in commercial value. For instance,
different grades (segregated in different tanks) would be entered as
separate line items. Also, gasoline from different sources but of the
same grade, would normally be entered as separate line items due to
their potential for the separate sources not meeting the agreed upon
commercial specifications. Limiting batch size to U.S. Customs Service
entry ``items'' serves two functions: (1) It adjusts the EPA
requirements to fit better with the existing regulatory standards of
the U.S
Also, gasoline from different sources but of the
same grade, would normally be entered as separate line items due to
their potential for the separate sources not meeting the agreed upon
commercial specifications. Limiting batch size to U.S. Customs Service
entry ``items'' serves two functions: (1) It adjusts the EPA
requirements to fit better with the existing regulatory standards of
the U.S. Customs Service, and (2) it puts a limit on the variations of
RFG property values within a batch (that could lead to inaccurate
sample representation as discussed above in the preamble to Sec. 80.47,
regarding homogeneity determination).
D. Compliance on Average (Sec. 80.67)
1. Transfer of Oxygen and Benzene Credits (Sec. 80.67(h)(1)(iv))
Section 80.67(h)(1)(iv) permits the transfer of credits directly
from the refiner, importer, or blender who generates them to the
refiner, importer, or blender who uses the credits for compliance
purposes. EPA has received several inquiries with regard to whether
transfers within the same company are included in the language of this
section. It is the Agency's intention that the refiner, importer, or
blender may properly transfer legitimate credits within the company or
outside of the company. As a result, EPA is proposing to modify
Sec. 80.67(h)(1)(iv) to clarify that credit transfers may be either
intercompany or intracompany.
E. Compliance Survey Requirements (Sec. 80.68)
1. Method of Computation for Averages in Survey Series (Secs. 80.68
cy's intention that the refiner, importer, or
blender may properly transfer legitimate credits within the company or
outside of the company. As a result, EPA is proposing to modify
Sec. 80.67(h)(1)(iv) to clarify that credit transfers may be either
intercompany or intracompany.
E. Compliance Survey Requirements (Sec. 80.68)
1. Method of Computation for Averages in Survey Series (Secs. 80.68
(c)(9)(I)(B) and (ii)(B), (c)(10), (c)(11), (c)(12) and (c)(13))
The RFG surveys were designed to deter and detect situations where
the flexibility afforded refiners through averaging gasoline
characteristics at the refinery gate (as opposed to averaging each
refinery's contribution to the gasoline in a particular covered area)
results in a covered area obtaining gasoline that on average differs in
relevant qualities from the average gasoline quality that would occur
if averaging was required separately for each covered area. The surveys
are conducted by an industry association according to a statistical
sampling plan approved by EPA and involve sampling gasoline from retail
outlets. If the gasoline in an area fails to meet standards set forth
in the regulations for a particular parameter, the standards for that
parameter are made more stringent and the number of surveys that must
be conducted in the following year is increased.
Some of the gasoline characteristics evaluated by the survey are
chiefly of interest because of their role in causing or contributing to
ambient ozone levels. Surveys for these parameters (e.g., VOC surveys)
are passed or failed based upon the average of results from a week-long
survey. Other parameters (like benzene and toxics) are of concern
because of their cumulative effects over a longer period of time.
Surveys for these latter characteristics are passed or failed based
upon the average of a year-long series of one-week surveys. This
discussion is primarily concerned with how the average of such a series
of one-week surveys should be computed
s from a week-long
survey. Other parameters (like benzene and toxics) are of concern
because of their cumulative effects over a longer period of time.
Surveys for these latter characteristics are passed or failed based
upon the average of a year-long series of one-week surveys. This
discussion is primarily concerned with how the average of such a series
of one-week surveys should be computed.
