[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 232 (Monday, December 3, 2001)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 60163-60176]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-29777]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 80

[FRL-7108--9]
RIN 2060-AJ79


Regulation of Fuel and Fuel Additives: Reformulated Gasoline 
Terminal Receipt Date

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: With today's action the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 
is proposing to establish April 15 as a new annual compliance date for 
reformulated gasoline (RFG) and reformulated blendstock for oxygenate 
blending (RBOB), on or after which no persons except retailers and 
wholesale purchaser consumers would be able to accept receipt of any 
RFG other than summer grade RFG. This action is intended to help ease 
the annual spring transition from winter grade RFG to summer grade RFG 
by increasing RFG inventories during the transition period. Requiring 
all terminals to receive summer grade RFG by a fixed date should help 
reduce the competitive pressure that keeps terminals from accepting 
summer grade RFG for as long as possible, and may provide for a 
smoother transition in certain geographic areas by lengthening the 
turnover time for terminal tanks. We are also proposing to simplify the 
existing blendstock accounting requirements. This action will allow 
refineries more flexibility to transfer gasoline blendstocks from one 
refinery to another. Finally, we are proposing to update certain ASTM 
designated analytical test methods for reformulated and conventional 
gasoline to their most recent ASTM version, and also update several 
sampling methods to their most recent ASTM version. These updates will 
allow improvements in the test method procedures and sampling 
procedures that would ensure better operation for the user of the test 
methods and sampling procedures.

DATES: Comments. All public comments must be received on or before 
January 2, 2002. To request a public hearing, contact Chris McKenna at 
(202) 564-9037 or [email protected]. If a hearing is requested 
within 20 days of the date of publication of this document in the 
Federal Register, a hearing will be held on December 24, 2001 at the 
location indicated in the ADDRESSES section below. Persons wishing to 
testify at a public hearing must contact Chris McKenna at (202) 564-
9037, and submit copies of their testimony to the docket and to Chris 
McKenna at the addresses below, no later than 10 days prior to the 
hearing. After the hearing, the docket for this rulemaking will remain 
open for an additional 30 days to receive comments. If a hearing is 
held, EPA will publish a document in the Federal Register extending the 
comment period for 30 days after the hearing.

ADDRESSES: Any person wishing to submit comments should send them (in 
duplicate, if possible) to the docket address listed below and to Chris 
McKenna (6406J), Chemical Engineer, U.S. Environmental Protection 
Agency, Office of Transportation and Air Quality, Transportation and 
Regional Programs, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460. 
Materials relevant to this have been placed in docket (A-2001-21) 
located at U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Air Docket Section, 
Room M-1500, 401 M Street, SW., Washington, DC 20460. The docket is 
open for public inspection from 8:00 a.m. until 5:30 p.m., Monday 
through Friday, except on Federal holidays. A reasonable fee may be 
charged for photocopying services.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information about this 
proposed rule, contact Chris McKenna, Chemical Engineer, Office of 
Transportation and Air Quality, Transportation and Regional Programs 
Division, at (202) 564-9037 or [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Regulated Entities

    Entities potentially affected by this action include those involved 
with the production, importation, distribution, sale and storage of 
gasoline motor fuel.
    The table below gives some examples of entities that may have to 
comply with the regulations. However, since these are only examples, 
you should carefully examine these and other existing regulations in 40 
CFR part 80. If you have any questions, please call the person listed 
in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section above.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                         Examples of
             Category               NAICSs    SIC        potentially
                                   codes a   codes    regulated parties
-----------------------------------------------b------------------------
Industry.........................   324110    2911  Petroleum refiners.
Industry.........................   422710    5171  Gasoline marketers
                                                     and distributors.
                                    422720    5172
------------------------------------------------------------------------
a North American Industry Classification System (NAICS).
b Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) system code.

Outline

I. New Terminal Receipt Date for Summer Grade Reformulated Gasoline
    A. Background
    B. What is EPA Proposing?
    C. How Will This Proposal Help the Transition Period?
    D. What Is the Cost of Today's Proposal?
II. On What Issues Is EPA Requesting Comment?
    A. Inventory Build Before April 15
    B. Eliminate or Delay May 1 Compliance Date
    C. Establish April 1 Terminal Receipt Date
    D. Two Step RVP Phase-In
    E. Limit Applicability of Terminal Receipt Date to Chicago/
Milwaukee areas
    F. Reduce Allowable Minimum RVP to 6.0 psi
III. Eliminate Current Blendstock Accounting Regulation 40 CFR 
80.102
IV. Updating ASTM Designated Analytical Test Methods for 
Reformulated and Conventional Gasoline to Their Most Recent ASTM 
Version
V. Corrections to Gasoline and Diesel Sample Testing Methodology
VI. Administrative Requirements
    A. Executive Order 12866
    B. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)

[[Page 60164]]

    C. Executive Order 13175 (Consultation and Coordination With 
Indian Tribal Governments)
    D. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), as Amended by the Small 
Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA), 5 USC 
601 et. seq.
    E. Paperwork Reduction Act
    F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
    G. Executive Order 13045: Children's Health Protection
    H. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 
(NTTAA)
    I. Executive Order 13211 (Energy Effects)
VII. Statutory Provisions and Legal Authority

I. New Terminal Receipt Date for Summer Grade Reformulated Gasoline

A. Background

    The purpose of the reformulated gasoline (RFG) program is to 
improve air quality in certain specified ozone nonattainment areas. 
Gasoline sold in RFG covered areas must achieve certain reductions in 
emissions of ozone forming volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and toxic 
air pollutants, pursuant to 211(k) of the Clean Air Act (CAA or the 
Act), as amended \1\. The Act requires RFG in the ten metropolitan 
areas with the worst summertime ozone problems, and certain other areas 
have opted into the program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Section 211(k) also includes compositional specifications 
for reformulated gasoline including a 2.0 weight percent oxygen 
minimum, a 1.0 volume percent benzene maximum, and a prohibition on 
heavy metal content, as well as a requirement that emissions of 
oxides of nitrogen (NOX) from RFG not increase compared 
to baseline emissions (baseline emissions are the emissions of 1990 
model year vehicles operated on 1990 baseline gasoline).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Phase I of the RFG program ran from 1995 through 1999, and more 
stringent Phase II RFG standards began in 2000. During the summer ozone 
season EPA's Phase II RFG regulations require a 29 percent reduction in 
VOC emissions from RFG in southern (class B) areas, and a 27.4 percent 
reduction in such emissions from RFG in northern (class C) areas 
(representing approximately an additional 10 percent reduction in VOC 
emissions beyond the Phase I requirements).
    One significant way of reducing VOC emissions from RFG is to 
decrease the Reid Vapor Pressure (RVP) of the RFG during summer months. 
As a result, summer grade RFG has a significantly lower RVP than winter 
grade RFG. RVP is a measure of a gasoline's volatility, or the tendency 
for a gasoline to evaporate. As gasoline RVP increases, the tendency of 
the gasoline to emit volatile material also increases. Higher emissions 
of volatile material increase pollution. Therefore, gasoline RVP is 
permitted to be relatively high during colder months because colder 
temperatures reduce the tendency of gasoline to evaporate and reduce 
emissions of volatile material. During hotter months, refiners must 
reduce gasoline RVP by removing the most volatile portion of the 
gasoline in order to reduce evaporative emissions from the gasoline.
    Each spring, refiners and importers must reduce the RVP of the 
gasoline that they produce or import in order to comply with federal 
summer emissions requirements, and refiners, gasoline terminal 
facilities and retail stations must replace high RVP winter grade RFG 
in storage tanks with lower RVP summer grade RFG. EPA regulations 
stipulate that gasoline retailers must be selling only summer grade RFG 
by June 1 of each year. In order to meet the June 1 compliance date, 
EPA regulations stipulate that by May 1 the RFG at terminals and all 
other facilities upstream of the retailer must meet the summertime RFG 
requirements. Refineries typically begin producing lower RVP RFG in 
March or April in order for terminals to meet the May 1 compliance 
date.
    Storage terminals use different methods for meeting the applicable 
compliance dates. Some terminals completely convert their tanks from 
high to low RVP gasoline by starting to blend summer gasoline into the 
terminal tank prior to May 1, so that by May 1 the gasoline in the 
terminal tank meets summer specifications--the ``blend down'' method. 
Alternatively, some terminals draw down their inventory of winter 
gasoline by continuing to make deliveries of winter gasoline, but not 
replacing it. When the tank is sufficiently low, the terminal begins 
accepting summer gasoline in order to meet the May 1 compliance date. 
This method is called the ``draw down'' method.
    Because low RVP summer grade RFG is more expensive than high RVP 
winter grade RFG, distributors have incentive to delay terminal receipt 
of more expensive summer grade fuel, and draw down tanks as much as 
possible before refilling. Then, with the tank about empty, the last 
minute addition of summer grade fuel allows terminal tanks to quickly 
come into compliance with summer grade RFG requirements. This practice 
minimizes the cost of converting the tank from winter grade RFG to 
summer grade RFG. This economic incentive increases the likelihood that 
terminals will use the draw down method for the transition to summer 
fuel. Terminals practicing the draw down method only wish to receive 
summer grade RFG just before May 1 when their tanks are low. This 
practice delays production and importation of summer RFG. This practice 
may also lead to low gasoline inventories and increased supply 
pressure, particularly if there are any disruptions to the production 
or distribution system during this period. Additionally, during the 
past two spring transition periods, refiners have also tried to keep 
RFG inventories low in the expectation that future crude oil prices 
would decrease and RFG inventories could be replenished by processing 
less expensive crude in the future. The effort to increase inventories 
by establishing a new terminal receipt date might be limited by the 
conditions in the broader crude oil and petroleum product market.
    EPA has no regulations governing the methods by which terminal 
operators turn over their tanks from winter to summer grade RFG. 
Terminal operators choose whether to use the blend down method or the 
draw down method to turn over their tanks. Although EPA has heard 
anecdotal comments about difficulties with tank turnover, primarily in 
the Midwest, no refiner or terminal operator has contacted EPA with 
specific problems.
    In response to concerns about tight RFG supplies in the Midwest 
during spring 2000 and spring 2001, EPA met with midwestern producers 
and distributors of RFG in March, 2001 and asked that anyone 
experiencing difficulty with tank turnover contact EPA for help in 
addressing their problem. No refiners, importers or terminal operators 
contacted EPA during the transition months regarding difficulties with 
tank turnover. Nonetheless, we believe that the practice of drawing 
down terminal tanks in connection with the transition from winter to 
summer grade RFG can have an adverse impact on spring RFG inventories 
and potentially on gasoline supply. Therefore, we believe it is 
appropriate for EPA to proceed with today's proposed rule, and for EPA 
to ask for comment on several potential actions, many of which have 
been suggested to EPA by fuel producers and distributors, that address 
this issue. EPA believes that today's proposed action would have a 
positive impact on distribution and supply, and would help to assure a 
smoother transition from summer to winter grade RFG.

