# 62 FR 37338: Regulation of Fuels and Fuel Additives: Modifications to Standards and Requirements for Reformulated and Conventional Gasoline > Federal · Regulations · In force URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_97-17029 ## Section - **Citation:** 62 FR 37338 - **Heading:** Regulation of Fuels and Fuel Additives: Modifications to Standards and Requirements for Reformulated and Conventional Gasoline - **Jurisdiction:** Federal - **Kind:** Regulations - **Status:** In force - **Text as of:** August 14, 2026 - **Source:** Compiled text - **Location:** 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 pr [Text truncated at 120,000 characters. The full text is on the page linked above.] ## Nearby sections - [62 FR 55 Oranges and Grapefruit Grown in the Lower Rio Grande Valley in Texas; Reapportionment of Membership on the Texas Valley Citrus Committee](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_96-33328.md) - [62 FR 84 Television Broadcasting Services; Pueblo, CO](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_96-33340.md) - [62 FR 210 Proposed Implementation Requirements for Reduction of Sulfur Oxide (Sulfur Dioxide) Emissions](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_96-32978.md) - [62 FR 333 General Crop Insurance Regulations, Fresh Market Sweet Corn Endorsement; and Common Crop Insurance Regulations, Fresh Market Sweet Corn Crop Insurance Provisions](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_97-62.md) - [62 FR 348 Proposed Establishment of Class E Airspace; Stuart, VA](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_97-79.md) - [62 FR 695 Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Ohio](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_97-195.md) - [62 FR 949 Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Industrie Model A320 and A321 Series Airplanes](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_97-252.md) - [62 FR 1064 Proposed amendment of Class E airspace, Jackson, Wyoming](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_97-313.md) - [62 FR 1298 Airworthiness Directives; Pratt & Whitney JT8D Series Turbofan Engines](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_97-469.md) - [62 FR 1408 Surface Coal Mining and Reclamation Operations Under the Federal Lands Program; State-Federal Cooperative Agreements; Montana](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_97-582.md) - [62 FR 1705 Royalty Rate Reduction for Stripper Oil Properties](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_97-738.md) - [62 FR 2000 Implementation of the Housing for Older Persons Act of 1995](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_97-840.md) - [62 FR 2048 Executive Branch Financial Disclosure, Qualified Trusts, and Certificates of Divestiture](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_97-961.md) - [62 FR 2633 Books and Records Requirements for Brokers and Dealers Under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_97-1221.md) --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_97-17029. Check the current official text before relying on it. Not legal advice.