Under the current regulations, determining the average for each
survey series 16 involves computation of a simple average
17 of parameter values from each gasoline sample across all
of the samples gathered during the year (without any consideration of
which week-long survey the sample was a part). If all of the individual
week-long surveys had equal sample sizes, this approach to computation
would yield as good a representation of the fuel supply as the timing
and distribution of the week-long surveys throughout the year
permitted.18 Practical considerations involved in the design
and conduct of an efficient overall survey operation, though, dictate
some substantial variations in sample size among the week-long surveys.
One such effect, and probably the most important one, stems from the
fact that high-ozone season surveys for ozone precursors must yield a
confidence interval on the mean small enough to meet the precision
requirements of the regulations (Sec. 80.68(c)(13)(iii)) for each
individual survey. Since practical considerations dictate that surveys
for the various parameters be conducted concurrently (i.e., each
gasoline sample is analyzed for all parameters covered by the survey
program), this situation results in larger-than-necessary sample sizes
in the summer for non-ozone precursor parameters. Outside the summer
ozone season there is no need to maintain precision standards for each
individual survey, but only for the annual series of such surveys
parameters be conducted concurrently (i.e., each
gasoline sample is analyzed for all parameters covered by the survey
program), this situation results in larger-than-necessary sample sizes
in the summer for non-ozone precursor parameters. Outside the summer
ozone season there is no need to maintain precision standards for each
individual survey, but only for the annual series of such surveys. In
the interest of efficiency, the survey manager may be expected to cut
back on sample sizes during these times at the beginning and end of the
calendar year. As a result, the simple average substantially
overrepresents summertime gasoline.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ Sec. 80.68(c)(9)(i)(B) for toxics; (10)(ii) for
NOX; (11) for benzene; and (12) for oxygen.
\17\ In the case of toxics, the computation introduces weights
for the season (high-ozone season or outside of high-ozone season)
since the statistical model used to compute the emissions is
different in the two seasons. The weights substantially correct the
overemphasis on summer that affects other non-ozone-related
parameters, as discussed in the remainder of the text.
\18\ While the design for each of the individual week-long
surveys is probabilistic, a variety of considerations prevent EPA
from distributing the surveys in a perfectly random manner with
respect to time. The overall sampling approach for survey series
thus departs, to some extent, from a purely probabilistic design.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ While the design for each of the individual week-long
surveys is probabilistic, a variety of considerations prevent EPA
from distributing the surveys in a perfectly random manner with
respect to time. The overall sampling approach for survey series
thus departs, to some extent, from a purely probabilistic design.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
An additional reason for altering the prescribed approach to
computing averages of series has to do with the weights attached to
each sample to handle either lack of pre-survey information about an
individual retail outlet's throughput or the situation where an outlet
with unusually high throughput is located in a covered area with
relatively few outlets and is consequently selected into the sample
with certainty. For both situations the sample is not self-weighting
and weights must be computed to properly represent the outlet's
gallonage in the sample. The current approach, the simple average,
requires that such weights be computed two different ways, once for the
outlet's inclusion in the week-long survey for ozone-related parameters
and then again for the annual average computation for non-ozone-related
parameters. The latter set of weights cannot be computed until the
year's data collection is complete, leaving some uncertainty up to the
end of the year as to the status of survey results in areas where
throughput data are not available for most outlets. This particular
problem is a characteristic of the sample design approach currently
being used by the industry survey organization, but that approach or
some variant of it is likely to be used in any thorough attempt to meet
the survey requirements in the regulations.
Both the distortion and the difficulty in computing weights, as
discussed above, can be eliminated by changing the method by which the
average of each survey series is computed for a given parameter in a
given RFG covered area
industry survey organization, but that approach or
some variant of it is likely to be used in any thorough attempt to meet
the survey requirements in the regulations.