B. What Is EPA Proposing?

    We are proposing to establish a new April 15 date on or after which 
no persons except retailers and wholesale purchaser consumers would be 
able to accept receipt of any RFG or RBOB other than summer grade RFG 
or RBOB. While this restriction would apply to

[[Page 60165]]

both terminals and pipelines, barges or other companies transporting 
fuel to terminals, effectively the restriction applies most directly to 
terminals so for ease of discussion the April 15 date will be referred 
to as a terminal receipt date. Also for ease of discussion, since the 
April 15 date applies to both RFG and RBOB, all references to RFG in 
connection with the April 15 date will apply to both RFG and RBOB. 
Batch report information submitted to EPA for 2000 indicates that 
approximately 181 million gallons of winter grade RFG was produced by 
refiners or imported from April 15, 2000 through April 30, 2000, all of 
which was produced or imported in PADDs 1, 2, and 3. The average RVP of 
this volume was 8.04 psi. Thus, establishing an April 15 summer RFG 
receipt date would require the RVP of at least 181 million gallons of 
RFG to be reduced from an average of 8.04 psi to a nominal 6.8 psi to 
meet the summer RFG specifications.
    One suggested alternative to establishing a new April 15 receipt 
date was to instead establish a new refinery production date for summer 
grade RFG. For example, a refinery production date of April 1 could be 
established in place of an April 15 receipt date. The receipt date 
option being proposed will give a refiner more flexibility in deciding 
when to begin production of summer grade RFG based on its particular 
situation. For example, an RFG batch produced at a Gulf Coast refinery 
would take 2-3 weeks to be transported to terminals in the Midwest or 
Northeast. However, a refinery located in the Midwest or Northeast may 
take only one or two days to transport its RFG to local terminals.
    Establishing a receipt date for summer grade RFG means that 
refineries must begin producing summer grade RFG batches early enough 
that the RFG arrives at its destined terminal by April 15. A 1986 study 
commissioned by EPA estimated an average national transit time of 
approximately 7 days between refinery and terminal for gasoline 
produced in May \2\. Subtracting this transit time from April 15 means 
that, on average, RFG batches produced or imported from April 8 through 
April 30 would need to be produced or imported as summer grade RFG. 
Batch report information submitted to EPA for 2000 indicates that 315.6 
million gallons of winter grade RFG was produced by refiners or 
imported from April 8, 2000 through April 30, 2000, all of which was 
produced or imported in PADDs 1, 2, and 3. The average RVP of this 
volume was 8.34 psi. Winter grade RFG volumes produced or imported in 
each PADD from April 8, 2000 through April 30, 2000 are summarized in 
Table 1, along with the corresponding average RVP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ ``Petroleum Storage and Transport Times'' by Jack Faucett 
Associates under contract to EPA, September, 1986.

  Table 1.--RFG Batch Information from April 8, 2000 through April 30,
                                  2000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   Winter
                                                 grade RFG   Average RVP
                                                  produced      of RFG
                                                 from April    produced
                                                  8, 2000     from April
                     PADD                         through      8, 2000
                                                 April 30,     through
                                                    2000      April 30,
                                                  million      2000 psi
                                                  gallons
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.............................................        132.8         9.06
2.............................................        160.7         7.52
3.............................................         22.1         9.97
                                               -------------------------
  Total.......................................        315.6         8.34
------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. How Will This Proposal Help the Transition Period?

    This proposal should help to provide for a smoother transition from 
winter to summer RFG by requiring some terminals to begin turning over 
their tanks from winter grade RFG to summer grade RFG earlier than they 
currently do. Because some terminals draw down their gasoline storage 
tanks to very low levels in late April to drain as much winter grade 
RFG as possible from their tanks before refilling the tanks with summer 
grade RFG, in order to minimize cost, there is the potential for very 
low inventories of RFG during this transitional period which increases 
the likelihood of supply problems. Requiring all terminals to begin 
receiving summer grade RFG by a fixed date will remove much of the 
incentive for terminals to draw down their tanks to very low levels all 
at the same time. We expect instead that it will encourage a blend down 
of their tanks to meet summer RFG requirements and increase volumes of 
RFG at terminals during the transition, allowing terminals to more 
gradually turn over their tanks from winter to summer grade RFG, and 
help spread the transition period out over the last two weeks in April. 
This should help to avoid situations where many terminals draw down 
their inventories and turn over their tanks simultaneously at the end 
of April.
    Establishing an April 15 terminal receipt date for summer grade RFG 
will not reduce the market pressure for refiners to delay production of 
summer gasoline until it is required. However, the April 15 date will 
reduce the market pressure that causes terminals to delay accepting 
summer grade RFG for as long as possible. Terminals would be required 
to begin receiving summer grade RFG on April 15 and would, at the 
latest, turn their tanks over between April 15 and May 1. Turnover 
times would vary with terminal storage capacity and throughput of RFG 
at the terminal. Terminals would not be economically encouraged to draw 
down the winter gasoline in their tanks prior to April 15. The April 15 
date applies to gasoline supplies received on or after that date, but 
does not require that the gasoline in the tanks be in compliance with 
summer specifications on April 15. This should lead to greater use of 
the blend down method to meet the May 1 date by which all RFG in 
terminal storage tanks must meet the summertime RFG standards \3\. EPA 
requests comment on the premise that an April 15 terminal receipt date 
will encourage greater use of the blend down method.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Note that while we are not proposing eliminating this May 1 
terminal compliance requirement, we are interested in the continuing 
need for a May 1 terminal compliance requirement to ensure adequate 
and timely supplies of summer RFG to meet the existing requirement 
of June 1 for retail station compliance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

D. What Is the Cost of Today's Proposal?

    The total estimated cost of establishing an April 15 receipt date 
is estimated to be between $1.5 million per year and $2.3 million per 
year. Dividing these costs by the 315.6 million gallons per year of 
gasoline which would need to be produced as summer grade RFG instead of 
winter grade RFG produces an equivalent cost range of 0.49 cents per 
gallon RFG to 0.73 cents per gallon RFG. Both of these estimates 
include the operational cost of removing sufficient butane to reduce 
the RVP of 315.6 million gallons per year of winter grade RFG from an 
average RVP of 8.34 psi to a nominal summer grade RFG RVP of 6.8 psi. 
Assuming an RVP decrease of 1 psi for every 1.5 volume % decrease in 
butane, 7.3 million gallons per year of butane must be removed from 
315.6 million gallons per year of RFG.
    The lower cost estimate ($1.5 million per year or 0.49 cents per 
gallon RFG) includes the cost of new tankage to store all the butane 
until the butane can be used the following winter. The higher cost 
estimate ($2.3 million per year or 0.73 cents per gallon RFG) assumes 
that all the additional butane removed is directly sold to the spot 
butane market. Thus, the higher cost estimate includes the effect of 
directly selling 7.3 million gallons per year of product as relatively 
less valuable butane instead of more valuable RFG.
    The cost, in cents per gallon affected RFG, of producing more 
summer grade

[[Page 60166]]

RFG and less winter grade RFG from April 8 through April 30 is less 
than the cost differential between typical winter grade RFG and summer 
grade RFG. Based on data obtained from DOE, winter grade RFG prices 
were approximately 6 cents per gallon less than summer grade RFG during 
Phase I, and 9 cents per gallon less than summer grade RFG during Phase 
II \4\. These price differences are due to two factors, the additional 
cost to produce summer grade RFG, and demand. The cost difference is 
due to blending more butane, a relatively inexpensive gasoline 
blendstock, into winter grade RFG in place of more expensive 
blendstocks required for summer grade RFG, especially alkylate 
blendstock needed to produce very low RVP RBOB for ethanol blended RFG. 
DOE has estimated the cost differential between winter and summer RFG 
at approximately 3 cents per gallon, which does not include demand 
induced price effects \5\.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ EIA Memo: Potential Gasoline Price Impacts Due to Winter-
Summer Transition, November, 8, 2001.
    \5\ EIA Memo: Potential Gasoline Price Impacts Due to Winter-
Summer Transition, November, 8, 2001.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Typical winter grade RFG may have an RVP as high as 15 psi, 
compared to an average RVP of 8.34 psi for all winter grade RFG 
produced between April 8, 2000 and April 30, 2000. EPA's cost estimate 
includes only the cost of reducing the RVP of winter grade RFG produced 
from April 8 through April 30 to summer grade RVP levels. However, we 
are aware there may be other costs associated with the production of 
more summer grade RFG and less winter grade RFG from April 8 through 
April 30, in addition to the cost of reducing RVP.