Both the distortion and the difficulty in computing weights, as
discussed above, can be eliminated by changing the method by which the
average of each survey series is computed for a given parameter in a
given RFG covered area. Instead of averaging all of the measurements on
individual gasoline samples in the survey series, we are proposing the
following: (1) That the measurements for each week-long survey in an
area be averaged, regardless of the sample size, to create a set of
means of week-long surveys, and then (2) that all of the resulting
individual survey averages for the area be averaged, themselves, across
all of the surveys in the series. This approach removes a significant
source of distortion, simplifies calculations, and improves the
representativeness of the number that we use to make the important
decision on whether the gasoline in an area has passed or failed a
survey series.
2. Clarification of Applicability of Survey Precision Requirements
(Sec. 80.68(c)(13)(iii))
The intent of the survey precision requirements set forth in the
regulations (Sec. 80.68(c)(13)(iii)) was to ensure that errors (in
either direction) in survey or survey series pass/fail determinations
would be unlikely. Without these requirements survey managers would be
able to trade off risk of inappropriate survey failure against survey
costs, and the environment would not be protected against the increased
risk of errors in the other direction resulting from insufficient
sampling.
Thus the precision requirements should apply to the body of data
that serves as the basis of each pass/fail determination
y. Without these requirements survey managers would be
able to trade off risk of inappropriate survey failure against survey
costs, and the environment would not be protected against the increased
risk of errors in the other direction resulting from insufficient
sampling.
Thus the precision requirements should apply to the body of data
that serves as the basis of each pass/fail determination. As currently
written, the regulations attach the precision requirements exclusively
to individual surveys without making it clear that for certain survey
parameters (for example, oxygen under the simple model) the pass/fail
determination is made against a year-long series of surveys rather than
against a single survey. The regulations would therefore be altered to
attach the precision requirements to the appropriate body of data for
each determination--to the individual survey where the parameters being
evaluated are ozone-related and to the survey series for other
parameters.
F. Downstream Oxygen Blending (Sec. 80.69)
1. Refiner ``Hand-Blending'' of RBOB (Secs. 80.69 (a)(2), (a)(8) and
(a)(9))
Under Sec. 80.65(c)(1) refiners and importers are required to meet
all RFG standards for RBOB, except for the oxygen standard. Under
Sec. 80.65(c)(2) the oxygen standard for RBOB is met by the oxygenate
blender. Section 80.69(a)(2) requires refiners and importers to
determine the non-oxygen properties of RBOB by blending the appropriate
type and amount of oxygenate with a sample of the RBOB (sometimes
called a ``hand blend''), and testing the properties of the resulting
RFG. Under Sec. 80.69(a) an RBOB refiner or importer is allowed to hand
blend the amount of oxygenate actually used by the oxygenate blender
only if, inter alia, a quality assurance program is carried out over
the oxygenate blending operation. In the absence of such a quality
assurance program, under Sec. 80.69(a)(8) specified types and amounts
of oxygenate must be hand blended.
EPA is proposing to revise Sec
.69(a) an RBOB refiner or importer is allowed to hand
blend the amount of oxygenate actually used by the oxygenate blender
only if, inter alia, a quality assurance program is carried out over
the oxygenate blending operation. In the absence of such a quality
assurance program, under Sec. 80.69(a)(8) specified types and amounts
of oxygenate must be hand blended.
EPA is proposing to revise Sec. 80.69(a)(2) to provide additional
guidance regarding the type and amount of oxygenate that must be hand
blended, and to move the hand blending
instructions from Sec. 80.69(a)(8) to Sec. 80.69(a)(2) in order to
improve the organization of this section. The additional guidance would
apply in the case of ``refiner specified'' RBOB (i.e., neither ``any
oxygenate'' nor ``ether only'') for which the refiner or importer has
specified options for more than one oxygenate type, or for a range of
oxygenate volumes. EPA is proposing that the hand blend for such RFG
must be formulated with the most conservative options. For example,
where an RBOB specification allowed ethanol and other oxygenates, the
hand blend would have to be formulated using ethanol, because ethanol,
as compared with other oxygenates at the same weight percent oxygen,
generally results in RFG with worse emissions performance.