II. On What Issues Is EPA Requesting Comment?

A. Inventory Build Before April 15

    While EPA believes that establishing an April 15 terminal receipt 
date for summer grade RFG should result in greater use of the blend 
down method to meet the May 1 date by which all RFG in terminal storage 
tanks must meet the summertime RFG standard, we are concerned about the 
possibility of strategic behavior that may undermine this result. Since 
winter grade gasoline is cheaper than summer grade, there is an 
incentive under today's proposal for distributors to stockpile as much 
winter grade gasoline as possible before the April 15 deadline and 
simply defer purchases of summer grade gasoline for as long as possible 
as supplies of winter gasoline are drawn down. Depending on tank and 
pipeline capacity, this could theoretically result in the same reliance 
on the ``draw down'' method for meeting the May 1 compliance date as 
exists today. EPA therefore requests comment on the effects of today's 
proposal on gasoline inventories during the winter to summer 
transition.

B. Eliminate or Delay May 1 Compliance Date

    In connection with today's proposal to establish a new April 15 
terminal receipt date, we request comment on the impact and feasibility 
of also eliminating the existing May 1 compliance date, or, in the 
alternative, moving the May 1 compliance date to May 15. Under any such 
approach, the existing June 1 compliance date for retail stations would 
remain in its current form. Under the proposed April 15 terminal 
receipt requirement, we anticipate that most, if not all, terminals 
will turn over their RFG to summer grade specifications by May 1 based 
on the normal throughput of fuel at the terminal. The May 1 compliance 
date currently provides retail stations with one month to turn over 
their tanks from winter grade to summer grade RFG after all upstream 
facilities have made the transition. Discussions to date with 
retailers, terminals and refiners have indicated that many retail 
stations may actually need less time to turn over their tanks. 
Eliminating or delaying the May 1 compliance date would further widen 
the window of time following the proposed April 15 receipt date that 
terminals would have to turn all their tanks over from winter to summer 
grade RFG. This improved flexibility could allow, for example, a 
specific tank to still be in the blend down process on May 1, selling 
fuel with an RVP approaching, but not yet meeting summer grade 
requirements, a fuel which would be anticipated to be purchased by 
consumers prior to June 1. This would reduce the need for terminals to 
draw their RFG inventories down to very low levels during the spring 
transition. Feedback received thus far has been that if the May 1 
compliance date is maintained, some terminals may still need to draw 
down their inventories in at least some of their tanks to very low 
levels to achieve the seasonal transition.
    While we in general believe supplies of compliant summer grade RFG 
will be sufficiently available to meet retail needs, it is possible 
that some markets, particularly with low demand such as premium fuel, 
might be slow to turn over at both the retail outlet and the terminal. 
In such a case, without the need for terminals to meet summer fuel 
requirements for all their fuel, it may be more difficult for retail 
outlets to find sufficient fuel to meet that niche need early enough in 
May to allow for orderly transition to summer requirements. Comments 
are specifically requested on this issue of assuming sufficient supply 
to slow turnover markets without a certain May 1 terminal compliance 
date.

C. Establish April 1 Terminal Receipt Date

    We also request comment on establishing April 1 instead of April 15 
as an annual starting date for receipt of summer grade RFG; an April 1 
date would further assure the availability of summer grade RFG prior to 
the June 1 retail compliance requirement to further reduce the 
potential for sudden drawdowns in RFG stocks. However, to the extent 
April 1 requires earlier production of summer grade RFG batches, 
refinery processing costs will increase perhaps with little or no real 
benefit to the retail outlet or to the environment (the increased 
environmental benefit due to summer grade RFG would largely parallel 
the increase). Second, an April 1 receipt date will be more likely to 
impact vehicle driveability in the event of cold weather late in the 
early spring.
    Establishing an April 1 receipt date and allowing an average 
transit time of 7 days for transport of RFG from refinery to terminal 
means that shipment of summer grade RFG batches from refineries would 
need to start March 24. Batch report information submitted to EPA for 
2000 indicates that 738.6 million gallons of winter grade RFG was 
produced by refiners or imported from March 24, 2000 through April 30, 
2000, all of which was produced or imported in PADDs 1, 2, and 3. The 
average RVP of this volume was 9.28 psi. Winter grade RFG volumes 
produced or imported in each PADD from March 24, 2000 through April 30, 
2000 are summarized in Table 2, along with the corresponding average 
RVP.

  Table 2.--RFG Batch Information From March 24, 2000 Through April 30,
                                  2000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   Winter
                                                 grade RFG   Average RVP
                                                  produced      of RFG
                                                 from March    produced
                                                  24, 2000    from March
                     PADD                         through      24, 2000
                                                 April 30,     through
                                                    2000      April 30,
                                                  million      2000 psi
                                                  gallons
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.............................................        378.8         9.65
2.............................................        283.0         8.52
------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 60167]]


  Table 2.--RFG Batch Information From March 24, 2000 Through April 30,
                             2000--Continued
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   Winter
                                                 grade RFG   Average RVP
                                                  produced      of RFG
                                                 from March    produced
                                                  24, 2000    from March
                     PADD                         through      24, 2000
                                                 April 30,     through
                                                    2000      April 30,
                                                  million      2000 psi
                                                  gallons
------------------------------------------------------------------------
3.............................................         77.1        10.27
                                               -------------------------
  Total.......................................        738.6         9.28
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The total estimated cost of establishing an April 1 receipt date is 
estimated to be between $4.9 million per year and $7.6 million per 
year. Dividing these costs by the 738.6 million gallons per year of 
gasoline which must be produced as summer grade RFG instead of winter 
grade RFG produces an equivalent cost range of 0.65 cents per gallon 
RFG to 1.04 cents per gallon RFG. Both of these estimates include the 
operational cost of removing sufficient butane to reduce the RVP of 
738.6 million gallons per year of winter grade RFG from an average RVP 
of 9.28 psi to a nominal summer grade RFG RVP of 6.8 psi. Assuming an 
RVP decrease of 1 psi for every 1.5 volume % decrease in butane, 27.5 
million gallons per year of butane must be removed from 738.6 million 
gallons per year of RFG.
    The lower cost estimate ($4.8 million per year or 0.65 cents per 
gallon RFG) includes the cost of new tankage to store all the butane 
until the butane can be used the following winter. The higher cost 
estimate ($7.6 million per year or 1.04 cents per gallon RFG) assumes 
that all the additional butane removed is directly sold to the spot 
butane market. Thus, the higher cost estimate includes the effect of 
directly selling 27.5 million gallons per year of product as relatively 
less valuable butane instead of more valuable RFG.
    As discussed in Section I.D. our cost estimate includes only the 
cost of reducing the RVP of winter grade RFG produced from March 24 
through April 30 to summer grade RVP levels. However, we are aware 
there may be other costs associated with the production of more summer 
grade RFG and less winter grade RFG from March 24 through April 30, in 
addition to the cost of reducing RVP. A full discussion of the cost 
estimate can be found in the Draft Technical Support Document for this 
proposed rule, which is available in the docket for this rulemaking (A-
2001-21; Item II-B-1) and on the web at: www.epa.gov/otaq/rfg.

D. Two Step RVP Phase-In

    We also request comment on a two step phase-in process, as an 
alternative to the proposed terminal receipt date, which gradually 
reduces RFG RVP by establishing an intermediate terminal compliance 
date and intermediate target RVP. We request comment on the following 
four sub-options for this two step phase-in option.
    1. Terminals must have their RFG tanks completely turned over to an 
intermediate RVP of 8.0 psi by April 15 and completely turned over to 
summer grade RFG by May 1.
    2. Terminals must have their RFG tanks completely turned over to an 
intermediate RVP of 9.0 psi by April 15 and completely turned over to 
summer grade RFG by May 1.
    3. Terminals must have their RFG tanks completely turned over to an 
intermediate RVP of 8.0 psi by May 1 and completely turned over to 
summer grade RFG by May 15.
    4. Terminals must have their RFG tanks completely turned over to an 
intermediate RVP of 9.0 psi by May 1 and completely turned over to 
summer grade RFG by May 15.
    The two step phase-in is intended to reduce the degree to which 
terminals must draw down their tanks to meet the final terminal 
compliance date by turning tanks over in two smaller steps instead of 
one large step. Using sub-option 1 above as an example, in step 1 a 
tank containing 19,000 barrels of winter grade RFG with a 13.0 psi RVP 
could be blended with 81,000 barrels of summer grade RFG with a 6.8 psi 
RVP to produce 100,000 barrels of RFG with an 8.0 psi RVP, using linear 
blending. In step 2, the volume of RFG in the tank with an 8.0 psi RVP 
would only have to be reduced to 25,000 barrels. This residual volume 
of 25,000 barrels of RFG with an 8.0 psi RVP could then be blended with 
75,000 barrels of summer grade RFG with a 6.4 psi RVP to produce 
100,000 barrels of summer grade RFG with a 6.8 psi RVP, using linear 
blending.
    In contrast, to accomplish the same turnover in one step would 
require the volume of 13.0 psi RVP winter grade RFG in the tank to be 
reduced to 6,000 barrels. Then 94,000 barrels of 6.4 psi RVP summer 
grade RFG would have to be blended with this 6,000 barrels of winter 
grade RFG to produce 100,000 barrels of summer grade RFG with a 6.8 psi 
RVP, using linear blending. The net effect of the two step phase-in is 
that RFG inventory does not have to be reduced as greatly in order to 
achieve the winter to summer RVP transition. A terminal using the two 
step phase-in from the example above would only have to reduce its 
tankage volume to a minimum of 19,000 barrels instead of 6,000 barrels 
in order to achieve its RVP transition.
    Thus far, feedback on the idea of a two step phase-in option has 
been mixed. Some parties with whom EPA has spoken prefer a phase-in 
approach to a terminal receipt date. Others have expressed concern that 
the addition of a second transitional RVP compliance date would 
increase record keeping requirements and would not significantly reduce 
the current practice of drawing down tanks to very low levels. EPA 
requests comment on the two step phase-in approaches listed above, as 
well as any alternatives to help accomplish a smooth phase-in.

E. Limit Applicability of Terminal Receipt Date to Chicago/Milwaukee 
Areas

    We also request comment on the option of limiting the applicability 
of the proposed terminal receipt date to the Chicago and Milwaukee 
metropolitan areas. These two areas have been most severely impacted by 
low gasoline inventories during the past two spring transitions from 
winter to summer grade gasoline.

F. Reduce Allowable Minimum RVP to 6.0 psi

    We also request comment on the option of decreasing the allowable 
minimum RVP for RFG at the refinery gate to 6.0 psi from 6.4 psi, as an 
addition to the proposed terminal receipt date, to further help ease 
the winter to summer RVP transition. Under the emissions model used to 
measure RFG performance, the lowest allowable RVP for RFG is 6.4 psi. 
Reducing the RVP of gasoline at the refinery gate gives terminals the 
flexibility to maintain slightly higher inventories of winter grade RFG 
during the transition period by allowing sub-RVP RFG to be blended with 
winter grade RFG during the tank turnover process. For example, if a 
tank contained 6,000 barrels of winter grade RFG with a 13.0 psi RVP, 
this volume could be blended with 94,000 barrels of summer grade RFG 
with a 6.4 psi RVP to produce a 100,000 barrel mix with an RVP of 6.8 
psi, using linear blending. However, if the minimum allowable RVP of 
summer grade RFG were decreased, a greater volume of winter grade RFG 
could be blended with the sub-RVP summer grade RFG to produce an 
acceptable blend of summer grade RFG. For example, the tank volume of 
winter grade RFG with a 13.0 psi RVP would only have to be reduced to 
11,000 barrels during the RVP

[[Page 60168]]

transition. This 11,000 barrels could then be blended with 89,000 
barrels of 6.0 psi RVP RFG to produce a 100,000 barrel mix with an RVP 
of 6.8 psi, using linear blending. The net effect of reducing the 
minimum allowable RVP is that RFG inventory does not have to be reduced 
as greatly in order to achieve the winter to summer RVP transition.
    We have identified two potential concerns related to reducing the 
minimum allowable RVP for RFG at the refinery gate. First, reducing RVP 
also reduces the driveability index of RFG. In the event of late cold 
weather, vehicles could experience driveability problems if fueled with 
RFG with an RVP less than 6.4 psi. A potential solution would be to 
relax the minimum RVP only at the refinery gate, and not allow 
terminals to release RFG with an RVP lower than 6.4 psi. Second, 
refiners may be reluctant to use this option due to the additional 
processing costs associated with reducing RVP below 6.4 psi.

III. Eliminate Current Blendstock Accounting Regulation 40 CFR 
80.102

    Today's action proposes to replace the current blendstock 
accounting requirements at 40 CFR 80.102 with simpler, less restrictive 
requirements. These requirements are a part of the anti-dumping 
regulations for conventional gasoline (CG).
    The Clean Air Act required EPA to establish the anti-dumping 
regulations as part of the RFG program to prevent increases in oxides 
of nitrogen ( NOX) and toxics air emissions from 
conventional gasoline as a result of RFG production. Thus, the anti-
dumping regulations prevent a refinery from transferring, or 
``dumping,'' the relatively dirty components that it removes from its 
RFG (such as benzene) into its CG. Specifically, the anti-dumping 
regulations require that the CG produced or imported by each refinery 
and importer must be at least as clean with respect to NOX 
and toxics emission performance, on an annual average basis, as the 
gasoline produced or imported by that refinery or importer in 1990. 
Under these regulations, refineries and importers are required to 
develop individual baselines for these emissions based on the quality 
of the gasoline they produced or imported in 1990. Refiners and 
importers who are not able to develop an individualized baseline are 
subject to a predetermined baseline that is representative of the 
average exhaust toxics and NOX emission performance of 1990 
gasoline, referred to as the anti-dumping statutory baseline. A 
refinery's or importer's individual 1990 baseline, or alternatively the 
statutory baseline, functions as the refinery's or importer's anti-
dumping ``standard.''\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Refiners producing CG at several facilities have the option 
of meeting the antidumping standards on an aggregate basis with an 
aggregated baseline. 40 CFR 80.101(h).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Requirements for blendstock accounting were included in the anti-
dumping regulations out of a concern that refineries with 1990 
baselines cleaner than the anti-dumping statutory baseline would 
transfer dirty blendstocks to refineries with dirtier baselines because 
such refineries would be better able to use the dirty blendstocks while 
still meeting their anti-dumping baseline. Under the blendstock 
accounting provisions, if a cleaner refinery transfers large quantities 
of dirty gasoline blendstocks to another refinery, the cleaner refinery 
must account for all of the blendstocks it produces and transfers in 
its anti-dumping compliance calculations in specified subsequent annual 
averaging periods. Thus, the cleaner refinery could not benefit from 
such a transfer. The regulations require significant additional 
reporting by a refinery with a baseline cleaner than the anti-dumping 
statutory baseline that transfers ten percent or more blendstocks than 
it transferred in 1990 relative to its total production.
    EPA now believes that the current blendstock accounting 
requirements are unnecessary. When refineries produce more total 
gasoline than that produced in 1990, the additional gasoline over and 
above the 1990 baseline volume must meet the statutory baseline for all 
refineries regardless of the refinery's individual baseline. Since 
nearly all refineries currently produce significantly more gasoline 
than they produced in 1990, EPA believes that the blendstock transfers 
that are likely to occur today will be between donor and recipient 
refineries whose total production is well above 1990 baseline volume 
levels with or without a transfer. If transfers under these conditions 
occur between refiners producing only CG, there will be no net change 
in the quality of their combined CG pool because the donor refiner's 
gallons at the statutory baseline would be replaced by the recipient 
refiner's gallons at this same baseline. Thus, there would likely be no 
motivation or opportunity for ``gaming the system'' under these 
circumstances. Where either or both refiners make RFG and CG, there is 
some potential for meeting a slightly lower baseline by transferring 
blendstocks.\7\ However, it is unlikely that there would ever be any 
impact more significant than a small decrease in the stringency of 
compliance requirements, meaning that the gaming possibilities of such 
a transfer are very small, and thus any such transfers would produce 
only very small economic benefits which may be more than offset by the 
transactional costs associated with the transfer. As a result, the 
shifting of blendstocks from one refinery to another where both 
refineries produce more gasoline than they did in 1990 has very little 
potential to cause any adverse environmental impact.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ This is due to the concept of ``equivalent CG volume'' 
contained in the compliance baseline equation under the anti-dumping 
regulations in Sec. 80.101(f). For a full discussion of this concept 
and the effects of RFG production on anti-dumping compliance, see 
``Technical Support Document for RFG Terminal Receipt Date Rule'' in 
the docket for this rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additionally, EPA has carefully examined individual refinery 
situations and has concluded that for the very limited number of 
refineries producing volumes where a transfer could result in some 
increased emissions, there is little possibility for gaming since 
clean/dirty refinery baseline pairs within a specific emission category 
( NOX or toxics) are very uncommon. (i.e, for NOX 
and toxics, almost all members of this refinery subset are clean for 
one pollutant and dirty for the other leaving little chance of gaming 
for either.) \8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Refinery-specific information is submitted to EPA as 
confidential business information under the RFG and anti-dumping 
reporting requirements and cannot be made public.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, the recently promulgated Mobile Source Air Toxics rule \9\ 
requires each refinery to meet a performance standard for toxic air 
emissions for CG and RFG equivalent to the performance of that 
refinery's CG or RFG during the baseline years 1998, 1999, and 2000. 
Because this new baseline performance is better than 1990 baselines, 
refineries with dirty baselines would be even less likely to be able to 
accept dirty blendstocks since these blendstocks would potentially 
degrade performance relative to these years.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 66 FR 17230 (March 29, 2001)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We believe the current blendstock accounting provisions create 
significant additional compliance and reporting requirements, and, in 
some cases, may have the effect of deterring refiners or importers from 
transferring gasoline blendstocks that they otherwise would transfer in 
the normal course of business in response to legitimate supply concerns 
and other refinery needs. Moreover, we believe that eliminating these 
requirements will help to improve the responsiveness of the gasoline 
supply system by increasing refiners' flexibility to transfer gasoline