Section 80.69(a)(9) specifies that where RBOB is designated as
``refiner specified'' but the quality assurance program is not
completed, the hand blend must be formulated with 4.0 vol% ethanol. EPA
is proposing to merge this paragraph with Sec. 80.69(a)(2).
2. Deletion of Secs. 80.69 (a)(4) and (a)(10)
Section 80.69(a)(4) requires refiners of RBOB to determine
properties of the RBOB, which would allow downstream parties to
determine if any contamination had occurred and thereby ensure that the
RFG produced using the RBOB would meet applicable standards
mulated with 4.0 vol% ethanol. EPA
is proposing to merge this paragraph with Sec. 80.69(a)(2).
2. Deletion of Secs. 80.69 (a)(4) and (a)(10)
Section 80.69(a)(4) requires refiners of RBOB to determine
properties of the RBOB, which would allow downstream parties to
determine if any contamination had occurred and thereby ensure that the
RFG produced using the RBOB would meet applicable standards. Section
80.69(a)(4) was included in the final reformulated gasoline regulation
to facilitate quality assurance programs by downstream parties who
handle RBOB, particularly where RBOB from a specific refinery travels
as a segregated product. However, EPA believes that, in practice, most
RBOB is being transported in a fungible manner. As a result, there is
little value to Sec. 80.69(a)(4) and EPA is proposing to delete this
requirement. EPA believes that downstream parties may conduct fully
adequate quality assurance programs over RBOB by hand blending the
oxygenate type and amount specified for the RBOB and testing the hand
blended sample to determine compliance with applicable standards.
Section 80.69(a)(10) requires refiners and importers of RBOB to
include in the RBOB blending specifications a range of oxygenate types
and amounts for all RBOB. This requirement was included in the RFG rule
because at the time the RFG regulations were promulgated it was not
clear the types of RBOB regulated parties would choose to produce. As a
result, the regulations were structured to accommodate a wide variety
of RBOB types. In practice, however, refiners and importers of RBOB
have chosen to produce only a limited slate of RBOB types, and mainly
only two types: generic ``ether-only'' RBOB, and RBOB with blending
instructions that are specific to the refiner and that is shipped in a
segregated manner. As a result, EPA now believes that Sec. 80.69(a)(10)
creates a burden on refiners and importers of RBOB, yet provides little
or no benefit to oxygenate blenders or to the environment
produce only a limited slate of RBOB types, and mainly
only two types: generic ``ether-only'' RBOB, and RBOB with blending
instructions that are specific to the refiner and that is shipped in a
segregated manner. As a result, EPA now believes that Sec. 80.69(a)(10)
creates a burden on refiners and importers of RBOB, yet provides little
or no benefit to oxygenate blenders or to the environment. Accordingly,
EPA is proposing to eliminate this requirement.
3. Refiner Evaluation of RFG Produced by Oxygenate Blender
(Sec. 80.69(a)(7))
In the case of a refiner of RBOB conducting oversight over the RFG
produced at a downstream oxygen blending facility, the refiner of the
RBOB is required to calculate the non-oxygen parameter values for the
RFG produced using the RBOB. To do so, the refiner may use either the
oxygen blending assumptions under Sec. 80.69(a)(2) or the actual oxygen
blending levels if the refiner meets the contractual and quality
assurance testing requirements specified in Sec. 80.69(a)(5) through
(7).
The quality assurance provisions of Sec. 80.69(a)(7) require the
refiner to use sampling and testing to ensure that the RFG produced by
the downstream oxygen blender meets ``applicable standards.'' The
applicable standards are not further specified in that paragraph.