[[Page 60169]]

blendstocks.\10\ Consequently, today's rule proposes to eliminate the 
current blendstock accounting requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ EPA is aware that refiners have concerns regarding 
blendstock transfers under the newly promulgated gasoline sulfur 
reduction regulations. During maintenance periods for sulfur removal 
units or ``turnarounds'', refineries may have to transfer fairly 
large amounts of low-sulfur blendstocks into refineries during 
maintenance periods. Refiners have indicated that these transfers 
could trip the current complicated blendstock accounting 
requirements. We believe that today's proposal resolves this concern 
by removing the current blendstock accounting requirements. 
Discussions with refiners have also indicated that the 5% trigger 
for the petition process is sufficiently high so as to be unlikely 
to interfere with such transfers, especially considering that the 5% 
trigger is only applicable to refiners making less gasoline than 
produced in 1990.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    There remains some concern about the possibility that a refiner 
with a clean baseline could create an off-site terminal blending 
facility acting as a refinery for the sole purpose of certifying 
gasoline at the less stringent statutory baseline. To gain a 
significant compliance advantage the clean refiner would have to 
transfer a great deal of its gasoline production such that the original 
clean refinery would be making less gasoline than in 1990. Otherwise, 
the clean refinery would be producing incremental gasoline at 
approximately the statutory baseline and the transfer would not result 
in any significant compliance advantage. To address the limited 
situations in which blendstock transfers could possibly be undertaken 
for the purpose of evading a more stringent baseline, today's rule 
proposes provisions which would require a refinery with a baseline that 
is cleaner than the anti-dumping statutory baseline, and that produces 
less gasoline than its 1990 baseline volume during the annual averaging 
period, to petition EPA for approval to transfer specified 
``applicable'' (i.e., ``dirty'') blendstocks in excess of 5% of the 
refinery's annual production. The refinery would be required to 
demonstrate that such blendstock transfers were for a legitimate 
operational purpose and not for the purpose of evading a more stringent 
baseline.
    We believe that most blendstock transfers needed for operational 
purposes, for example during desulfurization unit turnarounds (which 
are projected to take approximately two weeks), are likely not to 
exceed 5% of the refinery's annual production. While we believe that 5% 
is the upper limit for necessary transfers of dirty blendstocks in most 
situations, the petition process would be available for unusual 
situations where desulfurization unit turnarounds or other such 
legitimate operational needs require blendstock transfers in excess of 
5%. This petition processwould requires refineries to forecast total 
production for the entire year averaging period to be less than 1990 
baseline volumes. The requirement to petition EPA for approval to 
transfer dirty blendstocks in excess of 5% of the refinery's annual 
production applies only to the highly unusual situation where a 
refinery possesses a baseline cleaner than the statutory baseline and 
produces less than its 1990 baseline volume during the annual averaging 
period. Other refineries would not be required to petition EPA for 
approval to transfer blendstocks even when in excess of 5% of their 
annual production. EPA requests comment on the practicality of this 
approach and on whether 5% is an appropriate trigger.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ Two trigger mechanisms contained in today's action (the 5% 
trigger mechanism and annual gasoline production volumes less than 
1990 volumes) would result in the petition process. These triggers 
essentially replace two criteria that, under the current 
regulations, would trigger blendstock accounting. These current 
criteria include a 3% transfer of blendstocks and a 10 percent 
increase in a multi-year ratio of blendstock transfers to total 
production for a facility relative to baseline years in the early 
1990s. The 10% criteria required a fairly complex ongoing multi-year 
calculation of blendstock ratios which we believe is unnecessary. 
(These criteria are discussed more completely in ``Technical Support 
Document for RFG Terminal Receipt Date Rule'' included in the docket 
for this rulemaking.) EPA believes that the 5% trigger mechanism is 
sufficient to allow free transfer of blendstocks, without a 
petition, for most or all refiners in most or all situations. 
Additionally, the petition process would not be tripped even if more 
than 5% of blendstocks, relative to total production, are 
transferred unless a refinery is making less total volume than in 
1990. Thus, for the petition process, we are proposing to eliminate 
the two criteria in the current regulations for blendstock 
accounting and substituting the new 5% trigger for the petition 
process.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Updating ASTM Designated Analytical Test Methods for 
Reformulated and Conventional Gasoline to Their Most Recent ASTM 
Version

    Refiners, importers and oxygenate blenders producing gasoline and 
diesel fuel are required to test RFG, CG and diesel fuel for RVP, 
aromatics, benzene, and various other parameters. During the federal 
RFG rulemaking, and in response to comments by the regulated industry, 
EPA designated analytical test methods that the Agency would use for 
enforcement and compliance purposes. See 40 CFR 80.46. On July 11, 
1997, the Agency proposed to update the designated test methods that 
were ASTM standards in Sec. 80.46 (a) through (g) to their most recent 
version, as well as replace the designated test methods for RVP and 
oxygenates with the ASTM version.\12\ This proposal was never finalized 
by the Agency, and since the time of the proposal, these designated 
test methods have been updated by ASTM.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 62 FR 37338, July 11, 1997.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Since the July 11, 1997, proposal was published, newer versions of 
several designated test methods have been published by ASTM. We have 
reviewed these newer versions of the ASTM test methods. The Agency 
believes that the revisions in the newer versions of the ASTM 
designated test methods are not significant changes that would cause a 
user of an older version of the same method to incur significant costs. 
All of the revisions were deemed necessary by ASTM so that improvements 
in the test method's procedures would ensure better operation for the 
user of the test method. Therefore, today the Agency is proposing to 
update each designated test method for gasoline that is an ASTM 
standard, excluding the measurement of sulfur and aromatics in 
gasoline, at Sec. 80.46 to its most recent ASTM version, as well as 
replace the designated test methods for RVP and oxygenates with the 
ASTM version. Table 3 lists the designated analytical test methods for 
each parameter measured under the RFG and CG fuels program under 
today's proposal.

  Table 3.--Designated Analytical Test Method Under the RFG and CG Fuel
                                Programs
------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Fuel parameter              Designated analytical test method
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Olefins...........................  ASTM D-1319-98, entitled ``Standard
                                     Test Method for Hydrocarbon Types
                                     in Liquid Petroleum Products by
                                     Fluorescent Indicator Absorption''
Reid Vapor Pressure...............  ASTM D 5191-99, entitled ``Standard
                                     Test Method for Vapor Pressure of
                                     Petroleum Products (Mini Method),
                                     except that the following
                                     correlation equation be used with
                                     ASTM D 5191-99:
                                    RVP psi = (0.956*X)-0.347
                                    RVP kPa = (0.956*X)-2.39

[[Page 60170]]

 
                                    Where:
                                    X = total measured vapor pressure in
                                     psi or kPa
Distillation......................  ASTM D-86-00a, entitled ``Standard
                                     Test Method for Distillation of
                                     Petroleum Products at Atmospheric
                                     Pressure''
Oxygen and Oxygenate content        ASTM D 5599-00, entitled ``Standard
 analysis.                           Test Method for Determination of
                                     Oxygenates in Gasoline by Gas
                                     Chromatography and Oxygen Selective
                                     Flame Ionization Detection\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Prior to September 1, 2004, and when oxygenates present are limited
  to MTBE, ETBE, TAME, DIPE, tertiary-amyl alcohol, and C1 and C4
  alcohols, any refiner, importer, or oxygenate blender may determine
  oxygen and oxygenated content using ASTM standard method D-4815-99,
  entitled ``Standard Test Method for Determination of MTBE, ETBE, TAME,
  DIPE, tertiary-amyl Alcohol and C1 and C4 Alcohols in Gasoline by Gas
  Chromatography provided the result is correlated to ASTM D 5599-00.

V. Corrections to Gasoline and Diesel Sample Testing Methodology

    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(2000), ``Standard Practice for Manual Sampling 
of Petroleum and Petroleum Products;''
     D 4177-95(2000), ``Standard Practice for Automatic 
Sampling of Petroleum and Petroleum Products;''
     D 5842-95(2000), ``Standard Practice for Sampling and 
Handling of Fuels for Volatility Measurements;'' and
     D 5854-96(2000), ``Standard Practice for Mixing and 
Handling of Liquid Samples of Petroleum and Petroleum Products.''
    These changes were formerly proposed in ``Regulation of Fuels and 
Fuel Additives: Modifications to Standards and Requirements for 
Reformulated and Conventional Gasoline--Proposed Rule,'' 62 FR 37338 
(July 11, 1997), although these provisions were never finalized. Since 
we are proposing to update various other test methods via this notice, 
it is logical to consider sampling methodologies here as well.
    Appendices D and G of 40 CFR Part 80 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 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(2000) 
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(2000) 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(2000) 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(2000) 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(2000) 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.

VI. Administrative Requirements

A. Executive Order 12866

    Under Executive Order 12866, (58 FR 51735 (October 4, 1993)) the 
Agency must determine whether the regulatory action is ``significant'' 
and therefore subject to OMB review and the requirements of the 
Executive Order. The Order defines ``significant regulatory action'' as 
one that is likely to result in a rule that may:
    (1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or 
adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the 
economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public 
health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or 
communities;
    (2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an 
action taken or planned by another agency;
    (3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, 
user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients 
thereof; or
    (4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal 
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in 
the Executive Order.''
    EPA has determined that this regulation is a significant regulatory 
action under item (4) above. Pursuant to the terms of Executive Order 
12866, OMB has notified EPA that it considers this a ``significant 
regulatory action'' within the meaning of the Executive Order. EPA has 
submitted this action to OMB for review. Changes made in response to 
OMB suggestions or recommendations will be documented in the public 
record.

B. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)

    Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR 43255, August 
10, 1999), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure 
``meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the 
development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.'' 
``Policies that have federalism implications'' is defined in

[[Page 60171]]

the Executive Order to include regulations that have ``substantial 
direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national 
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and 
responsibilities among the various levels of government.''
    This proposed rule does not have federalism implications. It will 
not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship 
between the national government and the States, or on the distribution 
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, 
as specified in Executive Order 13132. The proposed rule would 
establish a new April 15 receipt date by which terminals must 
physically begin receiving summer grade RFG, and is intended to help 
stabilize the supply of RFG during the spring RVP transition. This 
proposed rule also simplifies the existing blendstock accounting 
requirements at 40 CFR 80.102 and updates ASTM test methods to their 
most recent version. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this 
proposed rule.
    In the spirit of Executive Order 13132, and consistent with EPA 
policy to promote communications between EPA and State and local 
governments, EPA specifically solicits comment on this proposed rule 
from State and local officials.