EPA is proposing to amend Sec. 80.69(a)(7) to require the refiner
to evaluate the RFG produced by an oxygenate blender for the oxygenate
type and oxygen amount, but not for other RFG standards. The principal
purpose of the Sec. 80.69(a)(7) oversight program is to ensure that the
oxygenate blender uses the proper type and amount of oxygen, to support
the refiner's RBOB compliance calculations. Other sections of the
regulations address quality assurance sampling and testing for all
standards that apply at all downstream locations, including at
oxygenate blending facilities. See, for example, Sec
l
purpose of the Sec. 80.69(a)(7) oversight program is to ensure that the
oxygenate blender uses the proper type and amount of oxygen, to support
the refiner's RBOB compliance calculations. Other sections of the
regulations address quality assurance sampling and testing for all
standards that apply at all downstream locations, including at
oxygenate blending facilities. See, for example, Sec. 80.79(c), which
requires quality assurance sampling and testing as an affirmative
defense for violations of downstream standards. As a result, EPA
believes it is most appropriate to require sampling and testing only
for oxygenate type and amount under Sec. 80.69(a)(7).
4. Oxygenate Blending Instructions (Sec. 80.69(b)(1))
Under Sec. 80.69(b)(1) oxygenate blenders are required to blend
with RBOB only the type and amount of oxygenate that is specified for
the RBOB. EPA is proposing to amend this section to provide additional
guidance to oxygenate blenders regarding this blending. In addition,
EPA is proposing regulations that would specify the allowed quantity of
de minimis, extraneous, oxygenates that may be present in an oxygenate
blending operation.
EPA is proposing oxygenate blending requirements under
Sec. 80.69(b)(1) that are in accord with the RBOB blending
instructions. In addition, EPA is proposing language that would clarify
that the minimum oxygenate volume that could be used is the minimum
volume specification for the RBOB, and that the oxygenate blender is
free to add additional oxygenate up to the maximum oxygen standard
under Sec. 80.41(g).
EPA understands that when RBOB is blended with oxygenate to produce
RFG at oxygenate blending facilities, the RFG may contain de minimis
amounts of oxygenate other than the principal oxygenate that is
blended. These oxygenates may result, for example, when RBOB is shipped
via pipeline adjacent to RFG (that necessarily would contain
oxygenate), and these products are imperfectly segregated
).
EPA understands that when RBOB is blended with oxygenate to produce
RFG at oxygenate blending facilities, the RFG may contain de minimis
amounts of oxygenate other than the principal oxygenate that is
blended. These oxygenates may result, for example, when RBOB is shipped
via pipeline adjacent to RFG (that necessarily would contain
oxygenate), and these products are imperfectly segregated. Also, when
an oxygenate is produced it is normal that de minimis amounts of other
oxygenates also are produced and that remain present in the principal
oxygenate.
EPA believes that de minimis quantities of oxygenate that are in
addition to the principal oxygenate used to produce RFG do not degrade
the quality of RFG beyond a trivial amount. As a result, EPA is
proposing regulations that would specifically allow de minimis amounts
of incidental oxygenate, and that would specify the oxygenate amounts
that would be considered de minimis. However, EPA is also proposing
that these incidental oxygenates could not have been intentionally
blended, because the purpose of this proposed provision is to address
inadvertent oxygenate anomalies and not to provide additional oxygenate
blending options.
5. Every-Batch Sampling and Testing Requirement for Splash Blenders
(Proposed Sec. 80.69(b)(5))
Under Sec. 80.69(b)(4), an oxygenate blender who meets the oxygen
standard on average is required to sample and test each batch of RFG
produced to determine the batch's oxygen content, and assign a number
to the batch for reporting purposes. This every-batch sampling and
testing requirement was intended to be applied regardless of
g Requirement for Splash Blenders
(Proposed Sec. 80.69(b)(5))
Under Sec. 80.69(b)(4), an oxygenate blender who meets the oxygen
standard on average is required to sample and test each batch of RFG
produced to determine the batch's oxygen content, and assign a number
to the batch for reporting purposes. This every-batch sampling and
testing requirement was intended to be applied regardless of
whether the oxygenate blending is carried out in a large terminal tank
or through blending in trucks (sometimes called splash blending).