C. Executive Order 13175 (Consultation and Coordination With Indian 
Tribal Governments)

    On January 1, 2001, Executive Order 13084 was superseded by 
Executive Order 13175. However, this proposed rule was developed during 
the period when Executive Order 13084 was still in force, and so tribal 
considerations were addressed under Executive Order 13084. Development 
of the final rule will address tribal considerations under Executive 
Order 13175. Executive Order 13175, entitled ``Consultation and 
Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR 67249, November 6, 
2000), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure 
``meaningful and timely input by tribal officials in the development of 
regulatory policies that have tribal implications.'' ``Policies that 
have tribal implications'' is defined in the Executive Order to include 
regulations that have ``substantial direct effects on one or more 
Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal government and 
the Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities 
between the Federal government and Indian tribes.''
    This RFG terminal receipt date rule does not have tribal 
implications. It will not have substantial direct effects on tribal 
governments, on the relationship between the Federal government and 
Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities 
between the Federal government and Indian tribes, as specified in 
Executive Order 13175. This proposed rule applies to gasoline refiners, 
blenders and importers that supply gasoline to RFG areas. Today's 
action proposes some changes that would modify the Federal RFG 
requirements, and does not impose any enforceable duties on communities 
of Indian tribal governments. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not 
apply to this rule.

D. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), as Amended by the Small Business 
Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA), 5 U.S.C. 601 et 
seq.

    The RFA generally requires an agency to prepare a regulatory 
flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment 
rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act or any 
other statute unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 
Small entities include small businesses, small organizations, and small 
governmental jurisdictions.
    For purposes of assessing the impacts of today's rule on small 
entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business that has not 
more than 1,500 employees (13 CFR 121.201); (2) a small governmental 
jurisdiction that is a government of a city, county, town, school 
district or special district with a population of less than 50,000; and 
(3) a small organization that is any not-for-profit enterprise which is 
independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field.
    After considering the economic impacts of today's proposed rule on 
small entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. We have 
determined that no small entities will experience an impact from this 
proposal. RFG batch results reported for 2000 indicate that no winter 
grade RFG produced or imported from April 8 through April 30 was 
supplied by small businesses.
    Although this proposed rule will not have a significant impact on a 
substantial number of small entities, EPA has nonetheless tried to 
reduce the impact of this rule on small entities. We continue to be 
interested in the potential impacts of the proposed rule on small 
entities and welcome comments on issues related to such impacts.

E. Paperwork Reduction Act

    The information collection requirements in this proposed rule have 
been submitted for approval to the Office of Management and Budget 
(OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. An 
Information Collection Request (ICR) document has been prepared by EPA 
(OMB # 2060-0277, EPA ICR No. 1591.14) and a copy may be obtained from 
Susan Auby by mail at Collection Strategies Division; U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency (2822); 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, 
Washington, DC 20460, by e-mail at [email protected], or by 
calling (202) 260-2740. A copy may also be downloaded off the Internet 
at
http://www.epa.gov/icr.
    Under today's proposed rule, EPA is requiring refiners to keep 
certain records associated with the supply of RFG. However, EPA 
believes that this requirement will be met using documents created and 
kept for commercial business purposes; i.e., documents that show the 
movement of RFG to storage tanks and volume and parameter measurements. 
This requirement, therefore, is not expected to impose additional 
recordkeeping burdens on regulated parties.
    Today's action also proposes to eliminate the current blendstock 
accounting provisions and instead requires only a small subset of 
refiners, and only under unusual situations, to submit a petition to 
EPA in order to transfer certain blendstocks. The information 
collection hour burden associated with the current blendstock 
accounting requirements is estimated to be 24 hours to track blendstock 
transfers and prepare each blendstock accounting report, and 80 hours 
to prepare a request for a waiver of the blendstock accounting 
requirements (under extreme or unusual circumstances). These burdens 
would be eliminated under this action. The petition requirement 
proposed under this action is estimated to be 3 hours to prepare each 
petition. The respondent cost associated with the current blendstock 
accounting requirement is estimated to be $60 per hour for blendstock 
tracking and preparation of each blendstock accounting report and 
blendstock accounting waiver request. The respondent cost per petition 
under this action is also estimated to be $60 per hour. The total 
information collection hour burden associated with the current 
blendstock provisions is estimated to be 4,880 hours per year. This is 
based on an estimate of 200 respondents at 24 hours for blendstock 
tracking and

[[Page 60172]]

preparation of blendstock accounting reports, and one respondent at 80 
hours for preparation of blendstock accounting waiver requests. These 
burdens would be eliminated under this action. The information 
collection hour burden associated with the petition requirement 
potentially applicable to the small subset of refiners under this 
action is estimated to be a total of 15 hours, based on an estimated 5 
respondents at 3 hours per petition. The total information collection 
hour burden, therefore, would be reduced by 4,865 hours (4,880-15). 
Based on previous experience with the RFG/anti-dumping program, EPA 
believes the estimates of the number of respondents both under the 
current rule and this action are likely to be the maximum number of 
respondents during an annual averaging period. The total cost burden 
associated with the current blendstock provisions is estimated to be 
$292,800 (4,880 hours  x  $60 per hour). This cost would be eliminated 
under this action. The total cost burden associated with the petition 
requirement applicable to the small subset of refiners included in 
today's rule is estimated to be $900 (15 hours  x  $60 per hour). As a 
result, today's rule would provide an overall reduction in cost burden 
of approximately $291,900 ($292,800-$900). We request comment on this 
change in the information collection burden associated with anti-
dumping compliance.
    Regarding recordkeeping and reporting burdens, in a letter dated 
December 12, 2000, the National Petrochemical & Refiners Association 
(NPRA) commented on EPA's draft Information Collection Request for 
reformulated and conventional gasoline reporting. 65 FR 60939 (October 
13, 2000). In the letter, NPRA made several requests relating to the 
RFG program's current information collection burden. Although today's 
proposed action does not address all of NPRA's requests, as discussed 
above, today's action would eliminate all of the current burden 
associated with the RFG program's anti-dumping blendstock accounting 
requirements. The current blendstock provisions impose substantial 
recordkeeping and reporting burdens on refiners who transfer 
blendstocks. These recordkeeping and reporting burdens may have had the 
effect of deterring refiners from transferring such blendstocks. 
Today's action would eliminate these burdens for all refiners. The 
information collection burden on the small subset of refiners who would 
be required to petition EPA under today's action would be minimal. We 
believe this reduction in information collection burden would result in 
a more free exchange of blendstocks.
    OMB has approved the information collection requirements contained 
in the final RFG/anti-dumping rulemaking (See 59 FR 7716 (February 16, 
1994) and has assigned OMB control number 2060-0277 (EPA ICR No. 
1591.13). Upon promulgation of a final rule, ICR 1591.14 associated 
with this rule will be encompassed in the next renewal of ICR 1591.13.
    Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources 
expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or 
provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time 
needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize 
technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and 
verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and 
disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to 
comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; 
train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; 
search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; 
and transmit or otherwise disclose the information. An Agency may not 
conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to a 
collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB 
control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations are 
listed in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR Chapter 15. Comments are requested 
on the Agency's need for this information, the accuracy of the provided 
burden estimates, and any suggested methods for minimizing respondent 
burden, including through the use of automated collection techniques. 
Send comments on the ICR to the Director, Collection Strategies 
Division; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2822); 1200 
Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Washington, DC 20460; and to the Office of 
Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 
725 17th St., N.W., Washington, DC 20503, marked ``Attention: Desk 
Officer for EPA.'' Include the ICR number in any correspondence. Since 
OMB is required to make a decision concerning the ICR between 30 and 60 
days after December 3, 2001, a comment to OMB is best assured of having 
its full effect if OMB receives it by January 2, 2002. The final rule 
will respond to any OMB or public comments on the information 
collection requirements contained in this proposal.

F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public 
Law 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the 
effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal 
governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, EPA 
generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-benefit 
analysis, for proposed and final rules with ``Federal mandates'' that 
may result in expenditures to State, local, and tribal governments, in 
the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100 million or more in any 
one year. Before promulgating an EPA rule for which a written statement 
is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires EPA to identify 
and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt 
the least costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative 
that achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of section 205 
do not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover, 
section 205 allows EPA to adopt an alternative other than the least 
costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative if the 
Administrator publishes with the final rule an explanation why that 
alternative was not adopted. Before EPA establishes any regulatory 
requirements that may significantly or uniquely affect small 
governments, including tribal governments, it must have developed under 
section 203 of the UMRA a small government agency plan. The plan must 
provide for notifying potentially affected small governments, enabling 
officials of affected small governments to have meaningful and timely 
input in the development of EPA regulatory proposals with significant 
Federal intergovernmental mandates, and informing, educating, and 
advising small governments on compliance with the regulatory 
requirements.
    Today's proposed rule contains no Federal mandates (under the 
regulatory provisions of Title II of the UMRA) for State, local or 
tribal governments or the private sector. The proposed rule would 
impose no enforceable duty on any State, local or tribal governments or 
the private sector. This proposed rule applies to gasoline refiners, 
blenders and importers that supply gasoline to RFG areas.

G. Executive Order 13045: Children's Health Protection

    Executive Order 13045: ``Protection of Children from Environmental 
health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) applies 
to any rule that: (1) is determined to be ``economically significant'' 
as defined under Executive Order 12866, and (2) concerns an 
environmental health or safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may 
have a

[[Page 60173]]

disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action meets 
both criteria, the Agency must evaluate the environmental health or 
safety effects of the planned rule on children, and explain why the 
planned regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and 
reasonably feasible alternatives considered by the Agency.
    EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those 
regulatory actions that are based on health or safety risks, such that 
the analysis required under section 5-501 of the Order has the 
potential to influence the regulation. This proposal is not subject to 
Executive Order 13045 because it does not establish an environmental 
standard intended to mitigate health or safety risks.

H. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (NTTAA)

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement 
Act of 1995 (``NTTAA''), Public Law No. 104-113, section 12(d) (15 
U.S.C. 272 note) directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in 
its regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with 
applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards 
are technical standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, 
sampling procedures, and business practices) that are developed or 
adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA 
to provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides 
not to use available and applicable voluntary consensus standards.
    This proposed rulemaking involves environmental monitoring or 
measurement. Consistent with the Agency's Performance Based Measurement 
System (``PBMS''), EPA proposes not to require the use of specific, 
prescribed analytic methods. Rather, the Agency plans to allow the use 
of any method that meets the prescribed performance criteria. The PBMS 
approach is intended to be more flexible and cost-effective for the 
regulated community; it is also intended to encourage innovation in 
analytical technology and improved data quality. EPA is not precluding 
the use of any method, whether it constitutes a voluntary consensus 
standard or not, as long as it meets the performance criteria 
specified.
    This proposed rule would update certain designated analytical test 
methods to their most recent ASTM version for the RFG program. Today's 
proposed action does not establish new technical standards or 
analytical test methods, although it does update certain ASTM test 
methods and sampling methods to their current versions. To the extent 
that this proposed action would allow the use of standards developed by 
voluntary consensus bodies (such as ASTM) this action would further the 
objectives of the NTTAA. The Agency plans to address the objectives of 
the NTTAA more broadly in an upcoming rulemaking to establish 
performance-based criteria for qualification of alternative analytical 
test methods.

I. Executive Order 13211 (Energy Effects)

    This rule is not an economically ``significant energy action'' as 
defined in Executive Order 13211, ``Actions Concerning Regulations That 
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355 
(May 22, 2001)) because it does not have a significant adverse effect 
on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. Although this rule will 
slightly decrease the volume of summer grade RFG produced from April 8 
through April 30 by approximately 0.4 percent due to earlier production 
of summer grade RFG, the annual cost associated with this rule is less 
than $100 million. Also, this rule will provide for a smoother annual 
transition to summer RFG, which should help to alleviate seasonal 
pressures on gasoline supply. Moreover, EPA is allowing additional 
flexibility for refiners to transfer blendstocks, which should allow 
refiners to better respond to fluctuations in gasoline supply or 
demand.

VII. Statutory provisions and Legal Authority

    Statutory authority for today's final rule comes from sections 
211(c) and 211(k) of the CAA (42 U.S.C. 7545(c) and (k)). Section 
211(c) allows EPA to regulate fuels that contribute to air pollution 
which endangers public health or welfare, or which impairs emission 
control equipment. Section 211(k) prescribes requirements for RFG and 
conventional gasoline and requires EPA to promulgate regulations 
establishing these requirements. Additional support for the procedural 
aspects of the fuels controls in today's rule comes from sections 
114(a) and 301(a) of the CAA.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 80

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Fuel additives, 
Gasoline, Imports, Motor vehicle pollution, Reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements.

    Dated: November 20, 2001.
Christine Todd Whitman,
Administrator.

    For the reasons set forth in the preamble, part 80 of title 40 of 
the Code of Federal Regulations is proposed to be amended as follows:

PART 80--REGULATION OF FUELS AND FUEL ADDITIVES

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

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7414, 7545 and 7601(a).

    2. Section 80.8 is added to subpart A to read as follows:


Sec. 80.8  Sampling methods for gasoline and diesel fuel.

    The sampling methods specified in this section shall be used to 
collect samples of gasoline and diesel fuel for purposes of determining 
compliance with the requirements of this part.
    (a) Manual sampling. Manual sampling of tanks and pipelines shall 
be performed according to the applicable procedures specified in 
American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) method D 4057-
95(2000), entitled ``Standard Practice for Manual Sampling of Petroleum 
and Petroleum Products.''
    (b) Automatic sampling. Automatic sampling of petroleum products in 
pipelines shall be performed according to the applicable procedures 
specified in ASTM method D 4177-95(2000), entitled ``Standard Practice 
for Automatic Sampling of Petroleum and Petroleum Products.''
    (c) Sampling and sample handling for volatility measurement. 
Samples to be analyzed for Reid Vapor Pressure (RVP) shall be collected 
and handled according to the applicable procedures in ASTM method D 
5842-95(2000), entitled ``Standard Practice for Sampling and Handling 
of Fuels for Volatility Measurement.''
    (d) Sample compositing. Composite samples shall be prepared using 
the applicable procedures in ASTM method D 5854-96(2000), entitled 
``Standard Practice for Mixing and Handling of Liquid Samples of 
Petroleum and Petroleum Products.''
    (e) Incorporations by reference. ASTM standard practices D 4057-
95(2000), D 4177-95(2000), D 5842-95(2000), and D 5854-96(2000), are 
incorporated by reference. These incorporations by reference were 
approved by the Director of the Federal Register in accordance with 5 
U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. Copies may be obtained from the 
American Society for Testing and Materials, 100 Barr Harbor Dr., West

[[Page 60174]]

Conshohocken, PA 19428. Copies may be inspected at the Air Docket 
Section (LE-131), room M-1500, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 
Docket No. A-97-03, 401 M Street, SW, Washington, DC 20460, or at the 
Office of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records 
Administration, Washington, DC 20408, (202) 523-4534.
    3. Section 80.27 is amended by revising paragraphs (b) and (d)(2) 
to read as follows:


Sec. 80.27  Controls and prohibitions on gasoline volatility.

* * * * *
    (b) Determination of compliance. Compliance with the standards 
listed in paragraph (a) of this section shall be determined by the use 
of the sampling methodologies specified in Sec. 80.8 and the testing 
methodology specified in Sec. 80.46(c).
* * * * *
    (d) * * *
    (2) In order to quality for the special regulatory treatment 
specified in paragraph (d)(1) of this section, gasoline must contain 
denatured, anhydrous ethanol. The concentration of the ethanol, 
excluding the required denaturing agent, must be at least 9% and no 
more than 10% (by volume) of the gasoline. The ethanol content of the 
gasoline shall be determined by the use of one of the testing 
methodologies specified in Sec. 80.46(g). The maximum ethanol content 
shall not exceed any applicable waiver conditions under section 211(f) 
of the Clean Air Act.
* * * * *
    4. Section 80.28 is amended by revising paragraphs (g)(2)(ii) and 
(g)(4)(i) to read as follows:


Sec. 80.28  Liability for violations of gasoline volatility controls 
and prohibitions.

* * * * *
    (g) * * *
    (2) * * *
    (ii) Test results using the sampling methodology set forth in 
Sec. 80.8 and the testing methodology set forth in Sec. 80.46(c), or 
any other test method where adequate correlation to Sec. 80.46(c) of 
this part is demonstrated, which show evidence that the gasoline 
determined to be in violation was in compliance with the applicable 
standard when it was delivered to the next party in the distribution 
system.
* * * * *
    (4) * * *
    (i) Test results using the sampling methodology set forth in 
Sec. 80.8 and the testing methodology set forth in Sec. 80.46(c), or 
any other test method where adequate correlation to Sec. 80.46(c) is 
demonstrated, which show evidence that the gasoline determined to be in 
violation was in compliance with the applicable standard when 
transported from the refinery.
* * * * *
    5. Section 80.40 is amended by revising paragraph (c)(1) to read as 
follows:


Sec. 80.40  Fuel certification procedures.

* * * * *
    (c)(1) ``Adjusted VOC gasoline'' for purposes of the general 
requirements in Sec. 80.65(d)(2)(ii), and the certification procedures 
in this section is gasoline that contains 10 volume percent ethanol, or 
RBOB intended for blending with 10 volume percent ethanol, that is 
intended for use in the areas described at Sec. 80.70(f) and (i), and 
is designated by the refiner as adjusted VOC gasoline subject to less 
stringent VOC standards in Sec. 80.41(e) and (f). In order to for 
``adjusted VOC gasoline'' to qualify for the regulatory treatment 
specified in Sec. 80.41(e) and (f), reformulated gasoline must contain 
denatured, anhydrous ethanol. The concentration of the ethanol, 
excluding the required denaturing agent, must be at least 9% and no 
more than 10% (by volume) of the gasoline. The ethanol content of the 
gasoline shall be determined by use of one of the testing methodologies 
specified in Sec. 80.46(g).
* * * * *
    6. Section 80.46 is amended by revising paragraphs (b), (c), (d), 
(e)(1), (f)(2), (g) and (h) to read as follows:


Sec. 80.46  Measurement of reformulated gasoline fuel parameters.