Every-batch sampling and testing is required in order to give the
oxygenate blender the best information with which to calculate the
average oxygen content of RFG produced. EPA believes that oxygenate
blenders, like other parties who produce RFG, should use adequate
procedures to determine, with great certainty, the oxygen content of
RBOB produced. This is particularly true of parties who meet the oxygen
standard (or other standards) on average, because, in part, any errors
in calculating average oxygen content could result in the transfer to
other parties of invalid oxygen credits. Every-batch sampling and
testing provides this certainty.
However, EPA believes that this every-batch sampling requirement
adds significant difficulties in the case of oxygenate splash blenders.
As a result, EPA is proposing to add Sec. 80.69(b)(5) which would allow
oxygenate splash blenders to meet the oxygen standard on average
without conducting every-batch sampling and testing under certain
conditions. These conditions, which are described below, would require
the oxygenate blender to use procedures that give certainty about
oxygen use, and that, taken together, EPA believes are as effective as
every-batch sampling.
a. Computer-controlled oxygenate blending required
blenders to meet the oxygen standard on average
without conducting every-batch sampling and testing under certain
conditions. These conditions, which are described below, would require
the oxygenate blender to use procedures that give certainty about
oxygen use, and that, taken together, EPA believes are as effective as
every-batch sampling.
a. Computer-controlled oxygenate blending required. Under the
proposal, the oxygenate blending would have to be carried out using
computer-controlled in-line or sequential blending that operates in
such a manner that the volumes of oxygenate and RBOB are automatically
dispensed when a particular grade of gasoline is selected for loading
into a truck, and where no operator instructions are required regarding
the oxygenate-RBOB proportions when an individual truck is loaded.
Thus, this alternative averaging approach would not be available where
the oxygenate and RBOB are separately metered into a truck, regardless
of whether the separate metering occurs at the same terminal or at
different terminals.
b. Oxygenate blender must operate blending equipment. The oxygenate
blender would be required to be the party who operates the computer-
controlled in-line or sequential blending equipment. Thus, this
alternative averaging approach would not be available to a party who
receives delivery of splash blended RFG into trucks at a terminal if
the terminal is not operated by that party, regardless of whether the
receiving party is a registered oxygenate blender.
c. Compliance calculations. The oxygenate blender would be required
to base its compliance calculations on the volumes and properties of
RBOB and oxygenate used during a period no longer than one calendar
month
es delivery of splash blended RFG into trucks at a terminal if
the terminal is not operated by that party, regardless of whether the
receiving party is a registered oxygenate blender.
c. Compliance calculations. The oxygenate blender would be required
to base its compliance calculations on the volumes and properties of
RBOB and oxygenate used during a period no longer than one calendar
month. In calculating the oxygen content of the RFG produced, the
oxygenate blender would be required to use either assumptions regarding
the specific gravities of the oxygenate and RBOB blended, or the
oxygenate blender would be required to measure the measured specific
gravities of all oxygenate and RBOB blended in the blending operation.
Similarly, with regard to the denaturant content of the ethanol (if
used), an oxygenate blender would be required to use a denaturant
content of 5 vol% and to support this value with documents from the
ethanol supplier and a quality assurance program, or the oxygenate
blender would be required to determine the denaturant content of all
ethanol used through sampling and testing.
d. Quality assurance sampling and testing. An oxygenate blender who
meets the oxygen standard on average using these procedures would be
required to conduct a program of quality assurance sampling and testing
of the RFG produced, using the procedures and at the frequencies
specified under Sec. 80.69(e)(2).
e. Attest procedures (Secs. 80.129 and 80.134). Under Sec. 80.65(h)
any oxygenate blender who meets the oxygen standard on average is
required to commission an annual attest engagement, to be conducted
under the terms of subpart F. EPA is proposing to add attest procedures
that would apply in the case of an oxygenate splash blender who meets
the oxygen standard on average under the proposed procedures. In
addition
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.