* * * * *
    (b) Olefins. Olefin content shall be determined using ASTM standard 
method D 1319-98, entitled ``Standard Test Method for Hydrocarbon Types 
in Liquid Petroleum Products by Fluorescent Indicator Adsorption.''
    (c) Reid vapor pressure (RVP). Reid vapor pressure (RVP) shall be 
determined using ASTM standard method D 5191-99, entitled ``Standard 
Test Method for Vapor Pressure of Petroleum Products (Mini Method),'' 
except that the following correlation equation must be used:


RVP psi = (0.956 * X) -0.347

RVP kPa = (0.956 * X) -2.39


Where

X = total measured vapor pressure in psi or kPa

    (d) Distillation. Distillation parameters shall be determined using 
ASTM standard method D 86-00a, entitled'' Standard Test Method for 
Distillation of Petroleum Products at Atmospheric Pressure.''
* * * * *
    (f) * * *
    (2)(i) Prior to September 1, 2004, any refiner or importer may 
determine aromatics content using ASTM standard method D 1319-99, 
entitled ``Standard Test Method for Hydrocarbon Types in Liquid 
Petroleum Products by Flourescent Indicator Adsorption,'' for purposes 
of meeting any testing requirement involving aromatics content; 
provided that
    (ii) The refiner or importer test result is correlated with the 
method specified in paragraph (f)(1) of this section.
* * * * *
    (g) Oxygen and oxygenate content analysis. (1) Oxygen and oxygenate 
content shall be determined using ASTM standard method D 5599-00, 
entitled ``Standard Test Method for Determination of Oxygenates in 
Gasoline by Gas Chromatography and Oxygen Selective Flame Ionization 
Detection.''
    (2)(i) Prior to September 1, 2004, and when the oxygenates present 
are limited to MTBE, ETBE, TAME, DIPE, tertiary-amyl alcohol, and C1 to 
C4 alcohols, any refiner, importer, or oxygenate blender may determine 
oxygen and oxygenate content using ASTM standard method D 4815-99 
entitled ``Standard Test Method for Determination of MTBE, ETBE, TAME, 
DIPE, tertiary-Amyl Alcohol, and C1 to C4 Alcohols in Gasoline by Gas 
Chromatography,'' for purposes of meeting any testing requirement; 
provided that
    (ii) The refiner or importer test result is correlated with the 
method specified in paragraph (g)(1) of this section.
    (h) Incorporations by reference. ASTM standard methods D 3606-99, 
entitled ``Standard Test Method for Determination of Benzene and 
Toluene in Finished Motor and Aviation Gasoline by Gas 
Chromatography;'' 
D 1319-98, entitled ``Standard Test Method for Hydrocarbon Types in 
Liquid Petroleum Products by Fluorescent Indicator Adsorption;'' D 
1319-99, entitled ``Standard Test Method for Hydrocarbon Types in 
Liquid Petroleum Products by Fluorescent Indicator Adsorption;'' 
D 4815-99, entitled ``Standard Test Method for Determination of MTBE, 
ETBE, TAME, DIPE, tertiary-Amyl Alcohol and C1 to 
C4 Alcohols in Gasoline by Gas Chromatography;'' D 2622-98, 
entitled ``Standard Test Method for Sulfur in Petroleum Products by 
Wavelength Dispersive X-Ray Fluorescence Spectrometry;'' D 5453-00, 
entitled ``Standard Test

[[Page 60175]]

Method for Determination of Total Sulfur in Light Hydrocarbons, Motor 
Fuels, and Oils by Ultraviolet Fluorescence;'' D 4045-99, entitled 
``Standard Test Method for Sulfur in Petroleum Products by 
Hydrogenolysis and Rateometric Colorimetry;'' D 6428-98, entitled 
``Test Method for Total Sulfur in Liquid Aromatic Hydrocarbons and 
Their Derivatives by Oxidative Combustion and Electrochemical 
Detection;'' D 3120-96 entitled ``Standard Test Method for Trace 
Quantities of Sulfur in Light Petroleum Hydrocarbons by Oxidative 
Microcoulometry;'' D 3246-96, entitled ``Standard Test Method for 
Sulfur in Petroleum Gas by Oxidative Microcoulometry;'' D 4468-85 (Re-
approved 1995), entitled ``Standard Test Method for Total Sulfur in 
Gaseous Fuels by Hydrogenolysis and Rateometric Colorimetry;'' D 1266-
98, entitled ``Standard Test Method for Sulfur in Petroleum Products 
(Lamp Method),'' D 6334-98, entitled ``Standard Test Method for Sulfur 
in Gasoline by Wavelength Dispersive X-Ray Fluorescence;'' D 5191-99, 
entitled, ``Standard Test Method for Vapor Pressure of Petroleum 
Products (Mini Method);'' D 5599-00, entitled, ``Standard Test Method 
for Determination of Oxygenates in Gasoline by Gas Chromatography and 
Oxygen Selective Flame Ionization Detection;'' and D 86-00a, entitled, 
``Standard Test Method for Distillation of Petroleum Products at 
Atmospheric Pressure;'' are incorporated by reference in this section. 
These incorporations by reference were approved by the Director of the 
Federal Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. 
Copies may be obtained from the American Society of Testing and 
Materials, 1916 Race Street, Philadelphia. PA 19103. Copies may be 
inspected at the Air Docket Section (LE-131), room M-1500, U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency, Docket Nos. A-97-03, A-99-06, and A-
2001-21, 401 M Street, SW, Washington DC 20460 or at the Office of the 
Federal Register, 800 North Capitol Street, NW, Suite 700, Washington, 
DC.
    7. Section 80.65 is amended by revising paragraph (d)(3) to read as 
follows:


Sec. 80.65  General requirements for refiners, importers, and oxygenate 
blenders.

* * * * *
    (d) * * *
    (3) Every batch of reformulated or conventional gasoline or RBOB 
produced or imported at each refinery or import facility shall be 
assigned a number (the ``batch number''), consisting of the EPA-
assigned refiner, importer or oxygenate blender registration number, 
the EPA facility registration number, the last two digits of the year 
in which the batch was produced, and a unique number for the batch, 
beginning with the number one for the first batch produced or imported 
each calendar year and each subsequent batch during the calendar year 
being assigned the next sequential number (e.g., 4321-54321-95-000001, 
4321-54321-95-000002, etc.).
* * * * *
    8. Section 80.78 is amended by adding paragraph (a)(11) to read as 
follows:


Sec. 80.78  Controls and prohibitions on reformulated gasoline.

* * * * *
    (a) * * *
    (11) No persons except retailers and wholesale purchaser-consumers 
may take physical custody of reformulated gasoline or reformulated 
blendstock for oxygenate blending (RBOB) that is not VOC-controlled 
during the period April 15 through September 15 of each year.
* * * * *
    9. Section 80.91 is amended by removing paragraph (a)(1)(iii) and 
removing the ``; and'' at the end of paragraph (a)(1)(ii) and replacing 
it with a period.
    10. Section 80.92 is amended by revising the first sentence of 
paragraph (a)(1) to read as follows:


Sec. 80.92  Baseline auditor requirements.

    (a) * * *
    (1) Each refiner or importer is required to have its individual 
baseline determination methodology, resulting baseline fuel parameter, 
volume and emissions values verified by an auditor which meets the 
requirements described in this section. * * *
* * * * *
    11. Section 80.101 is amended by removing and reserving paragraphs 
(d)(2) and (e)(2), and removing paragraph (h)(2)(iii), and revising 
paragraphs (h)(2)(i) and (ii) to read as follows:


Sec. 80.101  Standards applicable to refiners and importers.

* * * * *
    (h) * * *
    (2) * * *
    (i) Be made as part of the report for the 1995 averaging period 
required by Sec. 80.105; and
    (ii) Apply for the 1995 averaging period and for each subsequent 
averaging period, and may not thereafter be changed.
* * * * *
    12. Section 80.102 is revised to read as follows:


Sec. 80.102  Restrictions on transferring applicable blendstocks

    (a) The following petroleum products are considered ``applicable 
blendstocks'' for purposes of this subpart E:
    (1) Reformate;
    (2) Light coker naphtha;
    (3) FCC naphtha;
    (4) Benzene/toluene/xylene;
    (5) Pyrolysis gas;
    (6) Aromatics;
    (7) Polygasoline; and
    (8) Dimate.
    (b)(1) No refinery or importer whose 1990 baseline value for any 
emission performance, as determined in accordance with Secs. 80.91 and 
80.92, is more stringent than the anti-dumping statutory baseline value 
for that emission performance may transfer applicable blendstock(s) 
under paragraph (a) of this section to others in excess of five per 
cent of the refinery's or importer's total gasoline production 
(including conventional gasoline, reformulated gasoline and RBOB) 
during an annual averaging period, unless the refiner for the refinery 
or the importer petitions for and obtains approval from EPA to transfer 
such blendstock(s).
    (2) A petition under paragraph (b)(1) of this section must include 
a demonstration that the transfer of blendstock(s) is for a legitimate 
operational purpose and not for the purpose of evading a more stringent 
baseline.
    (3) The provisions of paragraph (b)(1) of this section do not apply 
in the case of a refinery or importer whose total gasoline production 
(including conventional gasoline, reformulated gasoline and RBOB) 
during the entire annual averaging period in which the blendstock 
transfers are made is equal to or greater than the refinery's or 
importer's 1990 baseline volume.
    (c) Applicable blendstocks under paragraph (a) of this section may 
be excluded from the requirements of this section where the refiner or 
importer has sufficient evidence in the form of documentation that the 
blendstocks are:
    (1) Exported;
    (2) Used for other than gasoline blending purposes;
    (3) Transferred to a refiner that used the blendstock as a 
``feedstock'' in a refining process during which the blendstock 
underwent a substantial chemical or physical transformation; or
    (4) Transferred between refineries that have been grouped pursuant 
to Sec. 80.101(h) by a refiner for the purpose of determining 
compliance under this subpart;

[[Page 60176]]

    (5) Used to produce California gasoline as defined in 
Sec. 80.81(a)(2).
    13. Section 80.104 is amended by revising paragraph (a)(1)(i) and 
removing and reserving paragraph (a)(2)(ix) to read as follows:


Sec. 80.104  Recordkeeping requirements.

* * * * *
    (a) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (i) Each batch of conventional gasoline; and
* * * * *
    14. Section 80.105 is amended by removing and reserving paragraphs 
(a)(2) and (a)(3).
    15. Section 80.106 is amended by removing and reserving paragraph 
(b).
    16. Section 80.128 is amended by removing paragraphs (h) and (i).

Appendix D--[Reserved.]

    17. Appendix D is removed and reserved.

Appendix E to Part 80--[Reserved.]

    18. Appendix E is removed and reserved.

Appendix F to Part 80--[Reserved.]

    19. Appendix F is removed and reserved.

Appendix G to Part 80--[Reserved.]

    20. Appendix G is removed and reserved.

[FR Doc. 01-29777 Filed 11-30-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P